Replies

Here's what I posted last Tuesday (quoting myself):

The MSM coverage of the Pope-selection process follows a predictable a script.

1. Dredge up, and re-air every abuse-scandal story — whether based on facts, innuendo, or pure fiction.

2. Interview every “dissident”, nominal “Catholic” they can; to promote the homosexual and “progressive” agenda. Drive home the message that the Church needs to reform, to “keep up with the times”.

3. For the local slant, run stories about the local Cardinals or Bishops, who are considered “front runners” for the job. If they are indeed “front runners”, find and report some “dirt” on them. If the local boys aren’t “front runners”, bloviate about how this proves that the Church is beyond hope.

4. Pull the usual airheads off the sports, fashion, or weather beats to produce vacuous reports about the horse-race, the rituals, and the pomp and circumstance. Make sure we all know more than we ever needed to know about smoke signals.

5. Avoid any substantive reporting — but, give the impression of reporting on substance by treating the selection of the Pope as just another political election. Use a lot of political buzz-words, such as “conservative” (bad), and “progressive” (good).

6. Once the Pope has been selected, round up the usual “dissidents” and “progressives” to tell us what a bad choice this was. (bolding added)

Here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2996167/posts

you mean like calling the last pope a nazi because he was forcibly dragged into the hitler jugend and volksturm at the tail end of the war when he was a teenager? when they were drafting boys as young as ten and men as old as eighty to fight the russian hordes.... almost none of the modern-day journ-o-lists have seen a day in uniform and have little to no idea what combat or the military are all about, save for some oliver stone or kubrick movie they saw on cable.