It's easy to dish on Life Site , as they're the masters of this type of reporting, and because they're brash and successful (and often over the top) But completely discounting them and other non-traditional Catholic media is equally imprudent. Even the story you use to illustrate your point, exposes at it's core, a foolish, irreverent misuse of the sanctuary involved and grossly irresponsible decisions by the clergy involved.
It's easy to point at over the top reporting, but that risks ignoring the real issues usually simmering underneath. Pope Francis is responsible for a lot of the growth of critical reporting, as he intentionally or accidentally created a broad swath of controversy throughout his papacy, the wreckage of which is left for Leo to sort out.
The real reason there's sensationalized Catholic media? There's a lot of James Martin's, Marko Rupnik's, Cardinal Cupich's (and the clergy approving this clown act) that provide fodder for the mill.
"Don't kill the messenger " - even if they're sensational.
I’m a veteran in this industry. I’ve seen this at work. Would you say selective editing of footage to change the real narrative is unethical? What about fake quotes? What about fake “insiders” that don’t exist? This happens in a lot of independent media. “Pope Francis is responsible…” is the fruit of that programming. No one is responsible for unethical reporting except for the media outlets that drive it.
I said "Pope Francis is responsible for...... critical reporting" because of his often careless speech. That is a fact. Have you forgotten the mentions of "fa&&otry in the seminaries" and similar gems?
Critical reporting is not the same as unethical reporting (which nobody is defending)
No straw man. “This is a fact” it’s actually your opinion. The con men of Catholic media were working their craft before Francis pontificate. That’s the fact. I’ve been there, and you’re “just” a consumer. You can take an actual insider’s advice or you can pass on it.
Again you incorrectly equate criticism with "con men" and unethical reporting. Nobody is defending the latter. I defend the former.
I have no insight on your bona fides, but I'd not be so dismissive of other's observations of the church (which may well be formed over a notably longer period than yours).
Life Site exaggerates? Yes ... and the sun rises in the east.
There are bad actors in the Church? Yes, and the sun needs to shine on them.
I agree; and besides, I wonder what these news sites would say when confronted with Genesis 9:18-27 (which is the story of how Shem and Japheth responded to scandal better than Ham did, and the consequences thereof).
It's easy to dish on Life Site , as they're the masters of this type of reporting, and because they're brash and successful (and often over the top) But completely discounting them and other non-traditional Catholic media is equally imprudent. Even the story you use to illustrate your point, exposes at it's core, a foolish, irreverent misuse of the sanctuary involved and grossly irresponsible decisions by the clergy involved.
It's easy to point at over the top reporting, but that risks ignoring the real issues usually simmering underneath. Pope Francis is responsible for a lot of the growth of critical reporting, as he intentionally or accidentally created a broad swath of controversy throughout his papacy, the wreckage of which is left for Leo to sort out.
The real reason there's sensationalized Catholic media? There's a lot of James Martin's, Marko Rupnik's, Cardinal Cupich's (and the clergy approving this clown act) that provide fodder for the mill.
"Don't kill the messenger " - even if they're sensational.
Pay attention to the message.
I’m a veteran in this industry. I’ve seen this at work. Would you say selective editing of footage to change the real narrative is unethical? What about fake quotes? What about fake “insiders” that don’t exist? This happens in a lot of independent media. “Pope Francis is responsible…” is the fruit of that programming. No one is responsible for unethical reporting except for the media outlets that drive it.
You're creating a straw man.
I said "Pope Francis is responsible for...... critical reporting" because of his often careless speech. That is a fact. Have you forgotten the mentions of "fa&&otry in the seminaries" and similar gems?
Critical reporting is not the same as unethical reporting (which nobody is defending)
No straw man. “This is a fact” it’s actually your opinion. The con men of Catholic media were working their craft before Francis pontificate. That’s the fact. I’ve been there, and you’re “just” a consumer. You can take an actual insider’s advice or you can pass on it.
Again you incorrectly equate criticism with "con men" and unethical reporting. Nobody is defending the latter. I defend the former.
I have no insight on your bona fides, but I'd not be so dismissive of other's observations of the church (which may well be formed over a notably longer period than yours).
Life Site exaggerates? Yes ... and the sun rises in the east.
There are bad actors in the Church? Yes, and the sun needs to shine on them.
I agree; and besides, I wonder what these news sites would say when confronted with Genesis 9:18-27 (which is the story of how Shem and Japheth responded to scandal better than Ham did, and the consequences thereof).