Why does the AP hate us?

[JohnSanzone5]

Just why. I don’t get it. Is there an ancient feud between the Vatican and Reuters that I don’t know about?

My biggest question now is: do I write in the ‘comments section’ below every video and article, and reply to the people stating (probably with straight faces):

RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL WARS
THE VATICAN IS RICH, PRIESTS ARE MASTERS OF SERFS
CHURCH IS BABYLON

Do I respond vehemently and correct their errors (with a little acerbic verbosity, for panache), or simply save my guns for the bigger battles?

 

[jpk1313]

Just why. I don’t get it. Is there an ancient feud between the Vatican and Reuters that I don’t know about?

My biggest question now is: do I write in the ‘comments section’ below every video and article, and reply to the people stating (probably with straight faces):

RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL WARS
THE VATICAN IS RICH, PRIESTS ARE MASTERS OF SERFS
CHURCH IS BABYLON

Do I respond vehemently and correct their errors (with a little acerbic verbosity, for panache), or simply save my guns for the bigger battles?

One religion is not the cause of all wars. Soldiers obeying their respective governments are the cause of war. Get rid of the soldiers get rid of war. two the vatican is rich compared to places in africa but the last time I heard anything about vatican finaces was when I heard my priest speak about it and he said the vatican has an operating budget on par with the archdioces of detroit (I don’t know it that is true or not just what I was told). three all a priest can do is give a moral lecture when you think about it. Its not like a priest can fire you from your job at the factory or make you do anything you don’t want to do. Other than telling people what they should do in a moral sense they have no real powers over anyone. four many people have claimed the church is babylon yet are not able to point to any teaching that would back it up.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Just why. I don’t get it. Is there an ancient feud between the Vatican and Reuters that I don’t know about?

My biggest question now is: do I write in the ‘comments section’ below every video and article, and reply to the people stating (probably with straight faces):

RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL WARS
THE VATICAN IS RICH, PRIESTS ARE MASTERS OF SERFS
CHURCH IS BABYLON

Do I respond vehemently and correct their errors (with a little acerbic verbosity, for panache), or simply save my guns for the bigger battles?

A couple of thoughs come to mind:

1. Telling journalists that they are vile “tools of Satan” as some catholics have done, doesn’t make the best of impressions. They are professionals paid to gather information based on the interests of their readers. One area of interest for their readers is the abuse scandal and the church.

Some journalists likely have a bias against the church and some may simply be disgusted with the church for its apparent casual disregard for the suffering of children at the hands of priests. Others may be Catholics doing their job with the information they have.

All journalists dislike people or organizations who stonewall them. They have deadlines to meet and are in competition with other news services. To be accused on a lack of proper research by a group that did little or nothing to provide them with information when asked adds to the problem and the dislike.

1. You are better off leaving the comments of others alone-people reading can tell the difference between the news story and the responses. Post something positive related to the church if you wish or a link to information that you feel provides context or correction to the story, but don’t get into a public p***ing match with trolls spewing sound bites.

 

[LoyalViews]

The AP can be very anti-Catholic. They twist the words of EVERYTHING, and turn one thing into another. It is because of media like them that alot of people think false of us.

 

[Hiskid1973]

A couple of thoughs come to mind:

1. Telling journalists that they are vile “tools of Satan” as some catholics have done, doesn’t make the best of impressions. They are professionals paid to gather information based on the interests of their readers. One area of interest for their readers is the abuse scandal and the church.

Some journalists likely have a bias against the church and some may simply be disgusted with the church for its apparent casual disregard for the suffering of children at the hands of priests. Others may be Catholics doing their job with the information they have.

All journalists dislike people or organizations who stonewall them. They have deadlines to meet and are in competition with other news services. To be accused on a lack of proper research by a group that did little or nothing to provide them with information when asked adds to the problem and the dislike.

1. You are better off leaving the comments of others alone-people reading can tell the difference between the news story and the responses. Post something positive related to the church if you wish or a link to information that you feel provides context or correction to the story, but don’t get into a public p***ing match with trolls spewing sound bites.

Lot of truth here…It’s on thing to take heat when your above reproach, it another thing to have skeletons in the closet and have to continually do damage control…

 

[Dale_M]

Just why. I don’t get it. Is there an ancient feud between the Vatican and Reuters that I don’t know about?

