Last night the headline was Pope endorses condoms. This morning the more accurate headline might be:
Any journalist reading this wondering why your profession is so hated might want to think about this. The people who are supposed to be the very best in your profession were given advanced copies of this book and they skimmed them looking for something that fit their preconceptions. They then quoted that out of context and completely changed the meaning. The rest of you didn't bother doing any actual research yourselves but merely parroted the story you'd read elsewhere.Journalists still lazy, shallow and incompetent
The worst part is that the relevant context is only a few paragraphs long. It would have only taken you five minutes work, all of which could be done without leaving your computer, to get it right. That's all it took me yesterday afternoon.
This isn't the first time this sort of thing happens. So here is the question, why would anyone trust you?
Anyway, I promised the link to the GetReligion piece on the story when it came up. You can read it here.
I read the GetReligion piece. It says that this is "hardly new" and "what a Vatican commmission on the matter had recommended," quoting from another source. If this is the case, why didn't that make it into the mainstream media before? Catholic commentators are trying to minimize the significance of this, I can only assume its because it doesn't affect them directly in their comfy cozy enclaves right before Thanksgiving. I'm waiting for George Weigel's "official" interpretation since he seems to be to whom they turn to do their thinking for them since Neuhaus died.
ReplyDeleteAs you said in your post last week, the laity have already made up their minds about sexuality and are acting accordingly. Benedict is no fool. He weighs his words very carefully, and I have no doubt that he knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be perceived by the media, and that's why he said it. I thought--and still think--that this is a sign that Rome might be finally catching up with the rest of us (kind of like in the case of Galilleo without waiting 500 yrs.) The self-appointed "guardians of others' morality" will try to screw things up, but for the average person the cat is out of the bag.
The getrelgion post shows the disparity between the headline & opening sentences and the concluding paragraphs which say the opposite (and correct) thing. I wish this habit were limited to religion coverage--but it is de rigueur for any coverage of a he said/she said nature. So, in saying that journalists are lazy and incompetent you are rather too generous. It is done quite deliberately. My co-workers are forever discussing news upside down & backwards because of this deliberate pattern of writing disinformation. It's not that my coworkers are illiterate, but that journalists are whores.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you call professional liars? Jesus asked what father would give a stone (or a snake) to a son who asked for bread (or a fish). He meant the question rhetorically, poor man.
I agree about journalists. Now, all journalism is what used to called "yellow journalism."
ReplyDelete