Is the media coverage of the Church really fair and unbiased?

[Quagmire]

Why is it seem like the vast majority of "news" that secular media seems to cover in regards to the Church (Christianity) seems to revolve are sex scandals and queers? Is that really the extent of the Church's relevancy in the 21st Century? Do people realize that the Church is on the forefront when it comes to caring for sick and the homeless? Why does the media seem to shy away from covering stories in which people's lives improved because of what the Church provided? Which leads to another question, is the term "secular" in America often a code word for a "religion", one who's tenets are built on rationalism (ie. worship of the self), and sexual "freedom"? In other words, is "secularism" in America another name for a movement which opposes everything that Jesus stands for and is indeed anti-Christian? Is the media actively trying to promote its "values"?

Human interest stories don't generally make it to the first page. Scandals do. I think scandals involving religious figures are even more interesting just by virtue of the hypocracy involved.

You're right that stories about the church or churches helping people don't get much coverage, but then again when was the last time you read or heard anything about the Peace Corps? The only time you hear about the Red Cross is either as a footnote during the coverage of some disaster, or when one of their officials got caught with his hand in the till (scandal again).

I really don't think this is a case of anti-religious sentiment.

And btw if you're worried about a lack of positive portrayals of Christianity in the media ya know you could start by working on setting a positive example yourself right here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to mention, as everything previous is a side note, what Francis' did gesture to Benedict in some lame, Catholic ceremony is not a matter of opinion, you know, bias. It is a fact that Francis made the gestures towards Benedict. Journalism is about reporting facts, not opinions, about what every individual should be considering in every eye and context imaginable.

Many 'facts' are mere opinions which are so popular that they go unquestioned.
But even real facts may impart spin by the author's artful inclusion or omission.

 

[RGA1459]

ILLUMINATI!!! ILLUMINATI!!! ILLUMINATI!!! This conversation is over. wl:

 

[LemonGrenade]

Go to post 47 for a link I've referenced as something unbiased.

Thank you, I did see that but, Revoltingest having pointed out what he feels to be bias in the story, it struck me as having rather limited value as an example of something unbiased.

Perhaps you are harbouring others.

Journalism is about reporting facts, not opinions, about what every individual should be considering in every eye and context imaginable.

Countless facts about a given scenario may reveal themselves to the beholder at any moment. In this case everything from what the weather was like, to what the Pope had for breakfast could be considered factual. Clearly there is a selection process by which these countless facts are whittled down to a reasonably-sized, digestible chunk of information, and it is through this selection process that bias manifests itself.

 

[dust1n]

Many 'facts' are mere opinions which are so popular that they go unquestioned.
But even real facts may impart spin by the author's artful inclusion or omission.

And how does that fact reflect an opinion in anyway?

Sure.. the presentation or lack of information in a story can cause a bias. Right now, there isn't a single compliment coming from behalf of the writer and the church. To add a couple paragraphs about why Benedict left the church in the first place, being because of child scandal (you know, an opinion), that would make the story biased. It wouldn't 'fix' the bias at all.

 

[dust1n]

Thank you, I did see that but, Revoltingest having pointed out what he feels to be bias in the story, it struck me as having rather limited value as an example of something unbiased.

Perhaps you are harbouring others.

Well, if I'm just having the conversation with Rev, then I'm just going to have it with Rev.

Countless facts about a given scenario may reveal themselves to the beholder at any moment. In this case everything from what the weather was like, to what the Pope had for breakfast could be considered factual. Clearly there is a selection process by which these countless facts are whittled down to a reasonably-sized, digestible chunk of information, and it is through this selection process that bias manifests itself.

Besides your apparent god-like view into how the story has been written, I fail to see how a selection process by which these countless facts are whittled down constitutes a bias. It would be biased it your whittling down created a bias, not if you just had to whittle it down. Bias would indicate an unequal representation. Bias is not what happens because one must use only 1000 words of an infinite number of possible words.

 

[LemonGrenade]

Well, if I'm just having the conversation with Rev, then I'm just going to have it with Rev.

Somebody has spotted bias in the unbiased account. Surely we must move on to consider another.

I fail to see how a selection process by which these countless facts are whittled down constitutes a bias.

As with the relative levels of exposure given to certain issues by a publication as a whole, so too the choice as to which facts to include and which to omit in a given article is informed by those things mentioned previously -financial, political, religious, cultural, national, ethnic, and emotional influences.

 

[Revoltingest]

And how does that fact reflect an opinion in anyway?

