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

[Terrywoodenpic]

If there is news to be had the media will publish it.
While particular journalists might have axes to grind, publishers are only interested in the business potential.

Mostly, Religion is used as fillers unless there is a juicy story to tell.
for the most part they have no interest in the religion itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

No...my bias often becomes more glaring when later rereading it.

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.

Yeah, I'd say we covered the issue thoroughly.
Agreement isn't necessary.
Your thoughtful responses are enuf for me!

 

[LemonGrenade]

What? Wear? I don't even seen an allusion.

I saw the numerous Vatican-sourced references to prayer and brotherhood as a rather obvious nod to Christian piety.

And which pontiff are you talking about. There are two in the story. It is a story about 2 popes living together, after all.

Pontiffs - I stuck an S on the end hoping to make it plural.

There is no written concern on the behalf of the writer.

The writer describes the images of the 'visibly more frail and thinner' Benedict as 'somewhat alarming'.

There is concern in the world

… about a great many things pertaining to the Papacy, the majority of which were omitted.

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

Hmm, I'm suggesting that impartiality doesn't really exist in such matters and you're asking me what would make it more impartial.

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

'Now that they're neighbors, they might bump into one another on walks in the Vatican gardens'… these strike me as the words of someone who doesn't really have much to say. I have to wonder why this is so though, when clearly there is much to be said.

You mean, the same people who also happen to be the only reliable sources about the Pope?

You're suggesting that the Vatican, who have an obvious vested interest in preserving the reputation of the Pope, are a reliable source about the Pope?…

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

I see it as no more or less relevant than concerns about the Pope's health, that St. Peter's Basilica is being renovated, or that St Peter’s Basilica houses groups of cloistered nuns… It is not much of a story without these peripheral details; bias manifests itself in the choice of which peripheral details to include.

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.

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.

The definition you gave spoke of a 'prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair'… usually (but not always) I think is the point which allows us more room for manoeuvre than your stricter interpretation will permit.

Anyway, we will agree to disagree. Much obliged for the exchange. :wishes:

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, I'd say we covered the issue thoroughly.
Agreement isn't necessary.
Your thoughtful responses are enuf for me!

Likewise.

 

[dust1n]

I saw the numerous Vatican-sourced references to prayer and brotherhood as a rather obvious nod to Christian piety.

Pontiffs - I stuck an S on the end hoping to make it plural.

And as many times as you say this, without reference to any particular thing, I have no idea what you are referring to.

The writer describes the images of the 'visibly more frail and thinner' Benedict as 'somewhat alarming'.

Wow.. That's a stretch from "The writer did no show any concern." I didn't realize that point out how frail and thinner someone has become and how somewhat alarming that may be what was a total endorsement for the papacy, the Vatican, in any way.

… about a great many things pertaining to the Papacy, the majority of which were omitted.

What's omitted that is the problem?

Hmm, I'm suggesting that impartiality doesn't really exist in such matters and you're asking me what would make it more impartial.

So there's not even a scale or gray area. Everything is just equally biased?

'Now that they're neighbors, they might bump into one another on walks in the Vatican gardens'… these strike me as the words of someone who doesn't really have much to say. I have to wonder why this is so though, when clearly there is much to be said.

Hilarious to me you find an AP journalist stationed in Italy to be of someone who doesn't really have much to say... I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of published words one must achieved until that becomes clear. There is plenty to be said... might a lot of those missing details found in any of the 20+ stories the writer has done in the last half year?

And I guess I need to understand something here.

The fact that details are missing is the reason it is biased, is that correct? I guess the same can be said for my Ativa Monitor instruction guide and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then no?

You're suggesting that the Vatican, who have an obvious vested interest in preserving the reputation of the Pope, are a reliable source about the Pope?…

Yes. About everything? No. About the ins and outs of a pope who quits and then lives in the main cathedral or whatever and then comes and visits... Yes. About what the popes are doing walking around the Vatican... Yes. Hell, the Reuters' story I gave earlier, the one that was like super criticizing the pope, used two anonymous sources from INSIDE THE Vatican. Why? Because there is no reason to think someone outside of the Pope is anymore impartial or knowledgable about the things happening inside of the Vatican.

I see it as no more or less relevant than concerns about the Pope's health, that St. Peter's Basilica is being renovated, or that St Peter’s Basilica houses groups of cloistered nuns… It is not much of a story without these peripheral details; bias manifests itself in the choice of which peripheral details to include.

Right. So there really is a point in discussing further. For every story written, there are an infinite amount details associated with it, yet an that, for some reason, can't be written down in a newspaper. That to me doesn't necessitate an inescapable "bias" filter on being human. If it does to you, then there isn't really much more to discuss. I get the point of contention now, and that's all I wanted to know more about it.

The definition you gave spoke of a 'prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair'… usually (but not always) I think is the point which allows us more room for manoeuvre than your stricter interpretation will permit.

Yup. Let it mean what you wish.

Anyway, we will agree to disagree. Much obliged for the exchange. :wishes:

Likewise.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Everything in the media is biased and will most likely be "anti-" something if it carters to a certain demographic; be it Fox, CNN (both of which I am NOT a fan) of or otherwise.

I, for example, love Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert and, even though they are comedians, they are biased as hell. However, I actually get real news from them instead of the majority of news stations.