What do you think about lifesitenews?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamalChristophr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think lifesitenews is very good in regards to abortion & euthanasia.

But I think their coverage of clergy (popes, bishops, etc) is often slanted. They make Pope Francis and others seem very far left and they make Cardinal Burke seem very far right.

I don’t think they publish lies, but I do think they paint a narrative in regards to the clergy.
 
gracepoole said:
Coffin, Lawler, Voris – not a fan of anyone who makes his living criticizing the pope.
Click to expand...
Please don’t place Patrick Coffin in the same place with Voris.

And even Phil Lawler isn’t in the same boat as Voris.

Voris is a “every bishop is corrupt” kind of conspiracy theorist
 
That’s true – Voris is an extreme. I’m really disappointed with Lawler, though. He and his wife (a Catholic blogger) have some really unfortunate views that I think drive division. I was never a fan of Coffin on CAL so I might be biased in my reading of him.
 
gracepoole said:
Coffin, Lawler, Voris – not a fan of anyone who makes his living criticizing the pope.
Click to expand...
Typical response, Alinsky style…
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Click to expand...
Associate Coffin and Lawlor with an already discredited actor then push that narrative hard, albeit without any evidence – just innuendo.

No proof required, guilt by association is sufficient, apparently.

Same strategy is being applied to LifeSite in this thread.

The underlying aim is to silence opposition to the narrative, whatever that narrative may be. The truth is irrelevant.

The antidote to this strategy will be to stand up and counter it by calling out those who, like you, are using it – perhaps unwittingly, perhaps because of a belief that you are correct and hold the moral high ground.

If that is so, then you ought to be willing to debate your position on its own merits, not on who is for or against your perspective.

Think hard on this. Would you want your beliefs to be dismissed purely on the basis that someone else, who might happen to be disreputable, shares those same beliefs with you?

No need to assess the content of the beliefs, just who shares them?

Not quite a responsible way to evaluate the truth on any subject, is it?
 
What extreme views are those? I’m pretty sure the CCC is as anti-abortion as LSN.
 
From what I know about Patrick Coffin, which is pretty limited, he’s fair minded and moderate in his views as a Catholic.

I think a moderate Catholic can choose to be more outspokenly critical of things they see the Pope and other bishops doing or not. I don’t mind hearing a bit of criticism of what the Bishop of Rome is doing or saying along with the other bishops as long as it is done with due restraint and maintaining respect for his office as Vicar of Christ and the bond of charity. It’s a tricky business.

Just my general impression.
 
Last edited:
JamalChristophr said:
From what I know about Patrick Coffin, which is pretty limited, he’s fair minded and moderate in his views as a Catholic.

I think a moderate Catholic can choose to be more outspokenly critical of things they see the Pope and other bishops doing or not. I don’t mind hearing a bit of criticism of what the Bishop of Rome is doing or saying along with the other bishops as long as it is done with due restraint and maintaining respect for his office as Vicar of Christ and the bond of charity…
Click to expand...
Actually, in the program, Patrick was not at all critical of the Pope but, rather, of the cadre (over 20) of the individuals who make up the “Secretariat for Communications” established in 2015 to keep the world informed about Vatican affairs.

What I do find interesting, and disturbing, is how the content of what Patrick commented on was completely ignored by @gracepoole, who elected to use a discredit tactic to dismiss everything he had to say under the guise that he (along with Lawlor and Voris) are anti-Pope Francis.

How does this promote intelligent discussion?

Again, I want to point out that the same tactic is being used to discredit organizations or individuals like LifeSite, EWTN, NewAdvent, Fr Z, and others with little attempt to actually do the hard work of countering the alleged errors in what they have stated or reported.

Please note that in this very thread very little of the content of LifeSiteNews has been brought forward as evidence. The only citations are by…

@Anicette who found the site a “helpful” resource,

@RandomAlias who cited an article about Cardinal Sarah,

@jagged who complained not about any particular content but about a commentor being banned for making allegations against Roy Moore, as if banning is a particularly perfidious act. (How many CAF members have been banned for far less?)

Your post on “Hell does not exist”, the article, by the way, that relayed what was published by Scalfari and really ought to be of concern to Catholics, since it does impact a great deal of Catholic doctrine.

@QContinuum’s post on the 2017 listing by LifeSite itself. Now this was a valuable link since it actually referenced articles that could have been the basis for fruitful discussion, but there was no attempt by anyone to actually point out why those articles were in any way problematic, other than that they portrayed Pope Francis and the Vatican in less than glowing terms.

@Believe_85’s post on the principles guiding publication at LifeSite.

Continued…
 
Last edited:
Given that yours was the opening post, my question would be: Are you any closer to a reasonable and thoughtful conclusion regarding your opening question?
JamalChristophr said:
They seem to be very anti- Pope Francis. How would you characterize their credibility in general?
Click to expand...
As to @QContinuum’s concern…
QContinuum said:
I know Francis has had his detractors, but frankly I had never seen this much open disagreement with a Pope from Catholic sources. That’s a shocking thing to see for this non-Catholic, as I had always assumed that love him or hate him, Catholics always defend the Pope.
Click to expand...
It may be that “so much open disagreement” is problematic for Catholics, but perhaps what needs to be discussed are the reasons for so much “open disagreement,” not assuming that it has nothing to do with the way in which Pope Francis conducts business, which – it must be admitted – is not the same as any of his predecessors.
 
I was mainly looking to do a survey of the members here to see what they had to say.

I already had my own thoughts about the matter, but I’m always willing to hear opinions and ideas that contradict my own to get a better estimation of the truth, if such is to be had.

