Posted on 09/21/2010 3:51:57 PM PDT by NYer
One of the biggest surprises of Pope Benedict's historic trip to the United Kingdom may be how few people realize that it was, in fact, historic.
Sunday night, I was chatting by phone with my father-in-law in Maryland. I told him I'd been busy with the papal coverage all weekend.
"Didn't seem like much happened," he said.
"Really?," I replied. "He was the first pope to visit the Church of England's Westminster Abbey. He stood there with the Archbishop of Canterbury, side by side, as they both pronounced the final blessing and made the sign of the cross together."
"He did that?" My father-in-law sounded genuinely surprised.
"He went to the hall where Thomas More was sentenced to death and delivered a speech about religion to the civil leaders of Great Britain."
"He did?"
"And he took part in his first beatification: Cardinal John Henry Newman, an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism."
I could almost hear him scratching his bald head. "How come nobody said anything about that?"
Now, my father-in-law is a pretty smart guy, and what you might consider an observant Catholic. He attends mass every morning. He keeps up on current events. Now retired from the FDA, he regularly checks in with the Washington Post, USA TODAY, MSNBC and CNN. But he was baffled that this stuff I was telling him wasn't on the nightly news.
"All we saw down here," he explained, "was that he met with sex abuse victims."
I started to wonder what sort of coverage the trip had received. After I hung up the phone, I searched through several newspaper websites. I clicked on the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe. Nothing, nothing, nothing. None of them mentioned on their home page the pope's just-completed trip.
When I got to work on Monday, I searched CNN Newsource, which provides newsfeeds to my show, "Currents," as well as to countless other news programs around the country. I found a grand total of one item, running about a minute long, slugged "Anti-Pope Demonstrations."
That was it.
Based on my conversation with my father-in-law, you could be forgiven for thinking that the pope made the trip just to meet with victims of sex abuse -- and that a lot of Britons were ticked off about it.
Now, I know: it's tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there's something sadder and less sinister at work: it's the economy, stupid. The religion beat, in most places, just doesn't exist anymore. (Ironic, considering that a recent report says it's something that people crave.) But it's one of the first things to be cut in a budget crunch. In television news, the days when CNN had a Delia Gallagher or ABC had a Peggy Wehmeyer are long gone. It's worse at newspapers, many of which are on life support, gasping for air. Truly historic moments, potentially earth-shifting events, like the pope's trip to the UK, are going under-reported, or un-reported, or mis-reported. They get coverage, but not necessarily from a regular reporter, who understands the nuances of the beat. As a result, they happen in a void, without any real context beyond the hot-button issues of sex or violence or protest. And isn't it sad: that seems to be all that we hear about religion -- any religion -- in the media these days.
Call me old school, but there's something wrong here.
If my father-in-law, a fairly well-informed guy in the pews, didn't know what he didn't know, I have to wonder: how many others in the pews are also being left in the dark?
And this is yet one more reason why one should turn off the mainstream media and tune in to EWTN for coverage of such events. Next papal stop - Spain in November. Heads up!
Very sad I had to search and search to see anything about this.
It was a real job.
Sad, very sad.
And I am not even a Catholic.
No, you were right the first time. Anti-christian bias in the media. If they can't attack the church, the church isn't news.
I keep saying, turn off the junk media. Find sources of information you trust, and turn the others off.
Kind of interesting visit ~ but don't they have treaties in Europe these days that allow this stuff?
We got my Great Grandfather a TV just to watch Queen Elizabeth's coronation.
The forces of uber secularists and anti Christians dominate the media.
Sad.
**Anti-christian bias in the media. If they can’t attack the church, the church isn’t news.**
You nailed it. And the anti-Catholic bias posters were also very quiet on FR over the weekend.
Hehehe
We had it all here.
Pope’s speeches
Historical background
live pictures and happenings
what the British people were doing
The Crowds
The Masses
Congratulations, FR crew!
Now to other readers, when something Catholic is not being covered in the lamestream media.......come to FR Religion Forum. We will cover it for you!
Blessings to all who did a stand-up job of covering this monumentally historical papal visit to England!
Like they say in media-land, “The only Good Catholic is a bad Catholic.”
We can no longer rely on the MSM for our news, they are worse than worthless, they are malicious.
LOL, yeah, it's tempting, in the same way it's tempting to blame the hammer for the broken thumb, or the rain for being wet, or the noonday sun for sweat. In other words it not only freaking obvious, it's true.
What's wrong here is therefore why a pro-Catholic writer is giving the media a pass for obviously not reporting the enormous significance of the Papal visit.
Lord Occam of Razor would respond that what you see, is what you're supposed to see - or not. Lord Occam would point out that the Catholic Church is well able to manage it's own press, thankyouverymuch.
So why would the Church want this minimization of reporting? How about precisely because this is such a big deal? In fact, if it got a lot of press, things could easily blow up between Britons and Rome - big, big time. So, the Pope does what he does, the media looks the other way, and then the Pope leaves.
But for historical purposes, the deed is done.
The writer of a related article concerning this event, posted on Free Republic as Paper on Pope's Visit: "This was the End of the British Empire" even alludes to this strategy in the article, when the author writes: Benedict XVIs speeches are worth reading several times; they often turn out to be more radical than they first appear. But one thing is for sure. Despite the unassuming courtesy of the Popes manner, he didnt give an inch.
Indeed he did not - and "unassuming" is exactly the way he wanted it.
That’s why I come here.
I forgot Father Z’s, Michael Barber’s and other’s commentaries...My omission.
The Other Face: Catholic Life under Elizabeth I by Philip Caraman
“...it’s tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there’s something sadder and less sinister at work: it’s the economy, stupid.”
Nope. It’s media bias.
“...it’s tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there’s something sadder and less sinister at work: it’s the economy, stupid.”
Nope. It’s media bias.
“...it’s tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there’s something sadder and less sinister at work: it’s the economy, stupid.”
Nope. It’s media bias.
Is EWTN going to cover the visit to Spain? I hope so.
They cover all Papal trips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.