Sure.. the presentation or lack of information in a story can cause a bias. Right now, there isn't a single compliment coming from behalf of the writer and the church. To add a couple paragraphs about why Benedict left the church in the first place, being because of child scandal (you know, an opinion), that would make the story biased. It wouldn't 'fix' the bias at all.

The complimentary aspect was not by overt claim, but rather by choice of coverage & tone.
If I said, "Dustin looked angelic as he washed the feet of lepers in the colony, despite his own suffering from injury & famishment. When the jack booted state overseer kicked & beat Dustin for treating the lepers as human beings worthy of respect, he did not curse or even yelp...nay, he uttered a serene prayer on behalf of the overseer. Struck by Dustin's charity & equanimity, the overseer offered Dustin his sammich, & proceeded to help tend the unfortunates. Desperate hunger unabated, Dustin struggled to hand the sammich (with bacon & avacodo) to needier folk."
I never once said that you're pretty or smart, but I was complimentary nonetheless. I also avoided the fact that you were sentenced to serve there for crimes against humanity, eg, mass murder, serial murder, concentration camp management, war crimes, & ripping tags off mattresses.

 

[dust1n]

Somebody has spotted bias in the unbiased account. Surely we must move on to consider another.

And I have disagreed and contested said bias and still do. We don't really need to move onto anything. I've having the conversation already and don't need duplication of the affirmation of points I disagree with. I'm looking for the justification.

As with the relative levels of exposure given to certain issues by a publication as a whole, so too the choice as to which facts to include and which to omit in a given article is informed by those things mentioned previously -financial, political, religious, cultural, national, ethnic, and emotional influences.

As a published news writer, I'm going to go ahead and let you know that the fact that facts are excluded from the story doesn't necessarily entail that a story is given unfair consideration to the facts relevant to the story.

Sure... there are generally going to be financial, political, religious, cultural, national, ethnic, and emotional considerations when approaching the story. But that's not the same thing as biases, nor is does it mean said considerations were unfair in their assessment and presentation.

The story also doesn't mention the Big Bang theory or about the Earth being 4.2 billion years old. It also says nothing about Islam or Russia or capitalism. That doesn't mean it's biased against any of those things.

 

[dust1n]

The complimentary aspect was not by overt claim, but rather by choice of coverage & tone.
If I said, "Dustin looked angelic as he washed the feet of lepers in the colony, despite his own suffering from injury & famishment. When the jack booted state overseer kicked & beat Dustin for treating the lepers as human beings worthy of respect, he did not curse or even yelp...nay, he uttered a serene prayer on behalf of the overseer. Struck by Dustin's charity & equanimity, the overseer offered Dustin his sammich, & proceeded to help tend the unfortunates. Desperate hunger unabated, Dustin struggled to hand the sammich (with bacon & avacodo) to needier folk."
I never once said that you're pretty or smart, but I was complimentary nonetheless. I also avoided the fact that you were sentenced to serve there for crimes against humanity, eg, mass murder, serial murder, concentration camp management, war crimes, & ripping tags off mattresses.

The quoted passage is an account of what another church official did for another, and it was different from apparently what happens all the times during these processions. There is no adjective on the writer's usage that gives any compliment to anything. And it's relevant to the story.

Talking about various allegations made about why the Pope left the church is in no way relevant to the story, and adding said allegations would require much more sourcing... which would require much more wording... which would require basically a whole other story. It's not the writer's job to expose the biggest scandal, like, ever in the middle of the story about the Pope's first revisit or whatever.

If I wanted to read into the allegations unbiasedly, I would go here:

Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican | Reuters

^--- Why would I expect that in the previous story.

 

[LemonGrenade]

As a published news writer, I'm going to go ahead and let you know that the fact that facts are excluded from the story doesn't necessarily entail that a story is given unfair consideration to the facts relevant to the story.

Thank you -the kindness of your offering is matched only by its irrelevance. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Perhaps I could politely request that you rephrase it.

Sure... there are generally going to be financial, political, religious, cultural, national, ethnic, and emotional considerations when approaching the story.

Not just when approaching the story. Political influences don't just suddenly appear. Religious attitudes don't just suddenly engage themselves at the picking up of a pen. Such influences are ever-present. They are inescapable. They are integral to the formulation of the 'partial perspective' to which surely the vast majority of people have an 'inclination of outlook to present or hold' 'at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives'.

The story also doesn't mention the Big Bang theory or about the Earth being 4.2 billion years old. It also says nothing about Islam or Russia or capitalism. That doesn't mean it's biased against any of those things.

There's been no suggestion from me that the omission of facts constitutes bias against the thing to which they pertain.

