Religious Talk on TV: Stepping over the line?

[mattclearing]

I was watching the CBS Early Show on Popavision this morning and heard Hannah Storm, former DC 101 dj, say something to the effect of,

"This is not a somber occasion, but it's really festive...a celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ."

This is from someone who reports the news every day. Does this strike anyone else as stepping over the line into forcing religion on people?

I know the Pope's death is a newsworthy event, and half of the leadership of the world is there. The coverage, while a bit much, is understandable.

What's not understandable, though, is the interspersing of biblical events and language into what is ostensibly supposed to be a news report.

I barely watch the news these days, prefering to get my news from the Internets.

Has anyone else noticed instances where supposedly neutral reporters started interjecting Christian happy talk into their reports?

[bryant69]

1. Well I don't know

I mean that is what many christians and catholics believe about funerals - excluding a Christian understanding of Resurrection strips the funeral of its context a little bit - although I will say that they were going to drop that in more naturally with a Christian Funeral than with another funeral. I wonder what the coverage of the Dalai Lama's death will be like.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mattclearing]

4. That is a great question.

I wonder what the Dalai Lama coverage will be like too.

I'm willing to bet it is a non-event, despite a healthy showing from the American entertainment community and probably a host of world dignitaries.

It certainly won't be a week of 24-7 coverage.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. The Dalai Lama's death

He's actually fairly popular.

An interesting thing to note is that the Tibetan Buddhist order(s) are as strict on priestly celibacy as is the Catholic Church. However, they also have non-priestly "ministries" in which the faithful can marry.

I'm sure that ol' Gyatso Tenzin (a.k.a. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet) will get a fair amount of media coverage. If anything, he has been even more active than Karol Wojtyla in social issues, speaking out for the rights of gay people, as well. (Sexual issues were JP2's weak point -- DL14 has no such trouble.)

Although I am not a Tibetan Buddhist, I would encourage anyone with interest to read his writings. He is completely fluent in English, and is a gifted writer -- in fact, I would recommend his writing as a model for clear, "intimate", descriptive prose. It's some of the best spiritual writing I've ever read, and many of his works will become classics of literature and philosophy alike.

He's 70 now, but in excellent health, so his death could be immanent, or could be 25 years away. The funeral is likely to take place in Dharmasala, India, which is Tibet's capitol-in-exile.

--p!

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Depends on the context

If Hannah Storm was talking from the point of view of a Catholic (or at least a Christian), it's entirely appropriate.

It's fine to speak within the context of a story if it's clearly noted. It's not fine to do so if it's an "objective journalist" covering a news event. Unfortunately, only the excesses of "New Journalism" have made it into the popular media, and none of the insights.

--p!

[mattclearing]

5. I agree on your new journalism comment.

I think it's inappropriate though, especially considering that a sizable portion of the home viewing audience disputes the Resurrection's validity, if not as a theological concept, certainly as a news event.

[Cuban_Liberal]

3. Who decides where 'the line' is?

Answer that, and you can answer your own question.

[mattclearing]

7. Journalists, at minimum, are supposed to be objective reporters of events.

Generally that means not inserting themselves or their biases into the event they are covering.

Of course, that has evolved over the past forty years into new journalism, where the reporter becomes more of a part of the story, with the most notable case being Hunter Thompson.

Of course, Hannah Storm ain't Hunter Thompson, and I don't expect any mind-blowing insights into the American situation from her.

I also don't expect a serious theological discussion.

In fact, all I really expect is good hair and a sunny attitude.

[KharmaTrain]

6. I Agree...We're Being "Taught"

Watching the CNNServative the other day, I kept noting words like "Jesus taught us" and "Holy Father" and so on...things that I found both highly religious in nature, and honestly, offensive. Being born Jewish and one who keeps his faith and beliefs to himself, I don't need a Corporate media outlet, that I feel represents all that is immoral and wrong in this country attempting to preach to me. Click!

