Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Compare and Contrast how the elite American media discounts facts that Catholic readers might be interested in.

I had noticed that the nuns were dropped from the stories I was reading. Subconsciously, I concluded that "well, I guess they weren't there."

//It could be as simple as this: Times editors may be convinced that their "urban," "liberal" or even "secular" readers don't want to read the religious details, especially since they would spotlight the role of religious convictions and identity in attacks of these kind. Editors at The Daily Mail may believe exactly the opposite, writing for very different readers.
Perhaps this is an issue of journalistic standards, with the Mail team being more comfortable quoting material from other sources, while the Times team wanted to stress its own reporting, mainly via political sources.
But what do you think Catholic readers are thinking, after reading these reports? What questions remain?
I can think of a few symbolic details. Was the priest literally killed in his liturgical vestments, the vestments in which he will be buried? Did he die trying to protect the Sacraments on the altar? Does his death make him, in the church's eyes, a martyr?
What damage was done to the church itself? Were there acts of iconoclasm? Did the attackers desecrate the altar with the priest's blood – an act that has taken place many times through the centuries – which would require (at least in Eastern church traditions) the church to be reconsecrated.
Would these kinds of details matter to many readers?
Just asking.//

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The horror, the horror of the persecution of the Catholics. Next they'll be hanging you from trees for whistling at protestant women. Of well, if only journalists at the New York Times could marry.

Who links to me?