I can’t say that I’m in a position to be an unbiased judge of LSN, nor was that necessarily my intention.

If I were to make a new thread or continuance to this thread, it would probably be to take a look at a few case examples.

There are some very good aspects to LSN. But what troubles me is that in my mind, they sew great seeds of doubt regarding Pope Francis and do it using bad journalism.

People are free to make their own judgments.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
What I do find interesting, and disturbing, is how the content of what Patrick commented on was completely ignored by @gracepoole, who elected to use a discredit tactic to dismiss everything he had to say under the guise that he (along with Lawlor and Voris) are anti-Pope Francis.

@Anicette who found the site a “helpful” resource,

@RandomAlias who cited an article about Cardinal Sarah,

@jagged who complained not about any particular content but about a commentor being banned for making allegations against Roy Moore, as if banning is a particularly perfidious act. (How many CAF members have been banned for far less?)

Your post on “Hell does not exist”, the article, by the way, that relayed what was published by Scalfari and really ought to be of concern to Catholics, since it does impact a great deal of Catholic doctrine.

@QContinuum’s post on the 2017 listing by LifeSite itself. Now this was a valuable link since it actually referenced articles that could have been the basis for fruitful discussion, but there was no attempt by anyone to actually point out why those articles were in any way problematic, other than that they portrayed Pope Francis and the Vatican in less than glowing terms.

@Believe_85’s post on the principles guiding publication at LifeSite.

Continued…
Click to expand...
Wow, you really know how to befriend your fellow Catholics.
 
Some people accuse LSN of being rude, annoying, fanatic, sometimes unprofessional, occasionally hysterical.
Guilty as charged.

I read other Catholic publications. They are courteous, moderate, very professional, calm to an extreme. These publications approve of Catholic teaching on prolife. In fact it is one of their 25 priorities, they grant it exactly 4% of their attention, no more, no less.

If my diocesan newspaper had been the local religious paper in Herod’s time, they would have respectfully disagreed with his Solution, regarding the local infant boys. But if there were a local Catholic college, and if it invited a supporter of Herod’s Solution to give a talk on Child Care, my diocesan newspaper would not have complained.

Perhaps they would have pointed out the need for more dialogue, and less name-calling.

Would you really prefer the moderate, professionally calm Catholic publications to the loud, rowdy, occasionally hysterical Lifesitenews?
 
Last edited:
Well…I think my main concern, weighing what you have said and find it quite sensible, is that there are a not insubstantial amount of persons who get a very large amount of exposure to LSN and don’t avail themselves of alternative outlooks.

I see an undermining of the Catholic Faith from their undermining of the Pope. This is a generalization, of course. But it’s my impression. I think they attack the Pope basically on various levels and that is far from helpful. It fosters doubt and divisiveness among the Catholic faithful.

Just my opinions, of course.
 
Last edited:
JamalChristophr said:
Well…I think my main concern, weighing what you have said and find it quite sensible, is that there are a not insubstantial amount of persons who get a very large amount of exposure to LSN and don’t avail themselves of alternative outlooks.

I see an undermining of the Catholic Faith from their undermining of the Pope. This is a generalization, of course. But it’s my impression. I think they attack the Pope basically on various levels and that is far from helpful. It fosters doubt and divisiveness among the Catholic faithful.
Click to expand...
Suppose LSN had been around when Auschwitz was still up and running.

Suppose most Catholic publications were silent, or respectfully expressing concern, with extreme cautions against over reacting, and the horrors of DIVISIVENESS. Suppose some Catholic institutions were inviting Nazi leaders to speak at commencements (but making sure they were balanced out by alternative viewpoints). Suppose many Church leaders were responding by writing impassioned documents about the terrors of global warming, with calls for ecumenical talks with ALL viewpoints. (Who are we to judge?) After all, the Church needs a BIG TENT. Suppose some Vatican bureaucrats were asked about the ongoing holocaust, and gave press conferences saying the whole concept of Natural Law is under review (“Let’s not get hasty or judgemental!”)

Given that reality, LSN’s response would get labelled nasty, hasty, rude, divisive, and hysterical. So would my response. How about yours?

There are times when moderation is appalling.
 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
Wow, you really know how to befriend your fellow Catholics.

Anyone who disagrees with you is now operating using Alinskey’s tactics. Got it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you really understand the tactic even though you are making use of it.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

I am not looking to befriend or unfriend anyone.

The question is about how the actual issue is addressed or not addressed.
 
I don’t think most of the posters here have a problem with lack of moderation. I don’t. Maybe we should have a topic to review what are the tenets of professional journalism. I think that has been all but forgotten in the last 30 years or so.

The problem with Life Site News and many other media sources that are available on the internet is that they are not news.

Did you just make a comparative analogy that paralleled the Pope with Nazi Germany? 🤔
 
Last edited:
Everyone knows the tactics. That they’re being mentioned in a conversation about the potential bias of a media outlet is telling.
 
I think they are agenda driven and opinion driven sometimes no longer read their stuff
 
commenter said:
Suppose LSN had been around when Auschwitz was still up and running.
Click to expand...
The similarity of the Holocaust to abortion today is well noted. I think it’s safe to say that no one here objects to LifeSiteNews having a strong pro-life position. It’s all their other junk that’s a problem for me and others, and a lot of that junk is divisive.
JamalChristophr said:
Did you just make a comparative analogy that paralleled the Pope with Nazi Germany?
Click to expand...
Calm down! The parallel is drawn between Nazi Germany and our abortion culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top