I was remembering back on the coverage of both Papal funerals in 1978...before CNNServative and cable news...and remembered the coverage as being more of a historical nature than a religious one. The pope's relevance to all Americans was covered at that time where we're being "treated" to "teachings and preaching" that I personally don't believe in and find wrong to assume we all agree/believe in this. It's fine if I were to hear "Catholics believe" or "the pope advocated" or other language that seperates what is doctrine and what is history.

Personally, I have no feelings about this pope other than I consider him instrumental (not Raygun) in bringing down the Soviet system, but to consider him "Great" or some monumental figure in the past 26 years of my life is a joke. Let's get some balance and perspective here. But then this is corporate media, and they smell Catholic dollars, just like they smelled the Fundie ones during the Schaivo circus.

[mattclearing]

11. Exactly what I am talking about.

This kind of language excludes viewers who are not in the club and treats them like heathens.

It takes what is undoubtedly an important news event and forces spiritual significance on those for whom that significance may or may not resonate.

I keep hearing that the Pope was instrumental in defeating the Soviets. I dispute that. I never saw him on his holy chariot fighting in Vietnam. He didn't swoop down from the heavens to defuse the Cuban missile crisis. He didn't smite the Berlin Wall.

I don't get it.

[KharmaTrain]

22. Don't Discount His Work With Solidarity

No John Paul didn't end Vietnam...but let's see where he fit into the picture at the time...and I'm willing to give him FAR more credit than Raygun.

Straight up, the Soviet system collapsed on its own largess...but it had some help along the way, and one of those was Solidarity...the first union/populist movement the Soviets couldn't squash, and it was due to the Roman Catholic church the union first organized and then survived. Churches were used for secret meetings in the initial stages and later priests and clerics created a communications network that subverted the government's attempts at cracking down during several periods of Martial law that was declared in Poland. I'd suggest you read back on this movement and you'll see a strong Catholic Church involvement. Also note how Solidarity really came to the front around 1979, a year after John Paul had been selected and immediately following his first visit to that country.

At the time, I worked with a Polish radio show. Many of these people were ex-pats from pre-WWII and immediately thereafter. They raised tons of money that went to support both the church and solidarity and John Paul's name was attached to virtually everything. While he didn't mount a steed and go riding into Red Square, he sure stood as a symbol that united Poles to take control of their country and also assisted in the various groups, like Havel in Czechoslovakia and the moderates in Hungary (who were the first to open their borders that led to the 1989 collapse).

Also, I found the Pope's 1998 visit to Cuba to be very important as well. Unfortunate our corporate media was absorbed with Monicagate, but not only did he dialogue with this regime (as we should have decades ago), but also created a little breathing room for freedom of speech and thought in that country by forcing Castro to recognize the power of the Catholic and other churches in that country.

If you don't get it...the place you might want to start is a library.

[mattclearing]

65. Thanks for this.

I was being somewhat glib before, but this helps illuminate the Pope's contribution.

[zanne]

12. Thank you, KharmaTrain!

See my post further down this thread.

[etherealtruth]

9. If the "government" (or should I say when they) ...

do this it IS crossing the line and is offensive. When private citizens express their "take" on what's going on, I don't think so.
When they (the media0 are spewing something I can't palate (think the Schiavo circus and so much else) it ticks me off, but my choice is to turn it off----and write to complain about their programming.

[mattclearing]

15. To the extent that our media is manipulated by the government

I believe that is a real concern. The fact that it seems to generally be done secretly through Operation Mockingbird-style covert means does not help.

It would be one thing if the government media had a warning label on it, saying, "This is the news George Bush and his media baron friends want you to hear," but we are trained to believe that the corporate media is independent, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Remember when Vladimir Putin said that Bush had Dan Rather fired, and the right wing all had a laugh at his ignorance of the American media and how it works? Hello? Vladimir Putin is a former KGB administrator. He knows EXACTLY how our media works. I'd take his word over Matt Drudge's anyday.

[etherealtruth]

27. In this case we are talking about 1/4 of the US population...

1/6 of the human population-----so, agree or disagree with the pope, it IS significant. Would I mind if this coverage were of a significant in an other religion----------not at all. The problem you state is at that point, though, the US media would NOT cover it like they are this.

