Not a few. And there are indeed problems. My main trouble is that I think lsn has made it their mission, one of them, anyways, to go on a personal crusade against Pope Francis and employ very poor journalistic practices, if you could even call it that, at all, to accomplish that end.
It could be argued that in any other context, the determination of whether a news organization has “made it their mission” or is “carefully laying out a case,” ought to be done by looking at the actual evidence that has been laid out and determining how truthfully it has been presented.
Take the 2017 listing of articles about Pope Francis that @QContinuum
cited in this thread. Whether that series of articles show something of their biased " mission" or is, instead, LifeSiteNews’ attempt to make a careful and detailed case by showing a pattern of behaviour, is something that ought to be determined in an unbiased way BEFORE any claim is made regarding whether the series of articles is, itself, a proof of bias.
You may as well claim that defense or prosecuting attorneys are demonstrating extreme bias merely by the fact that they have engaged in presenting evidence for or against the defendant. Heck, you may as well claim the police have shown bias merely by collecting that evidence.
Perhaps, LifeSiteNews has become convinced that Pope Francis needs to change something of his behaviour pattern precisely because of what his behaviour pattern reveals. I mean, to take one example, if every time Pope Francis is interviewed by Scalfari, the results are a scandalous blowup of misinformation, you would think the proper and prudent response would be for Pope Francis to stop giving interviews to Scalfari. In some sense, Francis is supposed to be a model for us all in terms of the application of prudential wisdom, no?
Was just a remark, an observation. I think the analogy was more ambiguous than it being just about the abortion culture. That’s how I read it, anyways.