 

[dust1n]

Thank you -the kindness of your offering is matched only by its irrelevance. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Perhaps I could politely request that you rephrase it.

I would, but this is an appropriate response to it:

There's been no suggestion from me that the omission of facts constitutes bias against the thing to which they pertain.

Not just when approaching the story. Political influences don't just suddenly appear. Religious attitudes don't just suddenly engage themselves at the picking up of a pen. Such influences are ever-present. They are inescapable. They are integral to the formulation of the 'partial perspective' to which surely the vast majority of people have an 'inclination of outlook to present or hold' 'at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives'.

Attitude/influence/partial perspective... are things being synonymously with biased now? And, no, said influences can be escaped. What do you think people being in school for Journalism do, sit around and not consider these things?

If you aren't suggesting an omission of facts as being grounds for the bias, then what in the story is biased?

 

[LemonGrenade]

Attitude/influence/partial perspective... are things being synonymously with biased now?

:no: I think attitude/influence et al inform one's perspective, which cannot be anything other than partial, and I suggest that it is the wont of most people to incline toward presenting matters in accordance with their own perspective.

I'd be surprised if we didn't agree on the existence of this phenomenon; if I've understood you correctly then the point of contention concerns whether or not this can be termed 'bias'. Granted it might be a more subtle shade of bias than one is accustomed to seeing in the modern mainstream din of tabloid newspapers, blogospheric crusades and so on; granted too that in subtlety it has shed some of the negative connotations which one typically associates with the aforementioned media, however I think it is a form of bias nonetheless.

With that in mind -

And, no, said influences can be escaped. What do you think people being in school for Journalism do, sit around and not consider these things?

I don't deny that a person might endeavour toward neutrality, I just don't think it is possible to achieve it given their place in the maelstrom of cultural, political, religious etc. influences. Certain elements of their outlook will have been instilled very early on in life with subsequent reinforcement over any number of years -it is dubious as to whether a stint in Journalism 101 would relieve them of such influences.

If you aren't suggesting an omission of facts as being grounds for the bias

Worth clarifying. What was revoked previously was the notion that an omission of facts might necessarily constitute a bias against the thing to which they pertain. Like a sculptor who carves off a triangular chunk of material from the statue he is creating, it does not necessarily mean that he has an artistic bias against triangles, rather that removing the triangle has enabled him to define more clearly the form of the statue.

then what in the story is biased?

It is mild but I think it is favourable to the institution. There are several allusions to the pontiffs' piety, a concern for Benedict's health, the inclusion of some conspicuously mundane details, direct quotations from those only with a vested interest in preserving the reputation of the institution, and nothing but lip-service paid to the 'political intrigues that plague the Vatican'.

The overall impression, to me, is of an endeavour to belie the less-favourable realities of the Vatican by keeping things light -the writer perhaps having unwittingly strayed into inanity in the process.

As a published news writer, I'm going to go ahead and let you know

Forgive me for asking this but, as you are a published news writer and so are presumably counted among a class of people for whom being perceived as neutral is an important part of professional integrity, would it be fair to suggest that you are biased in favour of presenting published news writers as paragons of neutrality?

 

[Revoltingest]

The quoted passage is an account of what another church official did for another, and it was different from apparently what happens all the times during these processions. There is no adjective on the writer's usage that gives any compliment to anything. And it's relevant to the story.
Talking about various allegations made about why the Pope left the church is in no way relevant to the story, and adding said allegations would require much more sourcing... which would require much more wording... which would require basically a whole other story. It's not the writer's job to expose the biggest scandal, like, ever in the middle of the story about the Pope's first revisit or whatever.
If I wanted to read into the allegations unbiasedly, I would go here:
Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican | Reuters
^--- Why would I expect that in the previous story.

There's no real problem with any of your objections. But nonetheless, I see a writer who is positively disposed
toward the popes, especially the new guy. To write such a glowing & warm piece shows this bias.

 

[dust1n]

There's no real problem with any of your objections. But nonetheless, I see a writer who is positively disposed
toward the popes, especially the new guy. To write such a glowing & warm piece shows this bias.

You mean, the writer that wrote this one month beforehand?

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Cardinals said Monday they want to talk to Vatican managers about allegations of corruption and cronyism within the top levels of the Catholic Church before they elect the next pope, evidence that a scandal over leaked papal documents is casting a shadow over the conclave and setting up one of the most unpredictable papal elections in recent times.

The Vatican said 107 of the 115 voting-age cardinals attended the first day of pre-conclave meetings, at which cardinals organize the election, discuss the problems of the church and get to know one another before voting.

