P
ProVobis
Guest
Whatever happened to Latin?
- Status
D
deMontfort
Guest
Dead language. And what does that have to do with the thread topic?
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
(Post withdrawn)
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
It depends on which program and station you listen to. While EWTN Radio tends to be totally conservative, Relevant Radio has a few programs that reach across the aisle to Catholic Democrats (as long as they are pro-life)Catholic radio is like Rush Limbaugh with rosary beads. It’s equal parts Democrat bashing and Catholic Evangelical types hyping their latest book for sale. With so many hungry, homeless and hurting people out there, it’s kind of sad that our parishioners send money for people to sit around in front of a microphone going on and on about the evils of abortion and gay marriage (especially during pledge drives). It reminds me of the days of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker.
And the Catholic Channel on XM is almost totally just cultural Catholic.
I keep my car dial on Relevant Radio (640 AM) all the time, but I also don’t receive EWTN Radio by my house, I’m just out of range by a couple miles.
Last edited:
M
Maxirad
Guest
The San Francisco Bay Area currently has no EWTN Radio affiliate.
M
Maxirad
Guest
Imagine if the Catholic Channel were to get taken over by “radical Catholic reactionaries.”
C
CaptFun
Guest
Thanks for the visual of Rush Limbaugh with Rosary beads. He was friends with the late Cardinal O’Connor of New York and some devout Catholics from his Kansas City Royals days (as a PR guy).Had succeeding Catholic leaders been more like O’Connnor per focus on Jesus vs. liberal politics maybe Rush would have made the switch by now.
Glad you have a heart for the homeless and hungry. Hope you’re doing your part (I try on a case by case basis). Must admit that as a Californian, I’ve “bashed the Democrats” (who have almost complete power here) more than contributors to Catholic radio for those homeless and hungry problems.
Catholic Radio commentators who decry the Government hectoring the Little Sisters of the Poor (and Catholic hospitals and universities) to become unwilling condom, birth control device and abortifacient conduits in opposition to their faith … are not being POLITICAL IMO. But faithful. And filling a need the mainstream media won’t. Not even the Limbaughs of alternative media sometimes.
Abortion and homosexual actions are popular mortal sins of our day. And even if., in charity, we wish not to speak of these things to spare the feelings of those who’ve made those mistakes (especially those already sorry for them) … Catholic Radio ought to … to prevent those of TODAY from falling prey to them.
Many have supported their parishes and Dioceses (as we should) and watched while
- monies flowed to church closings, legal settlements for wrongdoings the Church teaches against (that is the Church was also the scandals’ victim, not the perp)
- Hush money to victims, who later sought more
- … and their lawyers … instead of …
- Catholic School teachers and Diocesan employees who got laid off (sometimes when their employing prelate spoke loudly and often about “social justice” or worker’s rights) or the dadblamed weather!
Not to make it a competition or anything, but if any of you give to Cathic Answers (for example), even instead of the local parish or Diocese you consider doing less fruitful work for the Lord … I’d consider that supporting the Church … for at least part of our tithe, some of the time.
Don’t see most Catholic Radio folks as getting rich actually … although they probably are per their heavenly purses if their teaching is in the Holy Spirit.
Even if they go “on and on” about abortion and the dangers of homosexual sex (which DO go on and on and those tempted to doing such are dear brothers and sisters that deserve both the warnings … and encouragements) … to make THEIR needed changes (as we have ours) … and inherit heaven .
Last edited:
B
BlueMaxx
Guest
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
He didn’t leave because of his own disagreement over the liberals at NPR, but was forced to leave.
Jim
A
ATraveller
Guest
It’s no secret most journalists are on the left. It’s a well-established fact.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
And they do live in a bubble and they are disconnected from those outside of their bubble. Many do try to keep their personal views and prejudices out of their work but at the same time many don’t.
Deciding what is important and what will be covered is an insight into an editor’s own biases. That can’t be avoided. But if it’s a consistent favouring of Issue X and omission of Issue Y, it becomes a problem. The same can be said about the details they include, emphasise and omit.
My biggest complaint is the portrayal of Christians (perpetuating lies like practising Christians divorce more than non-religious, more prone to domestic abuses and etc. even though there’s plenty of scholarly literature available that contradict the liberal media’s narrative) and the lack of attention to Christians being persecuted in the Middle East. That’s followed by the distorted and misleading coverage of the gender wage gap and fawning and uncritical coverage of corrupt leaders (e.g. foreign coverage of Justin Trudeau).