My biggest question now is: do I write in the ‘comments section’ below every video and article, and reply to the people stating (probably with straight faces):

RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL WARS
THE VATICAN IS RICH, PRIESTS ARE MASTERS OF SERFS
CHURCH IS BABYLON

erm… John, I don’t follow your complaint. In the title of this thread you complain about the AP. But in the body of your first post, you don’t mention the Associated Press, but Reuters instead. And then, you don’t cite anything the reporters wrote which was incorrect, but you complain about the comments left by anonymous readers.

I wouldn’t worry about jousting with anonymous comments left in response to news articles. My guess is that you won’t be able to sway the opinions of these persons. However, such comments have nothing to do with the accuracy of the reporting of the AP or Reuters articles.

 

[fkjuliano]

The mainstream media hates the Catholic Church for two reasons: because She opposes abortion, and because She opposes homosexuality.

And they especially hate Benedict XVI because he is perceived as hard-liner on those issues.

If you doubt what I’m saying, watch the video “The Cost of Abortion”, with Michael Voris. In it, he relates that he used to work in a mainstream media newsroom, and that in 1992 when the Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe v. Wade, 63 out of 65 people in that newsroom “cheered as if they had won the lottery.” Now the pro-abortion fanatics in the media see a chance to discredit those who would slay their sacred cow, perhaps even destroy them, but they shall never succeed, for Our Lord Jesus Christ said:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JohnSanzone5]

erm… John, I don’t follow your complaint. In the title of this thread you complain about the AP. But in the body of your first post, you don’t mention the Associated Press, but Reuters instead. And then, you don’t cite anything the reporters wrote which was incorrect, but you complain about the comments left by anonymous readers.

I wouldn’t worry about jousting with anonymous comments left in response to news articles. My guess is that you won’t be able to sway the opinions of these persons. However, such comments have nothing to do with the accuracy of the reporting of the AP or Reuters articles.

I was just being whimsical, next time I’ll be sure to addend the relevant articles in MLA citation. Sure thing.

As for accuracy, facts are one thing. But when some bozo reporter writes an article about a Holy Thursday mass and then attempts to politicize the event with 4/5’s of the article being devoted to how the Church handles its riffraff… just doesn’t work for me. Does it work for you? Sure, you’re a former Catholic. I’m OK, you’re OK.

Its just gives me reasonable cause for offense, when an important feast day of my Church’s liturgical year is clumsily lumped alongside some sick weirdo who molests deaf kids.

 

[Dale_M]

I was just being whimsical, next time I’ll be sure to addend the relevant articles in MLA citation. Sure thing.

Whimsical? If this is supposed to a lighthearted joke-y thread, then I apologize for treating it seriously.

As for accuracy, facts are one thing. But when some bozo reporter writes an article about a Holy Thursday mass and then attempts to politicize the event with 4/5’s of the article being devoted to how the Church handles its riffraff… just doesn’t work for me. Does it work for you?

Probably not, but if you could cite an actual article, it would help to discuss something concrete instead of vague allegations. For example, it would help to know whether the article is AP or Reuters - it can’t be both.

Its just gives me reasonable cause for offense, when an important feast day of my Church’s liturgical year is clumsily lumped alongside some sick weirdo who molests deaf kids.

I understand why you would be upset, and I appreciate your making clearer what you are upset about. Would you be willing to link to the article? I realize its been a week and half, so maybe it is hard to track down at this point.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

Whimsical? If this is supposed to a lighthearted joke-y thread, then I apologize for treating it seriously.

Probably not, but if you could cite an actual article, it would help to discuss something concrete instead of vague allegations. For example, it would help to know whether the article is AP or Reuters - it can’t be both.

I understand why you would be upset, and I appreciate your making clearer what you are upset about. Would you be willing to link to the article? I realize its been a week and half, so maybe it is hard to track down at this point.

This is a half-decent example, not what I originally intended, but you’ll get the idea:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_holy_thursday

[Prominent imagery: our Holy Father washing the feet of our priests. Rest of the article dedicated to explaining how these priests are ‘globally misbehaved’. The mantra: “Pope made no mention.” Repeated in each article, in every major event during Holy Week emphasizes a propaganda bullet point without saying it: ‘Pope is apathetic to parishioner’s suffering.’ The Holy Father has other functions than to publicly apologize (he has addressed the issue) for the wrongdoings of wayward clergy. The Vatican has had official spokespeople apologizing non-stop, and the emphasis falls on our Holy Father for not apologizing during one of our rites.]