I fully agree with your assertion, but because of the magnitude of those having an interest in the pope I don't think this is an example.

I keep going back to the Schiavo fiasco, this woman's situation was tragic, but not news worthy-----the poor (insane) behavior of the members of our government was. I think the MSM portrayed the circus freak supporters as reflective of the population, clearly it was not, in order to normalize the crazed behavior of RW politicians.

[zanne]

10. What do Jewish DU'ers think?

I've been wondering about this for a long time, but hesitated to bring it up, because sometimes I can be a little too "blunt". So here it is; Doesn't all this talk about Jesus being the only path so salvation piss you off? I'm not religious but I was raised Catholic so I've experienced the "My God is better that your God" thing.

[KharmaTrain]

26. I'm Jewish...

Spiritually, I'm a NOTA...None Of The Above, but I a strongly respect and honor the culture of Judiasm and the fights and struggles of my past relatives...many who lived lifetimes of persecution based on their beliefs.

99% of the time I tune the religious chatter out. From where I come from the New Testament is nothing but a best seller and some great story telling, but nothing more. Citing chapters and verses mean nothing...especially since I know how contradictory the bible is...and how these passages are almost always used out of context to fit the agenda of the speaker.

No, the Jesus talk doesn't affect me at all...doesn't piss me off, either since I tune it out. It's all fiction to me...kinda like listening to a bunch of Star Trek fans talking...they're all excited and think it's all real.

Recently I heard Roy Moore stumble through an interview where he was asked if the "Christian God" is the same as the "Moslem God" or the "Hindu God" and so on. He hemmed and hawwed and then admitted his god wasn't the same as theirs. I thought to myself, doesn't that shoot to hell the whole concept of monotheism? Maybe I'm sitting to far out of the box not see this one for all the hypocrisies it incorporates.

Living in the largest Catholic city in the country, Chicago, I've grown up with Irish, Polish, German and other Catholics...and have always felt they treated their religion as I treated mine. So, I don't mind when a father comes out and does his "god bless yous" on the airwaves...that's what they do...but when the anchors, talking heads and "reporters" join in, then that's what pisses me off.

[Danmel]

59. It is a bit heavy handed, but I'm not surprised

Of course, the Pope himself specifically denounced the idea that Jews aren't going to heaven. He said that G-d still has a covenant with the Jewish people and that Jews are Christians elder brothers. So,the thing is, as a Jew, I like this Pope. If I were Catholic, I'd probably disagree with him on a lot of major issues and have a big problem with him. (Of course, I disagree with the Catholic Church's position on abortion, birth control, homosexuality, ordination of women and marriage for the clergy., but I'm not Catholic so I feel I don't really have standing to say anything about that)

As far as all the heavy handed religion lately, yeah it makes me nervous. I don't like being marginalized and since we are such a small minority (and possibly because I'm the daughter of an Auschwitz survivor) their threatening tone makes me a bit uneasy.

That said, I am comfortable in my faith and not at all concerned about what happens to me after I shuffle off my mortal coil. In fact, it would be kinda funny if all these holier than thous get up there and there is only the one G-d, the G-d of Abraham, whose covenant with the Jews is the true covenant,wouldn't it?????

[Behind the Aegis]

77. My thoughts

The talk about Jesus being the only path to salvation doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is when it is forced on us by the government and media. I don't like to see public officials trying to "out holy" each other. I dislike that the Democrats are now playing the "religion card." I dislike that religion is used to create law or defend bigotry. I dislike the fact that disagreements with Christianity is called "bashing." I dislike when people do disagree with Christan believes, that one the first things they say is, "If this was said about Jews it would be locked." I dislike that some Christians feel they need to pray "for me." I dislike that public officials are, more often than not, sworn in on a Bible, instead of the Constitution. And I dislike that the only "moral" people have to have some type of "Judeo-Christian" belief system.

I have others. Thanks for asking! :)

[Auntie Bush]

13. I feel like TV has been 24/7 church services pushing religion.

It's one thing to report what is happening regarding news about the funeral and whats going on in Rome and who's there etc. But why does it have to be 24/7? Why do we have to listen to people pushing their religion on everyone else? Isn't there any other news in the world?
However I'd rather listen to Pope news than the Michael Jackson case.
Thanks to all this stuff I've gotten to read more and take my dog for longer walks.