The red-capped "princes" of the church took an oath of secrecy and decided to pen a letter of "greeting and gratitude" to Benedict XVI, whose resignation has thrown the church into turmoil amid a torrent of scandals inside and out of the Vatican.

"I would imagine that as we move along there will be questioning of cardinals involved in the governing of the Curia to see what they think has to be changed, and in that context anything can come up," said U.S. Cardinal Francis George.

The Holy See's administrative shortcomings were thrust into stark relief last year with the publication of documents stolen from Benedict's desk that exposed the petty infighting, turf battles and allegations of corruption, nepotism and cronyism in the highest echelons of the Catholic Church....

US cardinals seek answers on Vatican dysfunction

Or this one?

VATICAN CITY (AP) — In the end, American-style transparency was no match for the Vatican's obsession with secrecy.

Cardinals attending closed-door discussions ahead of the conclave to elect the next pope imposed a media blackout Wednesday, forcing the cancellation of the popular daily press briefings by U.S. cardinals that had provided crucial insights into the deliberations.

The official reason for the blackout was that some details of the secret discussions about the problems in the church appeared in the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

But speculation mounted that the underlying aim of the blackout was to silence the Americans, who have been vocal in their calls for disclosure about allegations of corruption and dysfunction in the Holy See's governance before they enter the conclave to elect a successor to Benedict XVI.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/americans-nix-conclave-briefing-concern-leaks



Or maybe the writer only uses relevant facts, and doesn't harp on some aspect of cronyism for forty stories straight...

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean, the writer that wrote this one month beforehand?

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Cardinals said Monday they want to talk to Vatican managers about allegations of corruption and cronyism within the top levels of the Catholic Church before they elect the next pope, evidence that a scandal over leaked papal documents is casting a shadow over the conclave and setting up one of the most unpredictable papal elections in recent times.

The Vatican said 107 of the 115 voting-age cardinals attended the first day of pre-conclave meetings, at which cardinals organize the election, discuss the problems of the church and get to know one another before voting.

The red-capped "princes" of the church took an oath of secrecy and decided to pen a letter of "greeting and gratitude" to Benedict XVI, whose resignation has thrown the church into turmoil amid a torrent of scandals inside and out of the Vatican.

"I would imagine that as we move along there will be questioning of cardinals involved in the governing of the Curia to see what they think has to be changed, and in that context anything can come up," said U.S. Cardinal Francis George.

The Holy See's administrative shortcomings were thrust into stark relief last year with the publication of documents stolen from Benedict's desk that exposed the petty infighting, turf battles and allegations of corruption, nepotism and cronyism in the highest echelons of the Catholic Church....

US cardinals seek answers on Vatican dysfunction

Or this one?

VATICAN CITY (AP) — In the end, American-style transparency was no match for the Vatican's obsession with secrecy.

Cardinals attending closed-door discussions ahead of the conclave to elect the next pope imposed a media blackout Wednesday, forcing the cancellation of the popular daily press briefings by U.S. cardinals that had provided crucial insights into the deliberations.

The official reason for the blackout was that some details of the secret discussions about the problems in the church appeared in the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

But speculation mounted that the underlying aim of the blackout was to silence the Americans, who have been vocal in their calls for disclosure about allegations of corruption and dysfunction in the Holy See's governance before they enter the conclave to elect a successor to Benedict XVI.

Cardinals impose media blackout ahead of conclave



Or maybe the writer only uses relevant facts, and doesn't harp on some aspect of cronyism for forty stories straight...

The fact that a bias may change for a writer doesn't mean there is no bias. If the writer has a change of heart,
a change of mood, a different take on an issue, there could be a different bias which creeps into the work.

 

[dust1n]

The fact that a bias may change for a writer doesn't mean there is no bias. If the writer has a change of heart,
a change of mood, a different take on an issue, there could be a different bias which creeps into the work.

Besides a 'mood' bias, which I've never heard of, and seems rather farfetched, considering a story may take more than day to research and write, and stories generally go through two editors at some point previous to publication (I don't see 'mood' in any of the stories personally). A change of heart? How can one determine that? The writer has written about events pertaining to the Vatican, both positive and negative, and has expressed no opinion in any of them.

It seems extreme to have a change of heart back and forth, week after week. And again, these stories are being handled by one person... if something was biased, why would one the editors not catch it? Are they having the same changes of heart back and forth in the news too?

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides a 'mood' bias, which I've never heard of....