This is another gem. It takes a trope familiar to right-wingers and populists–the same used to denounce Noam Chomsky and friends–and applies it to our Holy Father. Why would AP try to do this? Obviously there is no ‘Ivory Tower’ and being involved in academia does not necessitate social detachment–quite the contrary.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100411/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_s_ivory_tower
[We are left to assume that the AP uses it to incite the Church’s less left-wing opponents into dissatisfaction. Our Holy Father advocates a position that is diametrically opposed with the popular opinions of our time (opinions long nursed by the AP and Reuters) and does it tactfully. He is not an ill-mannered, bombastic Rush Limbaugh, and he is not a callous/sterile Theodore Dalrymple.]

I could find more, but I have an Ottoman History exam tomorrow morning. :’-(

 

[Dale_M]

This is a half-decent example, not what I originally intended, but you’ll get the idea:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_holy_thursday

Actually, given the feeding frenzy journalists seem to have regarding the sex abuse problems, I’m a bit surprised that an article would be devoted so much to this religious act. But yes, it would have been nice to have the article leave out the scandal, just for a day.

This is another gem. It takes a trope familiar to right-wingers and populists–the same used to denounce Noam Chomsky and friends–and applies it to our Holy Father. Why would AP try to do this? Obviously there is no ‘Ivory Tower’ and being involved in academia does not necessitate social detachment–quite the contrary.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100411/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_s_ivory_tower
Yep, its a surprising article. I think the reporter was attempting to figure out why the Vatican is having such a hard time managing the public relations regarding the scandals, but she is barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not with the Pope, but with the Vatican’s unwillingness to engage in modern public relations. An article in the Washington Post on Sunday speaks to that, but its been a criticism leveled at the Vatican for 50 years.
"Washington Post:

Most American organizations facing such a barrage of negative news would long ago have pulled together a crisis management team and made top officials available for interviews to explain their point of view. But the Vatican said such an approach is too commercial for the Church to adopt. “We are not a multinational enterprise, this is clear,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “The normal situation of the Church and the Vatican is to help the people to understand the teachings of the Church and the documents of the pope and not to sell particular products.”

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002808_pf.html

I could find more, but I have an Ottoman History exam tomorrow morning. :’-(

Hey, I hope you aced it! And congrats on your impending graduation, too.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

Actually, given the feeding frenzy journalists seem to have regarding the sex abuse problems, I’m a bit surprised that an article would be devoted so much to this religious act. But yes, it would have been nice to have the article leave out the scandal, just for a day.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100411/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_s_ivory_tower
Yep, its a surprising article. I think the reporter was attempting to figure out why the Vatican is having such a hard time managing the public relations regarding the scandals, but she is barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not with the Pope, but with the Vatican’s unwillingness to engage in modern public relations. An article in the Washington Post on Sunday speaks to that, but its been a criticism leveled at the Vatican for 50 years.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002808_pf.html

Hey, I hope you aced it! And congrats on your impending graduation, too.

Well, really, what bothers me is the duplicity of a press agency covering ‘Catholic events of religious significance’ (which they did, almost without exception, throughout Holy Week), and then the body of the article is devoted to explaining how far the Church has allegedly fallen, as a whole, based on a series of more-or-less isolated failures. Feeding frenzy, fine. But this style of journalism (if you re-read the text) is basically the ‘print’ equivalent of making a youtube.com video purporting to show religious events within a faith, and then splicing in scenes of these religious events being defiled in the worst way.

I imagine it is not does not require any high degree of humanistic sensitivity to understand how this might bother a Catholic.

I agree with your evaluation of the second article, and I read the WP article. I think that there is a communications disconnect between the Press and the Vatican. The Press is used to dealing with democracies–in a democracy, the chief public servant is personally responsible to the public for inexcusable failures. The same principle does not hold for the Vatican: cardinals representing the Holy Father answered the questions of journalists, on the whole, in a sincere and logical manner. But the Press, on the whole, ignored these overtures and demanded a response from our Holy Father, who is not some bellhop who prances down the Spanish steps to speak to yuppie journalists whenever they arrive.
Like it or not, the Vatican works in a different manner than the rest of the world; this doesn’t mean it is anachronistic, only different, and democracies hate difference. The modern world doesn’t understand celibacy, it does not understand the spiritual monarchy and its electorate, it doesn’t understand eternity, and it doesn’t understand the Magisterium. Regardless, it will find some respect for it, or it should go ahead and learn a thing or two about what the world was like before St. Peter.

And thank you, sincerely, for your encouragement.

 

[Lutheranteach]

It doesn’t.

 

[JohnSanzone5]

It doesn’t.

Well, that’s that, I suppose.

 

[SSTeacher]

Lutheranteach;6514913:

It doesn’t.

Well, that’s that, I suppose.

Q.E.D.

Conclusively,
Mick

 

[AngelaB39]

Most mainstream media seems to have a problem with Catholics and they DELIGHT in exposing sex abuse scandals and anything that makes the Church looks bad. Mind you, I wish the Church would do more to protect children and make it clear to clergy that the Church has zero tolerance for abuse. However, just because the Church has some scandals every now and then should not make it a constant media target for ridicule. Maybe the MSM should focus some attention on Islamic (or other religions) atrocities, of which there are many. Hum.

I agree that because the Church opposes homosexuality and abortion, it continually ticks off liberally bent media. One of the things I love about the Church is that it does not bend to social pressure. American culture has become so liberalized that a lot of what the Church condemns as sinful is considered by American popular culture to be normal and even correct behaviors. In other words, to them we’re just a bunch of right-wing homophobic lemmings who would jump off a cliff if the Pope told us to.

My advice: ignore the AP, MSNBC, etc. Lower their ratings by not patronizing them.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I was watching a show yesterday in EWTN and they spoked about this

New York Times and AP, the source of the news against the Pope, and the mass media in some parts in the world only copy the “information” provided by these two, so they spread the allegations

Blessings!!!

 

[JohnSanzone5]

I was watching a show yesterday in EWTN and they spoked about this

New York Times and AP, the source of the news against the Pope, and the mass media in some parts in the world only copy the “information” provided by these two, so they spread the allegations

Blessings!!!

I wonder, though: can these people actually break us?

I am of the opinion that the Lord will protect His Church, and that if we are broken it is attributable to the abuses that we permitted in our midst.

But still, the scandal at this stage seems–although not isolated–at least within the bounds of sanity… i.e., some aberrant sexualities most exist within a given population, it is only a matter of time before something despicable happens, and then their bishops (men who are trained and formed to be vicars of Christ) unsurprisingly handle the case indelicately… nothing unheard of, all in all.

But the AP and NYT takes a single case, and rephrases it 30-40 times. Literally spawning articles. Given how much airtime they gave the ‘Wisconsin’, I thought there were a 100 different priests molesting hundreds of thousands of children. Goes and speaks with the victim, and prints headlines giving a verbatum account of the victim’s sentence for the Church: ‘Smash the Papacy’, ‘Sell the Church’, ‘Dissolve the Presbyterate’ and other madness. As though this obviously biased statement were Supreme authority itself.

Is it possible for them to break us this way?

 

[sedonaman]

… Mind you, I wish the Church would do more to protect children and make it clear to clergy that the Church has zero tolerance for abuse.

It is. All employees and volunteers must take some training to ensure a safe environment for children, for example safeenvironmenttraining.org/index.php.

However, just because the Church has some scandals every now and then should not make it a constant media target for ridicule. Maybe the MSM should focus some attention on Islamic (or other religions) atrocities, of which there are many. Hum.

When was the last time you read an article in the “mainstream” media about child sex abuse in public schools? According to Dr. William Donohue catholicleague.org, it’s worse than in the Catholic Church. Public teachers unions have fought tooth and nail to prevent their members’ inclusion in laws targeting sex abuse by teachers catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1829.

… One of the things I love about the Church is that it does not bend to social pressure.

American culture has become so liberalized that a lot of what the Church condemns as sinful is considered by American popular culture to be normal and even correct behaviors. In other words, to them we’re just a bunch of right-wing homophobic lemmings who would jump off a cliff if the Pope told us to.

Another

My advice: ignore the AP, MSNBC, etc. Lower their ratings by not patronizing them.

Another

IMHO, the media hates the Church because the Church will not validate immoral behavior that the media champions. The media promotes “cultural Leninism” which makes it so far to the Left that “mainstream” is a misnomer; it should be called “Leftstream”.

 

[Sonny1954]

I don’t know that the Associated Press hates all of us Catholics. They’ve never said an unkind world about me; nor, I suspect, about you. However, Catholic clerics who hold themselves up before the world as role models that everyone should follow are just begging for a closer scrutiny as well as to be held to higher standards. So such persons had better be sure they appear as pure as “Caesar’s wife.”

More broadly, I sense some creeping paranoia about “everyone is out to get The Church” and, more disturbingly “this happens in other environments, too!” It reminds me very much of the Nixon crowd during Watergate. Nixon whined that everyone was out to get him and that everyone does it. I guess the fact that he was guilty as sin had nothing to do with it.

The best plan would be to come clean to everything. From the Pope on down taking personal responsibility for whatever happened. Emdure the inevitable “hits”, and it will eventually pass. That’s a hard and painful process. But it’s better than all of this dodging and covering up.