[mattclearing]

16. It's sad though, because people who don't have the Internet or

like to read newspapers have NO IDEA what is going on in the world.

[Bridget Burke]

14. If the comments start showing up in coverage of non-religious events...

I'll begin to be worried.

[Discord]

31. Hmmm. like something like... I dunno.. The Schiavo case???

Wasn't anything remotely religious about that until the parents and congress brought it into it.

[The White Tree]

17. The Catholic Mass is a Celebration of the Resurrection of Christ

This funeral was a Catholic Mass as well, complete with communion.

In that context, based on the quote you gave, I think it qualifies as reporting.

I did not hear her comments, but other commentators on stations that I watched (including one who was a Catholic Priest) made similar comments. They seemed to me to be in context of describing the ceremony taking place and it's meaning to Catholics. I didn't really interpret them as forcing religion on anyone except in the honest attempt by the commentator to provide information about the Catholic Faith.

As an example of this, the newscast I watched featured people making comments during parts of the ceremony that, to Catholics, are very solemn, where silence is observed. It would seem kind of ironic to do this if the effort on the part of the reporter was to proselytize for the religion.

[mattclearing]

19. Yeah, I am familiar with all of that.

It's one thing when a religious analyst discusses the Resurrection.

I think it's something else when someone who reports Supreme Court rulings and political goings-on discusses it.

It places them in the realm of legitimizing religious dogma as fact, not faith.

That makes me uncomfortable.

[Discord]

34. true, but their audiance is comprised of many more people

than just Catholics. Theres reporting, and then theres going off the deep end. They fell off the deep end during the TS case and are just swimming further out. They need to simply report the newsworthy portions of the funeral, as news. And spend the rest of the day reporting real news. Plenty of it out there.

[mtnsnake]

18. Hopefully this will be the peak of the religious fervor, & after this

people in general will now start to get a little fed up with the overconsumption of religion being force fed down our throats every day for the last 5 years. I'm not saying that the Pope doesn't deserve a huge outpouring of respect, but the amount of coverage we've gotten in the last month is ridiculous, AFAIC.

Everything runs in cycles and this will be no different. This country has gone from indifferent to pious to sacrilegious and back again. I'm hoping that we're at the peak of all this forced religious pitch that's going on. I think tomorrow holds a better time for us when religion returns to its rightful place in this country....where it returns to something that's between sincere followers and their churches and stays out of the news, the schools, & the government. I'm optimistically looking ahead.

[mattclearing]

20. Not likely.

There is a coordinated effort to get Christ into our households.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7235393?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7

[Bridget Burke]

28. Sorry, wrong group.

The Dominionists & Christian Reconstructionists covered in Rolling Stone are quite anti-Catholic.

Nobody's forcing anybody to watch anything.

[mattclearing]

32. I'm not equating them.

I'm just saying that there are influential people who want the news to talk about God.

[Discord]

35. Wrong. Its on public national news stations.

many people cant or dont use the internet... where are they supposed to get their news from when the news stations are reporting nothing but a 24/7 Pope-a-thon.

Apples and Oranges.

[mtnsnake]

40. All I'm saying is that there comes a time when enough is enough, and

that time could be just around the corner.

Have you (not you in particular) ever put up with something for a long period of time without really wondering why....and then all of a sudden, BANG, you've had enough of it without even having to think about it. For example, you might have some "friend" who's been a real pain in the ass and drives you nuts but you've "put up" with him because he's a friend. Then, all of a sudden after years of putting up, you've had enough. You've been pushed beyone the point of no return. You don't even have to think about it...you're finished with that friend and it's actually refreshing. In retrospect, you wonder what you ever really had in common.

I'm hopeful that this is the same thing that's going to happen in this country. Without really thinking about it or knowing why, people are all of a sudden going to be pushed beyone the point of no return with all the excessive amounts of religion being forced down our throats. Then things will quiet down, and religion can return to its rightful place, a place where it's kept as something that's a little more sincere and kept in private...and OUT of the public spotlight.

