FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Can you trust the media?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A: No.

I trust Jimmy Akin a hell of a lot more than the secular media, not just his intentions, but also his honesty.

At the same time, he's got some spin in this piece that's fine for commentary, but doesn't add to the argument any IMO.  E.g.: "What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version."  Well, yeah, but the rhetoric here is kinda internetesque....
(04-06-2010, 07:59 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]A: No.

I trust Jimmy Akin a hell of a lot more than the secular media, not just his intentions, but also his honesty.

At the same time, he's got some spin in this piece that's fine for commentary, but doesn't add to the argument any IMO.  E.g.: "What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version."  Well, yeah, but the rhetoric here is kinda internetesque....

Quis,

the journalism is the journalism is the journalism in any side. But Jimmy Akin at least creates doubt against the honesty of the attack against the pope.

There was a priest who abused children. When the abuse came out who was removed from such contact (in1974) and no later abuse came out. In 1974 the civil court started but dismissed the case, later (in the nineties) the civil court refused to handle it due to  the statute of limitations. The priest wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger. No proof that he saw it, and definitely no answer by him. The abuse itself is sick, but the rest of the handling is as it would happen in any other case against teachers, youth leaders, or journalist. Only those are not publicized.
(04-06-2010, 07:59 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]A: No.

I trust Jimmy Akin a hell of a lot more than the secular media, not just his intentions, but also his honesty.

At the same time, he's got some spin in this piece that's fine for commentary, but doesn't add to the argument any IMO.  E.g.: "What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version."  Well, yeah, but the rhetoric here is kinda internetesque....

sound bite:  "NY Times uses poor-quality, machine-generated translation to make false claims about Catholic Church"


Don't misunderstand me, I agree with Akin's position and his intentions.  I think he could have done a better job presenting though.

If we expect better from Catholic bishops than normal bosses, we should expect better from Catholic commentators as well.

Quote:Nevertheless, he stresses, it is unacceptable for him [Murphy] to be able to go and celebrate the Eucharist in the deaf community in Milwaukee
....
First, he says that is is “unacceptable” that Murphy has the ability to go and say Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community. In the language of bishops, saying this is “unacceptable” translates into normal speech as, “Why haven’t you taken care of this already, you fools? How can you possibly allow this criminal to continue to have contact with the very community he has harmed? You don’t need a trial to stop him from doing that. Use your authority as bishops!”

It's a big leap from "unacceptable" to what Akin translates it to.  That's fine for internet forums, and maybe even blogs, if you want rhetorical effect, but if he wants his argument to be taken seriously, he shouldn't do things in that way.

A better comparison may be that Cdl. Bertone saying something was "unacceptable" was akin to President Obama saying the same thing to a congressman.  That it doesn't mean "dislike" - it means it will not be tolerated and it will change now.

Quote:it will be necessary, therefore, to impede him, having recourse also to some penal remedies.
...
Thus he says it will be “necessary” (charged term) to “impede” (charged term) Murphy, including having recourse to the infliction of “penal remedies” (charged term).

Those are not "charged terms".  Impede and penal remedies are Canonical terms that have specific meanings; they are no more charged than "prosecute and sentence" in secular courts.  "necessary" might be charged, but the Cdl is really saying that since the aforementioned is unacceptable, it becomes necessary to do these things to prevent it, which is sequitor.

Look, if one is going to argue publicly against the NYT, one should have their ducks in a row or they're going to lose their teeth.  I think Akin did a much better job than Wiegel at defending the Pope, but he didn't do it in the right manner, and he's going to take a credibility hit for that, deserved or not.

If you look at those that, IMO, did the best job, the two that come to mind are Buchanan and Cdl. Levada precisely because they know what kind of people they are up against.
(04-06-2010, 09:22 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-06-2010, 07:59 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]A: No.

I trust Jimmy Akin a hell of a lot more than the secular media, not just his intentions, but also his honesty.

At the same time, he's got some spin in this piece that's fine for commentary, but doesn't add to the argument any IMO.  E.g.: "What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version."  Well, yeah, but the rhetoric here is kinda internetesque....

sound bite:  "NY Times uses poor-quality, machine-generated translation to make false claims about Catholic Church"

Return sound bite from NYT: "Jimmy Akin reads too much into memo and makes subjective unsubstantiated claims about it."

You can bet money on it.  If I can see it, they're going to shred it if it gets that far...

Well I believe you have to look at it in its proper context. But the hard fast answer is NO.

I believe the intentions are good of most journalists, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Asking "can you trust the media?" is like asking "can you trust a politician?" or a used car salesman. Have I got a deal for you,


Fr. John Hardon, SJ was told by the great media communicator Marshall McLuhan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan)
that the media "is in a LUCIFERIAN CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH".