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.
Of course it helps when the the reporter has the background to understand the issue. Julia Duin at the Times is a TSM alum., who was and I believe still is a thourougly orthodox and commited follower of Christ.
[url=http://rericsawyer.wordpress.com]R. Eric Sawyer[/url]
The WP is less keen on facts and more keen on slant.
They feel it is important for their readers to get the correct (WP) slant without thinking too much about the facts. They realize that their readers are some of the busiest and most important people on earth and haven’t a great deal of time to analyze facts. They feel their readers are paying them not for a bunch of dreary facts, rather for immediate access to the correct slant. That tedious journalistic approach of the NYTs or even the WTs to totally uncalled for in Washington.
(Be sure to check the math in any WP story containing math. It is never correct but usually funny as heck.)
When Muslims attacked Christians in Nigeria after someone made a tasteless comment about Mohammed in connection with a beauty pageant, the Washington Times distinguished itself by referring to . . . “Christian-Muslim rioting.”
During the 1990s, the Post covered a pro-choice rally on its front page. A month later, it remitted an even larger pro-life rally to page 1 of the Metro section.