Better days ahead.

[mattclearing]

67. here's to hoping.

:popcorn:

[checks-n-balances]

21. Speaking as a Christian Progressive, I think it WAS over the line

I personally believe that describing a funeral service as "a celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" may be GOOD THEOLOGY, but whether this is "old" or "new" journalism, for reporters to gratuitously throw in such phrases is inappropriate and BAD JOURNALISM. She could have rightly said something like "this is an amazing celebration of an amazing life" (meaning that of the late Pope) and that would've been very much within bounds. Had she been a roundtable discussion panelist or something with thime to explain something about theology that would have been something else altogether.

Maybe she was just caught up in the moment of such an occasion, and maybe was being pressured to make such statements. Not being a journalist myself, I'd say she needs to step back and do some self-analysis. If her standards aren't any higher than that, then any of us should rightly be able to take her place and probably do her job better than she can.

To summarize: unless I read misunderstood the context, it sounds like it was a gratuitous remark, which would not be considered professional by true journalistic standards.

(edited for grammar and typos)

[mattclearing]

61. Well, she is on the CBS Early Show.

One of her co-anchors is Leslie Moonves's wife. The show's standards are not that high...it's kinda like a shitty Today show.

I only watch it because I love the CBS local affiliate that leads into it here in DC.

[MsUSA]

23. That is why I watched it on C-SPAN, no talking heads.

[tx_dem41]

24. Stepping over WHAT line?

Constitutional? ....ummmmm..no.

Taste? Turn the TV off.

Other?????

[mattclearing]

33. Objectivity in Journalism, for one.

You say it's not a big deal now, but this kind of thing snowballs after awhile.

[tx_dem41]

48. Asking respectfully, can you point out where I said ...

..."it's not a big deal"?


I read the original post as meaning that some Constitutional line or legal or tastefulness line was being crossed. That's what I addressed in my response.

[mattclearing]

64. You didn't, but I got the impression you didn't think it was based on your

comment.

My concern is that our news media is presenting a religious slant in its coverage.

[Discord]

37. why should I? They have a duty to report NEWS.

Thats what they are there for. Sorry, but 24 hour a day Pope coverage is NOT news. Many people have no other access to national news but whats on TV. They are in dereliction of duty.

[tx_dem41]

49. They only have a duty to report the news within the relationship...

between news provider and news consumer. No other body should enter into this relationship. Its incumbent on the consumer to hold the news provider's feet to the fire either through negative feedback or not consuming that particular news source.

[Discord]

78. oh. yeahhhhhh. right. obviously you haven't been

paying much attention to the biasedness of the media for several years now? I'm sure they are itching to be accountable for it. I'm sure the millions of viewers that HAVE complained have really gotten the point across and they jumped right up to fix the problem. Oh, and if you know of another tv station thats carrying REAL news. Let the rest of us know... we'd love to find one.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Well, it is the Pope's funeral...

and this could well be considered background for the story.

If she advocated Christianity, that would be one thing, but explaining Catholic views on death seem appropriate. Now the non-Catholics know what the fuss is about.

Around here, when Rabbi Schneerson died, we got inundated with all sorts of Jewish lore and theology. I found it interesting and educational.

The Pope is a bigger story than Rabbi Schneerson.

[Bridget Burke]

29. The Pope's Catholic? Who knew?

Apparently, quite a few didn't.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. And a lot of them still don't.

[mattclearing]

36. I think she could have said, "Celebrating Mass"

and had the same effect. She went out of her way to say, "celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ."

It wasn't exposition...it was stated just like everyone accepts the Resurrection.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. She could have said a lot of things...

but for Catholics it IS about the Resurrection.

This is a story about Catholics.

Why do so many people have a problem with bringing up religion in a story about the Pope?

Ain't a movie star here, it's the spiritual leader of of a couple of hundred million people.

[mattclearing]

43. Catholicism, and the millions who practice it, are beside the point imho.

If Hannah Storm said that the Raellians are preparing for the return of their visitors from another planet and stated it as fact, would it be of greater concern?

