What do you think about lifesitenews?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamalChristophr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They are good questions. I would agree that if they say they welcome corrections and then ban people for making them, that’s wrong. I don’t see how deleting comments they don’t like makes everything reported on untrue or unworthy. It’s apparent you don’t trust the site so that’s cool. Personally I like to see something reported on from a liberal view and a conservative view and find the common truths that stick out. The rest is probably confirmation bias.
 
They make simplified and polemic articles, so that makes them popular because easy is always more popular than difficult or complicated. It always has been and it always will be.

I don’t read them and I don’t consider them a quality news source. They provide bad representation and bad example for the Culture of Life platform.
 
I’ve read articles from Catholic Herald, Catholic News Agency, and Aleteia (which all support the Culture of Life), and I don’t recognize polemics in them in the way I have with the LifeSite articles. Lifesite gives me flashbacks of protestant fundamentalism from my youth in spite of being a Catholic affiliated website.
 
Last edited:
davetv said:
I think they do more damage than good. Click bait and disingenuous headlines to propagate a specific view. I prefer my orthodoxy with a lot more professionalism and charity.
Click to expand...
You might be referring to Lifesitenews, but this also could apply to the VATICAN at the moment.

I wish Lifesitenews would affirm orthodoxy more charitably and professionally.

I wish the VATICAN would affirm orthodoxy, period. At least now and then. Under St. JP II the Vatican tried to “reach out” to all kinds of people who were being denounced, including prolifers.

It is not so much what the Vatican is doing that bothers me…I don’t expect perfection, people make mistakes. It is the absence of any kind of solid teaching, which we formerly were getting, to help Christians keep the Faith in a secularized society.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
I’ve read articles from Catholic Herald, Catholic News Agency, and Aleteia (which all support the Culture of Life), and I don’t recognize polemics in them in the way I have with the LifeSite articles. Lifesite gives me flashbacks of protestant fundamentalism from my youth in spite of being a Catholic affiliated website.
Click to expand...
The media you endorse are good, but they are general purpose Catholic publications. Lifesitenews usually focuses more specifically on issues related to prolife. (They assume you also read general purpose media, so they don’t repeat a lot of important stuff you read elsewhere).

The culture in general is so hostile to prolife now that I think ANY media that focuses more specifically on prolife issues will get labelled as fundamentalist.
 
Last edited:
I check lifesitenews because it’s a reminder that we are indeed living in perilous times. Just like Our Lady warned us about.
 
You sound fully indoctrinated in thier work. You’ll find if you dig into the facts, just a little more than lifesitenews does, that you’ve been led by the nose. An example would be the recent story about Pope Francis denying the existence of hell, a story the reported in thier usual alarmist style. Yet, I have heard the pope talk about the devil and hell a number of times publicly during his pontificate.
 
I thought they only reported what that atheist reporter stated…
 
I agree, I refuse to click on thier links, unless I just want an expamle of bad journalism.
 
Believe_85 said:
Catholic Herald says the same thing…
Click to expand...
The fact that a misrepresentation was repeated by a second source does not make it true.

You would get closer to the truth if you read Cardinal Sarah’s actual words, available in the original language (Italian) here:

lanuovabq.it

"Bisogna ripensare il modo di distribuire la comunione"

Il Prefetto del Culto Divino, Sarah firma la prefazione di un libro in uscita oggi che svela forzature e sotterfugi con i quali è stata concessa la comunione sulla mano. E avverte: "Perché ci ostiniamo a comunicarci in piedi e sulla mano? Questa è una questione importante su cui la Chiesa di...
lanuovabq.it lanuovabq.it

If you, like I, cannot read Italian, you could use Google Translate, or simply read the English translation provided by LifeSiteNews at the end of their article. I trust their translation.

Read it carefully to determine what Cardinal Sarah said – and what he did not say. He chose his words with care and precision so as not to contradict the Church. The journalists did not read it with such care or report it with such precision.
 
Last edited:
Is there a better website focused mainly defending Christian teaching on the Natural Law - contraception, abortion, euthanasia, heterosexual marriage - the areas most under attack?
 
A lot of people here do not like LSN because they are papolatrists, cannot say anything negative about Pope Francis.

People start these threads to stir up debates. The very people bashing Lsn are double standard, accusing others of “bashing” the Pope. Projection is a pathetic method, frankly.

But I am not gonna stress about that. I am here enjoying my 🍔
 
Last edited:
I find that Lifesitenews are good on pro-life issues and we need organisations keeping pro-life issues under the spot-light.
 
Golly, thanks for your permission! 🙂 I at least acknowledged what you said. My point, take it or leave it is that an overzealous editor of comments who bans people from commenting on their site doesn’t mean everything reported is false and unworthy of considering. YouTube and Facebook do similar things to conservative materials. Should we say nothing they have can possibly be true? I don’t think so.
 
jagged said:
Is bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points to demonize their opponents qualify as stretching the truth or lying because that’s what they do and they are not a credible news source.
Click to expand...
Your post amounts to the pot pontificating about the flaws of the kettle. 😖

A bit of self-examination would be in order.
 
Biased, sensationalistic, more Catholic than the pope, not at all credible.
 
fin said:
A lot of people here do not like LSN because they are papolatrists, cannot say anything negative about Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
I don’t like LSN because it’s tabloid journalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top