Note the language that the Post used to describe the actual cause of all of this conflict. For the Post, this is all a matter of opinion on the Anglican right, which means that there is a national ”” note, not global ”” movement of churches upset about what “it believes to be an un-biblical liberal slant in the national church.” This is merely a matter of opinion on the right, you see.
Over at the Times, the emphasis is different. The Anglican wars are rooted in a “long-running dispute over biblical authority and sexuality.” In other words, this is not a problem being caused by an opinion, a mere matter of interpretation, on one side. There are facts here ”” a doctrinal dispute that exists. There are facts that can be quoted, there is non-judgmental language that can be used.
It’s a subtle thing, with the Post using language that suggests that the wars are being caused by a matter of opinion on the right. The Times, meanwhile, says that the conflict exists. Period.
Personally, I think it’s a good thing when newspapers stick to facts and, whenever possible, avoid using opinion language. I mean, who can deny that there is a conflict here over matters of doctrine linked to biblical authority and sexuality? Would anyone on the left deny that? The dispute is over who is right and who is wrong. But this split is being caused by a real conflict over doctrine. That’s a fact.