[The White Tree]

44. No it wouldn't

Where the Raellians preparing for the return of their visitors from another planet? I believe they were. So that is actually a statement of fact.

In the same manner, the Catholic mass, which in addition to a funeral this was, is first and foremost a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. So for a reporter to make the statement as you outlined in your post seems to me to be an actual statement of fact and of little concern.

Still I did not see the actual telecast you watched, so I cannot say for a fact that that was or wasn't the intent of the reporter. So you may very well be right in what you are saying. However, if she is a Catholic and a devotee of the Pope, I would forgive that kind of minor transgression at this time.

If on the other hand she was saying something like, "The one true way to God, etc." then yes I'd have a problem with it too.

Actually, what has been more annoying to me from a telecast perspective is how they keep referring to him as "This Pope". Like at this time there is anyone else we are going to be thinking about when they say Pope. But that's just my own little idiosyncrasy to deal with.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Huh?

The Raellians were waiting for the mothership. What would be the big deal mentioning it?

It's fundamental to the story. Just as the Resurrection is fundamental to the Pope's story.

Just because a lot of people don't believe in the Resurrection, are they supposed to ignore it?

Lighten up.

[mattclearing]

62. Just responding to decline your invite to lighten up.

Speaking as a journalism student, there is a real ethics issue, regardless of the theology of Catholicism.

Language is important. I don't want the news to pander to people who just want to hear their television mention Jesus for no apparent reason.

[TreasonousBastard]

69. This was pandering?

As a journalism student with such an intense interest in ethics, precisely how would you present the story of the Pope's funeral without "pandering" but still managing to get across the basics of what was going on there?

The Pope's funeral is a religious event, and explaining, or at least mentioning, fundamental religious concepts seems to be essential in properly reporting the story. Maybe you didn't like HOW it was mentioned, but it was still background and part of the story.

Would you report the death of the Dalai Lama without mentioning his reincarnation? Would you report the choosing of the new Lamas without mentioning how the priests decide which of the children are the reincarnated Lamas?

Why not follow this to its logical conclusion-- the Hadj has nothing to do with Allah, Passover has nothing to do with the flight from Egypt, St. Patrick's Day has nothing to do with an Irish monk, and Christmas and Easter have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.

Sanitize religion from even religious stories. Show those nasty fundagelicals we mean business!

My understanding of this part of journalistic ethics is that you not only don't add your personal biases to a story, you don't cut parts of the story because of your biases.

[mattclearing]

73. She could have said, "Mass."

Instead, it was a "celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ."

The one thing she forgot to mention was the newsworthy event...it wasn't just either of those two things (though it included both), but a funeral!

I'm not into sanitizing the news. I don't think religion shouldn't be discussed. I just think it should be discussed in context by qualified personnel.

If she were explaining the Catholic ritual for those that don't understand it, that would be one thing.

It seems to me like going out of her way to mention Jesus for no apparent reason. Like, people want us to talk about Jesus, so I'm going to mention Jesus, and not just Jesus, but his resurrection.

The context of the resurrection of Jesus in a news story, like it is a historical event just like Bush's re-election or the JFK assasination, is wrong.

People believe Jesus was resurrected. It is spiritual belief. Not a historical event. There are detailed rules for how facts are reported, and this statement broke them.

[Discord]

30. Yes, they stepped over a while ago. Now... its just getting

rediculous. All of a sudden every reporter is a licenced priest and spiritual advisor... fuck off and report some real news wouldja please...

[tinonedown]

41. What's it to you?

It's CBS, not the goverment. Having a problem with freedom of speech today are we or just Christianity? Either way, turn the channel if you are upset or better yet just turn off the TV. Use your free speech rights. You don't have to eliminate freedom of religion to do so.

[mattclearing]

50. I am using my free speech rights to point out shoddy journalism.

Freedom of religion extends to non-Catholics, last I checked.

And I'm not as convinced that CBS is entirely isolated from government influence as you are.