I just invented it. I notice that in my writing, my mood can cause either a negative or positive slant.

....nd seems rather farfetched, considering a story may take more than day to research and write, and stories generally go through two editors at some point previous to publication (I don't see 'mood' in any of the stories personally). A change of heart? How can one determine that? The writer has written about events pertaining to the Vatican, both positive and negative, and has expressed no opinion in any of them.

Tis not for me to determine the cause of a bias. I cannot detect a change of heart, but I know that such things happen.

It seems extreme to have a change of heart back and forth, week after week. And again, these stories are being handled by one person... if something was biased, why would one the editors not catch it? Are they having the same changes of heart back and forth in the news too?

Editors will seldom catch a bias when it's shared with the writers. If you have a left leaning editor at the NYT reviewing
an article by a left leaning writer,I wouldn't expect a call on bias. The same would go for Fox News too, where foxes
edit articles about chicken coops written by other foxes.

 

[dust1n]

:no: I think attitude/influence et al inform one's perspective, which cannot be anything other than partial, and I suggest that it is the wont of most people to incline toward presenting matters in accordance with their own perspective.

I'd be surprised if we didn't agree on the existence of this phenomenon; if I've understood you correctly then the point of contention concerns whether or not this can be termed 'bias'. Granted it might be a more subtle shade of bias than one is accustomed to seeing in the modern mainstream din of tabloid newspapers, blogospheric crusades and so on; granted too that in subtlety it has shed some of the negative connotations which one typically associates with the aforementioned media, however I think it is a form of bias nonetheless.

With that in mind -

I don't deny that a person might endeavour toward neutrality, I just don't think it is possible to achieve it given their place in the maelstrom of cultural, political, religious etc. influences. Certain elements of their outlook will have been instilled very early on in life with subsequent reinforcement over any number of years -it is dubious as to whether a stint in Journalism 101 would relieve them of such influences.

Worth clarifying. What was revoked previously was the notion that an omission of facts might necessarily constitute a bias against the thing to which they pertain. Like a sculptor who carves off a triangular chunk of material from the statue he is creating, it does not necessarily mean that he has an artistic bias against triangles, rather that removing the triangle has enabled him to define more clearly the form of the statue."

Summing it up with the bold part, you are right. I fail to see how the fact that one is not God, and is human, and thus can only create a story with the facts available with the interviews made, etc., etc., all constitutes as an unfairness for one side or object, thing, or person, over another.

There seems to be no distinguishing factors between subjective and biased here.

It is mild but I think it is favourable to the institution. There are several allusions to the pontiffs' piety,

What? Wear? I don't even seen an allusion. And which pontiff are you talking about. There are two in the story. It is a story about 2 popes living together, after all.

a concern for Benedict's health,

There is no written concern on the behalf of the writer. There is concern in the world. In what way would excluding this information or changing this information (and what to) would make reporting about a world leader more impartial, in your opinion. Was reporting on the decline of Chavez a pro-Chavez bias?

the inclusion of some conspicuously mundane details,

I'm not sure what a conspicuously mundane detail is... perhaps a specific reference.

direct quotations from those only with a vested interest in preserving the reputation of the institution,

You mean, the same people who also happen to be the only reliable sources about the Pope? You're kidding me.

and nothing but lip-service paid to the 'political intrigues that plague the Vatican'.

Because how are the political intrigues at all relevant to the fact the pope is living back at the pope house with the other pope, especially when the writer has already been reporting on those 'political intrigues' in fuller detail?

Forgive me for asking this but, as you are a published news writer and so are presumably counted among a class of people for whom being perceived as neutral is an important part of professional integrity, would it be fair to suggest that you are biased in favour of presenting published news writers as paragons of neutrality?

Not really, I've left the field. It's a matter of intrigue to me:

But, I can't see that it all boils down to some stricter understanding of bias on my behalf. So, we really don't need to past this point.

 

[dust1n]

I just invented it. I notice that in my writing, my mood can cause either a negative or positive slant.

Sure. Does it render you incapable of looking back and reading it and noticing a negative or positive slant?

Tis not for me to determine the cause of a bias. I cannot detect a change of heart, but I know that such things happen.

Editors will seldom catch a bias when it's shared with the writers. If you have a left leaning editor at the NYT reviewing
an article by a left leaning writer,I wouldn't expect a call on bias. The same would go for Fox News too, where foxes
edit articles about chicken coops written by other foxes.

So not the determiner of the cause of bias, just how often it's caught by various people throughout the world with various political leanings?




I guess we just disagree on what a bias is too. I guess we'll have to leave it down to that.