O
ontheway1
Guest
I agree totally, but where do you find an unbiased news source? They are all biased, and it is only a matter of degrees of bias that distinguish them.
F
Feanor2
Guest
Isn’t Catholic News Agency pretty standard? Of course Vatican news.Feanor2:
I agree totally, but where do you find an unbiased news source? They are all biased, and it is only a matter of degrees of bias that distinguish them.
National Catholic Register shows bias at times but seems pretty good. They don’t constantly and continuously run critiques of the Pope
D
drcube
Guest
You asked:
I said
So, I said “Yes” meaning you will see a fourth post because that was the question and then I explained myself. You quoted “Yes” as if it were affirmation to your statement that I care, which wasn’t part of the question that was asked (it was “Will I see a fourth?”) So you proof-texted to misrepresent what I said and now are trying to defend your proof-texting as somehow valid.
Again, I find it hilarious that you started this by claiming that I was wrong to claim that some posters here exaggerate and misrepresent and that’s all you’ve done in the last half dozen posts. You’ve just confirmed what I said. Thank you.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Depends on the shows. There is news, there is their partisan shows. Of course people may not know the difference
Of course, Fox is not "fair and balanced. And I can’t think of a single news outlet that is fair in any way. The importance of Fox is that it is the only alternative news source to the CNN,ABC, NBC,NYT and all the rest of the media that speak with the same voice and never deviate from the script.
If you want to be informed, it is necessary to listen to the partial truths coming from both sides, and decide where the truth might be.
As far as I am concerned, there is currently no secular news source that can be trusted, and i have tried many.
If you want to be informed, it is necessary to listen to the partial truths coming from both sides, and decide where the truth might be.
As far as I am concerned, there is currently no secular news source that can be trusted, and i have tried many.
G
godisgood77
Guest
True, but Fox News and MSNBC are so very bad, that people who watch will only be corrupted by the slant and untruths. What those two media outlets do should be criminal.
O
ontheway1
Guest
In a world where Fox news is the only source of information that is different from all the rest, once you eliminate Fox, you are living in an echo-chamber. No news at all.
I have first hand experience of this, having lived for a while in the happy communist country.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
My first rule of thumb: Are they selling ads with this content? If so, it is not “news” but entertainment.
E
EricF
Guest
Not a big fan of Arroyo. He is too arrogant and condescending for my liking.
F
Feanor2
Guest
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Why don’t you start a “fair & balanced source of Catholic news,” and then when you begin being attacked for clarifying Catholic doctrine with respect to any of those stories or issues you can come back and tell us of your experiences?Horton:
Overall, they certainly tend to slant left. Although I haven’t found a balanced source for Catholic News… do you have one to recommend?
What precisely is “a fair & balanced source of Catholic news” that would not report what is both Catholic and news?
The problem is that news is largely going to involve issues and events that expose left-right lines of social, moral and political thought, and that ‘Catholic’ – if you are going to respect established Church teaching on such political and moral issues – you will have to be “partisan” in merely reporting the ‘Catholic’ aspect or viewpoint on those events and issues.
The problem isn’t the partisanship so much as the lack of clarity of many Catholics on those issues along with the unwillingness of many (both in the hierarchy and laity) to hold uncompromising Catholic positions on those issues for fear of alienating someone or other.
Being blithely neutral on significant issues so as not to upset someone isn’t being Catholic. Jesus was crucified, not because he tried to have everyone like him or that he tried to get along with everyone. He was crucified because he held uncompromising moral and theological stances on every issue.
The problem today is the lack of moral mettle amongst believers because the culture moulding social activists will try to destroy anyone who doesn’t lip synch with the latest politically correct proclamation.
Many Catholics are scrambling to reconcile their beliefs with the social situation they find themselves in. Often that involves finding other Catholics who have verbalized what appears to be a reasonable rationalization of how to do so.
Unfortunately, that tribalization within Catholicism is now becoming an internal civil war. That isn’t because of Catholic orthodoxy so much as the stresses individuals have trying to cope with and fit into an increasingly antagonistic secular society.
Perhaps the solution for all of us is to become …
- far more and better informed on true Catholic doctrine guided by the Holy Spirit and Church teaching,
- far more courageous and uncompromising in our commitment to the truth of the teaching, and
- be far more calm, respectful, clear and courageous in our stating the truth when asked.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I don’t think that anyone here is asking for Catholic newspapers to present themselves as anything else but Catholic. That would be the mistake that a lot of Catholic universities have made, and look what has happened to them.
But, as the good Monsignor Stuart Swetland of Relevant Radio put it (and I have always felt this way as well):
A Catholic ought not to be ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’. They ought to be Catholic. With regard to United States politics, as of the last election, the party platforms of the two major political parties in the country were about the same in regard to how properly they reflect Catholic teaching: one or the other agreed with the Church on exactly one more issue (he couldn’t remember which party that was, as he was recounting this years later now), but both were very deficient, with neither agreeing with the Church on oh-so-many issues.
[/quote]
If the analysis of where the political parties reflected Catholic teaching was left completely empty in terms of specifics, then that point by Monsignor Swetland would be completely unhelpful. What we need is less empty rhetoric and more critical and in-depth analysis, otherwise we are left merely taking such claims on the word of those who make them without anything like a clear understanding.
As to your point – boldfaced above – regarding how Catholic newspapers shouldn’t present themselves as anything else but Catholic, I would beg to differ. There are a whole lot of voices purporting themselves to be Catholic when it has become very murky as to what precisely “being Catholic” entails.