[tx_dem41]

52. I want them to be isolated from government influence...

..don't you?

[mattclearing]

57. Of course, but wanting it doesn't make it so. n/t

[tx_dem41]

58. So, since I just noticed that you're the OPer....

....do you agree that its a matter between the news provider and the news consumer, solely?

[mattclearing]

60. I agree that it probably should be.

The government regulates the airwaves, and gets a degree of say over what can and can't be broadcast.

I don't think they should be influencing the way language is used, as has happened in the past with several stories pertaining to White House initiatives, the most recent of which was the distinction between private accounts (normal language) and personal accounts (RNC language) in the Social Security debate.

But it's evident that government concerns are infiltrating the media, from Armstrong Williams to Jeff Gannon, while objective reporters like Ashleigh Banfield get pushed out.

[tx_dem41]

63. I think we agree on about 90% of the issue then.

Hey, why did I ever start this "argument"? :)

[MadHound]

42. Well, I have found this coverage a bit over the top

I remember that when JP I and P VI died, there wasn't this much coverage. But a number of factors have changed since then.

Back in '79 there was only three major networks, and while they did cover the high points of the passing, it wasn't 24/7. The networks were contractually obligated to put other programming on, so thus they were forced to limit their coverage. Now, with the advent of cable, we have entire channels that can devote their entire programming lineup to these type of events, and quite frankly, it is good, highly rated filler material for them. After all, you can only stretch the Michael Jackson trial so far.

However I do think that this is also deliberate propaganda on the part of these networks, at the behest of the government, playing the religion angle to the hilt. The past three weeks have been a non-stop Christian bonanza, what with the Schiavo circus and then the Pope's passing. This has gone waaay over the top, much more intense than previous such events like the Karen Ann Quinlan case, and previous Popes' funerals. Such spectacles have been made much easier since the consolidation of media outlets to literally a handful. Part of this intense coverage I'm sure is done at the behest of the government. After all, CIA agents were bragging about how easy and cheap it was to infiltrate and propagandize the media thirty years ago, think about how much they done since then. In addition, it seems that corporate America has agreed with Karl Marx's views on religion as an opiate for the masses, and are thus pushing it hard into the public eye at every excuse.

That said, these are private companies, and they are free to cover the news how they see fit. If you don't like such over the top coverage, then don't watch it. I find it amazing that so many people moan and groan about the programming on television, yet continue to contribute to the media's propaganda stranglehold on this country by going right on and watching. If you don't like what you're seeing, don't watch! Turn the channel, or better yet, turn the damn thing off. It was proven that long ago television is a propaganda tool. It puts viewers into a light hypnotic trance, thus making them more subseptible to believing the shit that is spewing from the box. I mean, I'm all in favor of once in a great while watching the BS simply in the spirit of "know thy enemy", but c'mon people, we all know that the shit is worthless and rots your brain. Turn the damn thing off, you'll feel much better. I rarely watch anything other than sports shows or documentaries, read a lot, and hardly ever watch the news on television, excepting local news and weather. And I haven't missed it one bit. Vote with your eyes and wallet, and in doing so, send a message to the media corporations that you want something more fair and balanced in their reporting. If enough people do so, they'll eventually listen as their bottom line suffers.

But to simply continue to watch while whining about the content is oxymoronic at best, and completely counterproductive. Turn the damn thing off, and send a message.

[mattclearing]

55. Can't agree enough.

I don't watch tv often, but I like to have tv news on in the morning when getting ready for work.

It helps me to understand what more conventional television viewers are exposed to, if nothing else.

But yes, the Schiavo thing and this Pope coverage do set off the alarm bells in my head.

Someone wants us to be thinking about God a great deal, and I doubt Viacom is the beginning and end of it.

[Beer Snob-50]

45. Much has been said about "religion being forced fed to the masses"

but this was all in context to the leader of what is considered one of the major religions of the world! Yes I am a Catholic and didn't agree with many of his pronouncements but still, he was a prominant figure in world history for the past 20+ years.

[mattclearing]

53. Yeah, I'm not denying that.

My post acknowledges the newsworthiness of the event. It's the unnecessary reference to "the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that bothers me.