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464884910379706?journalCode=joua
And they do live in a bubble and they are disconnected from those outside of their bubble. Many do try to keep their personal views and prejudices out of their work but at the same time many don’t.
Deciding what is important and what will be covered is an insight into an editor’s own biases. That can’t be avoided. But if it’s a consistent favouring of Issue X and omission of Issue Y, it becomes a problem. The same can be said about the details they include, emphasise and omit.
My biggest complaint is the portrayal of Christians (perpetuating lies like practising Christians divorce more than non-religious, more prone to domestic abuses and etc. even though there’s plenty of scholarly literature available that contradict the liberal media’s narrative) and the lack of attention to Christians being persecuted in the Middle East. That’s followed by the distorted and misleading coverage of the gender wage gap and fawning and uncritical coverage of corrupt leaders (e.g. foreign coverage of Justin Trudeau).
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
This guy is awesome. If you did not listen to the interview, do it. He’s talking about how there is no middle in American politics–no liberal Republicans and no conservative Democrats getting elected, for instance–and how the news outlets for both extremes work and express views from a thought bubble.
We have talked here many times of feeling we are repeatedly confronted with political choices that are deficient in some way with regards to the requirements of our Christian faith. The teachings of the Catholic Church, in contrast, have something for both “sides” to love and things that make both “sides”–as those “sides” exist in terms of elected officials and candidates nominated by each party–extremely uncomfortable or even very defiant.
Christians and people of good faith represent a very big slice of the population. Why are we stuck with this? How can we get out of this?
We have talked here many times of feeling we are repeatedly confronted with political choices that are deficient in some way with regards to the requirements of our Christian faith. The teachings of the Catholic Church, in contrast, have something for both “sides” to love and things that make both “sides”–as those “sides” exist in terms of elected officials and candidates nominated by each party–extremely uncomfortable or even very defiant.
Christians and people of good faith represent a very big slice of the population. Why are we stuck with this? How can we get out of this?
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
B
billb
Guest
I don’t understand why the rest of us have to pay for PBS/NPR. If they have a product that people want to hear then people will be willing to pay for it but if not I don’t see why I should.
P
PJH_74
Guest
Why do I have to pay for ETWN as part of my cable bill?
The vast majority of PBS/NPR programming for these stations are paid for by listeners anyway.I will agree that NPR is liberal leaning, but what some of you are missing is that it does proper journalism ; those of you addicted to the “fake” news thing might not be used to this. This is what the world used to look like, news outlets with conservative or liberal leanings not running 24 “talking head” news for commercial purposes. PBS isn’t for everyone, but if your are looking for kids programming, real documentaries, in depth investigative programming, or period dramas you are good. No reality TV…actual reality.
Last edited:
Z
Zach
Guest
I have no use for NPR and only occasion watch PBS. NPR doesn’t even need taxpayer funding. They have plenty of rich liberal donors. Only about two percent of their budget comes from public funding. One of the big shots there was caught on tape saying they’d be better off without public funding. Some of the rural PBS stations I suppose would be hurt if public funding was ended. But PBS always seems to be fund raising, and I’m sure with that money added to their endowments populated markets would get along just fine without public funds.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
The home of that good Catholic, Nancy Pelosi has no EWTN affiliate. Now there’s a surprise.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Nope, they have a gross left bias which isn’t proper journalism.
P
PJH_74
Guest
OK, then who does proper journalism in your view?
T
Theo520
Guest
I don’t think once source can do it today, I use sources like realclear that aggregate stories from multiple sources, liberal and conservative.
My complaint against NPR is that they claim they are not biased.
P
PJH_74
Guest
That’s to my original point. I think it also leans liberal and always has, but that does not make for bad journalism. This is why I asked you for a counter balance, but you seem to have none you trust. I usually use Forbes as it is a well written traditionally conservative and business focused publication.
Now what is “liberal” I believe is strongly affected by a hard move right in parts of this country. During his presidency Clinton was fairly middle of the road, keep in mind that he played a part in constraining welfare benefits. You may not agree, but l doubt I’m the only one.
- Status