The media is alternately ecstatic and apoplectic over Pope Benedict’s choice for the city of Angels. Several news outlets, notably the LA Times, have already written several articles about what to expect from Archbishop Gomez and have even tried to send thinly-veiled warnings. But in most of the coverage, the media makes the same mistake that it always makes when it tries to cover religion like politics. They attempt to view all matters through the lens of politics and feel compelled to attempt to classify everything in terms of the modern political definitions of ”˜progressive’ or ”˜conservative.’…
They are perplexed. How can a Bishop be ”˜orthodox’””which in the mind of the media means ”˜conservative’ and uncaring””and still dedicated to the poor and the defenseless?
A one word answer: Catholic. What the media consistently does not get is that ”˜orthodoxy’ in a truly Catholic sense entails love for all the teachings of Jesus, as handed down through the Church including the command to love.
Right on. That misleading stereotype, where theological conservatives are assumed to be politically conservative across the board, is so telling. Pat Archbold’s complaint reminds me of the marvelous journal [b]First Things[/b] founded by the late, great Richard John Neuhaus, who expressed the same key point about there being more important things than politics when he started the monthly 20 years ago. In his very first editorial, Fr. Neuhaus declared that the magazine would be about Religion and Public Life, but that while it would include coverage of “first things” in the sense of primary principles in the realm of public life, one of the points of the title was to be a constant reminder that there are more important things than politics, and that even public life includes much more than politics.
David Handy+
Excellent article. Thanks for passing it along. Whenever I read articles about how inept coverage of religion is in the media I find myself wondering: Is coverage in the media of international affairs as inept?? Is coverage of politics as inept?? Is coverage of medicine and science as inept?? The only area that the media seems to cover with some competence is Sports.
#2 — That is a conclusion I reached long ago. That conclusion is confirmed by my assessment of most coverage of legal issues (as a lawyer, I can tell when a reporter gets basic procedural stuff wrong, even if I know nothing about the details of the case).
One problem, too many in the business are journalism school grads, which means they know absolutely nothing about the subjects they are sent to cover.
And yes, the best writing in almost any paper is in the sports section, probably because the writers there care about their subject. I suspect most reporters covering religion care even less than they know.