[MollyStark]

47. "This is not a somber occasion, but it's really festive...a celebration of

That is stepping over the line. She was pimping for Jesus on TV, that is distasteful no matter where it comes from.
Christianity is not a pretty label for people to put on so everyone knows they belong to the club. It isn't the newest fad for all the Kool Kids.

[mattclearing]

51. And that was the impression that I got from it.

Going out of her way to say "Celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" when she could have said, "Mass" seems excessive to me.

[tx_dem41]

54. So what should be done about it? n/t

[LibDemAlways]

56. One of the cable channels - I'm thinking MSRNC -

had their talking heads reading little commentaries about the Pope that had been sent in by viewers. Some of them were borderline prayers, and one was definitely a prayer. It ended with "Amen." I thought it was over the top for a cable talking head to be reading prayers on air.

There was a fine line in all of this coverage between objectively reporting the event and pushing Catholic/Christian dogma, and I think the line was crossed more than once. (And I'm Catholic.)

[progressoid]

66. WOW - are DUers more tolerant or just hypocrites?

I'm amazed at the amount of people saying "just don't watch" or "change the channel".

Were DUers that tolerant of the media's coverage of the Reagan funeral and their exaggerated eulogies? Will you be as tolerant of the inevitable homages to Zell Miller when he croaks?

Probably the second biggest bitch on DU concerns the media. But suddenly it's OK to give them a pass. WOW.

[mattclearing]

68. You noticed that too? n/t

[progressoid]

71. Of course to bring up anthing contrary is blasphemous

And probably unAmerican.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. That's me-- tolerant to the core...

I didn't watch the Reagasm, I try to avoid any news of Michael Jackson or any other celebrity they aim their sights on, and generally dismiss hysterical coverage of much stuff that passes as "news."

But my attitude is still "just change the channel" unless they are lying.

Reagan's death was, after all, big news, even though I wasn't interested. Any President's death is big news, although the Reagasm did go a bit overboard.

The Pope's death is bigger news than Reagan's. The Pope may not have been the leader of a superpower with trillions in economic might and a massive military, but he was the spritual leader of millions and as such touched every country on the planet.

No, I'm not Catholic, and I'm not watching much of it, but I have no problem with the spectacle being there.

[mattclearing]

72. Like I said in the OP, it's not the spectacle that bothers me.

It's the way the news media seem to want to push Christianity on the viewer.

[progressoid]

75. 'Overboard' and 'spectacle' are key descriptors

Even if this weren't a spectacle, the media has made it one.

It's fitting that you mention Micheal Jackson. I think the media was beginning to feel the strain of that circus. With the Pope's death, they get bonus of a built in spectacle. But, which is the bigger spectacle, his death or the coverage of his death?

[MadHound]

74. More tolerant, no, nor hypocritical either

I simply see that there is nothing that I can currently do in order to correct our current media problems. I don't deny that the media is simply a mouthpiece for corporate America, but quite frankly, there is nothing I can do about it right now, except to keep myself as fully informed as possible, and passing my knowledge along to others as I see fit.

In addition, there are many many other things that need my attention, both personal and public, thus, adding something else like taking on corporate media will just overload me.

Quite frankly, at this point in time, the best option for me vis-a-vis the MSM is to turn it off.

Now if you want to talk practical solutions, there are none right now. Both the 'Pugs under Bush and the Dems under Clinton helped in pushing a propagandized media onto the public, and it isn't likely that they're going to try and reform it anytime soon. Thus, the only solution that I see is to remove the people, on both sides of the aisle, who are aiding and abetting the MSM. Until then very little can be done except ignore them and spread the truth far and wide. And gee, maybe if enough people turned them off, it will finally start squeezing them in the wallet enough that they will finally start doing their job.

[KamaAina]

76. Yup. After the tsunami, CBS ferreted out a Christian church

no mean feat in that part of the world, and did a story* on it that consisted basically of airing three or four minutes of its service.

As though the few Christian victims were somehow more dead than all those heathen Buddhists and Muslims. Criminetly. :puke: