The article entitled “S.C. Episcopal Diocese releases property claim” fails on several levels. It manages to be credulous and one-sided. It does not examine the veracity of claims put forward by one party in the dispute, and neglects to mention the opposing arguments. It lacks context while the narrative arc of the story is so slanted as to make it appear to be a press release. Let me be clear that I am not commenting on the issue being reported in this story….
Bishop Mark Lawrence speaks, but his words are interspersed with the reporter’s opinion as to the meaning of the facts and law so as to leave the impression the bishop is a bit of a crank and that he and the diocese are the aggressors. This may be the view of one party, but it is far from being settled as fact….
Very thankful that the above post accurately names and offers an appropriate critique of the journalistic problems of the Adam Parker article. I suppose that if I were in harmony with the antagonists that I might be grateful for the propaganda value of the article, but, finally, it seems that by erring in this one area, the newspaper runs the very real risk of discrediting itself entirely.
George Conger is a treasure!