I am certain that someone will raise the No True Scotsman fallacy as if that puts to rest every possible instance of what it means to be anything whatsoever on the presumption that everything is indefinable – a legacy of post-modernism in our culture. Again, I would assert that the bigger problem is that those confused and confusing voices all purport to be Catholic while we are left scratching our heads as to what it means to be Catholic in the first place. It cannot possibly mean all of those contradictory things at once, yet that is what the secular post-modernists would like us to believe, i.e., that Catholicism amounts to everything inclusively and therefore nothing of substance. Which is why everyone and anyone feels quite at home expressing themselves from a “Catholic” viewpoint.
How about we all step back and judiciously attempt to ascertain what it means to be “Catholic” with some level of precision then we might avoid the charge of “No True Scotsman” altogether. My guess is that won’t sit well with any of the voices that claim to be “Catholic” in the first place because they all have a vested stake.
In the end Jesus will decide what “being Catholic,” was intended to mean, and just who it was that were truly Catholic.
But, as the good Monsignor Stuart Swetland of Relevant Radio put it (and I have always felt this way as well):
A Catholic ought not to be ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’. They ought to be Catholic. With regard to United States politics, as of the last election, the party platforms of the two major political parties in the country were about the same in regard to how properly they reflect Catholic teaching: one or the other agreed with the Church on exactly one more issue (he couldn’t remember which party that was, as he was recounting this years later now), but both were very deficient, with neither agreeing with the Church on oh-so-many issues.
[/quote]
If the analysis of where the political parties reflected Catholic teaching was left completely empty in terms of specifics, then that point by Monsignor Swetland would be completely unhelpful. What we need is less empty rhetoric and more critical and in-depth analysis, otherwise we are left merely taking such claims on the word of those who make them without anything like a clear understanding.
As to your point – boldfaced above – regarding how Catholic newspapers shouldn’t present themselves as anything else but Catholic, I would beg to differ. There are a whole lot of voices purporting themselves to be Catholic when it has become very murky as to what precisely “being Catholic” entails.
I am certain that someone will raise the No True Scotsman fallacy as if that puts to rest every possible instance of what it means to be anything whatsoever on the presumption that everything is indefinable – a legacy of post-modernism in our culture. Again, I would assert that the bigger problem is that those confused and confusing voices all purport to be Catholic while we are left scratching our heads as to what it means to be Catholic in the first place. It cannot possibly mean all of those contradictory things at once, yet that is what the secular post-modernists would like us to believe, i.e., that Catholicism amounts to everything inclusively and therefore nothing of substance. Which is why everyone and anyone feels quite at home expressing themselves from a “Catholic” viewpoint.
How about we all step back and judiciously attempt to ascertain what it means to be “Catholic” with some level of precision then we might avoid the charge of “No True Scotsman” altogether. My guess is that won’t sit well with any of the voices that claim to be “Catholic” in the first place because they all have a vested stake.
In the end Jesus will decide what “being Catholic,” was intended to mean, and just who it was that were truly Catholic.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
What I meant was that a Catholic newspaper ought to present itself as anything else aside from Catholic. Not a “Catholic” Newspaper. The No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply here, as being a good Catholic entails abiding by and assenting to Church teaching and living a life in line with what God expects from us.
[/quote]
I am all for being a surreptitious Catholic, meaning working hard at being one, but leaving all determinations as to level of success entirely to God. Self-proclamations, perhaps, are more counter productive than just being silent on claiming the title at all. Membership in a Catholic Underground, so to speak – being recognized by deeds and behaviours rather than by proclamation. If the light is sufficiently bright, there would be no need for the trumpets and heralds.
Last edited:
I
Irishmom2
Guest
I think you two should take this off thread if you want to discuss this further…
S
strita
Guest
There was a Democrat candidate that dropped out about two months ago who was rather strongly in favor of removing tax-exempt status from church which discriminated against LGBT persons. Can’t recall his name.
It may be a good thing for some independent Catholic individual or group to lose the tax-exempt status and to speak out candidly on political issues.
I rarely watch Raymond Arroyo. For that matter I don’t follow Bishop Barron either. I don’t want to be flagged for saying anything more about either. Arroyo definitely goes beyond being a neutral news reporter, if there actually is such a thing.
It may be a good thing for some independent Catholic individual or group to lose the tax-exempt status and to speak out candidly on political issues.
I rarely watch Raymond Arroyo. For that matter I don’t follow Bishop Barron either. I don’t want to be flagged for saying anything more about either. Arroyo definitely goes beyond being a neutral news reporter, if there actually is such a thing.
S
strita
Guest
Whether a news program slants this way or that may be reflected in the news itself that is reported and how it is reported. So, if EWTN reports on pro-life statements made by the President you can draw the obvious conclusion.
S
strita
Guest
Arroyo’s tenure on EWTN goes way back to its early days. He’s a fixture of EWTN.
wiki entry : Raymond Arroyo - Wikipedia
wiki entry : Raymond Arroyo - Wikipedia
M
Maximus1
Guest
Nobody denies biases exist.
That said, biases are not all the same.
The largest differences between biases that are totalitarian and those that are not are biases that directly publish the official position of the regime in power. And it’s supreme leader.
In this regard Fox, save for a few in news, is essentially STATE TV.
That said, biases are not all the same.
The largest differences between biases that are totalitarian and those that are not are biases that directly publish the official position of the regime in power. And it’s supreme leader.
In this regard Fox, save for a few in news, is essentially STATE TV.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
I read the wire services, the NYT, the WSJ, Vatican News, Chicago Trib, CS Monitor, Forbes, Scientific American, Variety and a curated number of blogs. I do not read all of them every day, if a headline or story catches my eye, I do a deep dive across several sources. Each morning I listen to headlines from NPR and Reuters. Cannot tell you the last time I watched any news thing on television, cord cutter here.