The Press and Religion: A Case Study

Right on time: A Wall Street Journal book review claiming that the press is hostile to, and ignorant of, religion.

Among the evidence offered: Pope John Paul was characterized in “decidedly less flattering terms” as “disciplinarian,” “authoritarian,” and even “monarchical.” Were such epithets clearly mistaken? And why are they deemed disrespectful? I wish more principles and teachers were “disciplinarian” and “authoritarian.” Authority is the whole point of the Papacy, I thought.

In any case, anyone who argues that John Paul was not overwhelmingly treated as a celebrity and source of moral rectitude has a religion offense-meter calibrated to truly paranoid levels.

Rocky Mountain News editor Vincent Carroll concludes his review of Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion thus:  “Many journalists, it would seem, equate modernity with secularism.”

Let’s compare a Sunday in, say, 1493 Paris spent at the cathedral or in the lord’s private chapel with one in 2008 Akron, filled with a trip to the mall for the latest Ipod, an Ohio State game on TV, children’s soccer practice, oh, and yes, also maybe a trip to church. Many journalists, it would seem, are merely witness to history.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Press and Religion: A Case Study

  1. Emily says:

    Maybe you’re talking about a basketball game, but college football is generally only played on Saturdays.

    And you’re talking about Buckeye fans, so that’s hardly non-religious. (for the humor-impaired, I know it’s a state school…)

  2. Heather Mac Donald says:

    Oh,dear. I stand corrected. Does the NFL have more clout than college football? I presume Sunday is prime time.

  3. A-Bax says:

    The NFL rules the airwaves!!! Not only is college football relegated to Saturdays, the NFL encroaches on their turf by broadcasting Saturday night games late in the season (now), and Saturday “day” games during the playoffs (January…though the college *toilet* bowl games are usually wrapped up by then).

    Conversely, college football doesn’t DARE broadcast on Sundays, for fear of invoking divine wrath (plus, no one would watch.)

    The NFL is what’s up, and college ball is a sad, lowly substitute. College football doesn’t even have a playoff system (something our Dear Leader has voiced concern about). The teams play each other haphazardly during the regular season, and then people just sort of “decide” who’s better than who, with subjective rankings. (They use computers in an attempt to disguise the subjectivity of the ranking system, but it’s basically just bs.)

    The good people of Ohio may have reason to be more enthused about Ohio State than their NFL teams though, as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns are putrid beyond reckoning.

    All I’m saying is….college football is a joke. 🙂

  4. Polichinello says:

    Were such epithets clearly mistaken? And why are they deemed disrespectful? I wish more principles and teachers were “disciplinarian” and “authoritarian.”

    It depends on the context of the article. When you’re talking about issues like “gay marriage” or abortion, terms with negative connotations spring forth. Words like “authoritarian” or “disciplinarian” can imply “hidebound” or “atavisitic” or “blindly reactionary”, which what is often meant. When the topic is illegal immigration or aid to the poor, a “strange new respect” emerges, and terms like “compassionate”, “welcoming” show up to aid Mother Church.

  5. J. says:

    Catholic-bashing may be motivated as much by politics as it is by “philosophy” or Darwinism, etc. The late Pope in fact opposed the Iraqi War effort and supported some fairly leftist causes in Latin America and elsewhere. By attacking or mocking the Pope and catholicism (as Hitchens and Harris do regularly), conservative neo-atheists then “kill two birds with one stone” in effect: they can mock the catholic doctrine (miracles, the mass, clerical celibacy, etc), and thus undermine the catholic apologetics or ethical viewpoints. Those issues are separate in a sense: that someone attends mass does not mean he can’t do calculus, or put forth an cogent argument for putting the Bush Administration on trial. Which is to say, rational, non-nihilistic secularists–and a secular role model like Master Hume does not lack a few nihilistic edges– would do well to consider the ethical aspects of catholicism (and all monotheistic sects) apart from the ritual.

Comments are closed.