In the above clip, two reporters explain why a drop in American casualties does not constitute news, while an increase in casualties does constitute news.
Is this a case of "If it bleeds, it leads" or a case of media bias–or both?
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
63 thoughts on “Not News?”
American reporters should report the drop in American Catholicism and the rise in Protestantism.
There is a reason for this.
Catholics refuse to live by the word of God,which is not a person but divinely inspired writing, given to the church[protestant] by Christ himself working primarily through the reformers.
An increase in American deaths is in line with their template and, therefore, must be trumpeted; a decrease is not, and, therefore, must be downplayed.
Remember the motto of the New York Times: “All the news that fits, we print.”
Perhaps it’s time for Fred’s Hobby Horse warning.
American reporters should report the drop in American Catholicism and the rise in Protestantism.
Really?
SDG’s statistics would prove the contrary. Catholics refuse to live by the word of God,which is not a person but divinely inspired writing, given to the church[protestant] by Christ himself working primarily through the reformers.
Interesting to note that it was actually THE CATHOLIC CHURCH who at the Councils of Rome (382 AD) had actually determined the Canon of Scripture (the New Testament Canon which even today Protestants acknowledge!); which was reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD)!
Even Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known NOTHING at all about it.”
Esau,
If I was to ever consider the Catholic Church’s teaching as worthy of serious investigation I would go to the so-called Fathers writings and look into them.
Also as far as the Catholic mass goes I would look into this extraordinary form that I have been reading about as of late. It seems to be a much richer version of the ordinary form.
Also the pre-vatican II catechisms seem closer to the Protestant style of teaching and would therefore be more accessable to the average Protestant
It has been years since I read the baltimore catechism. Does anyone know where I can get a copy?
If I was to ever consider the Catholic Church’s teaching as worthy of serious investigation I would go to the so-called Fathers writings and look into them.
So, I see — not only are you AFRAID of the TRUTH but you don’t even know the HISTORY of Christianity!
It seems you hardly even know ANYTHING about Christianity!
You’re so hilarious!
I enjoy the riscible comments you’ve been posting all throughout this blog.
You know what — just to give you some advise — it would be commendable if you FIRST KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT prior to ATTACKING the Catholic Church (and even talk about Christianity and Christian Truths, for that matter) about which YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!
Fred123,
You have unanswered questions waiting for you in the other thread.
Please do not litter this thread with posts unrelated to the topic. That is a Rule #1 violation.
SDG,
Thanks for that!
Fred123’s Anti-Catholic venom is spilling over to even unrelated topics.
Esau,
I am attempting to tone it down and open myself up to reality.
I am going through a difficult period in my life and I need help from God.
Please do not insult me
fred123,
I hadn’t known that —
I can’t read minds, unfortunately.
So, my fallen human nature tends to return people’s insults especially when their insults attack something I hold rather deeply and close to heart.
Much more than this, whenever I witness folks as yourselves maliciously attacking the Church, I see that as an attack on Christ Himself — adding to his injuries; who we cannot ignore in Acts having said to Saul:
Acts 9:4:
4 And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (DRV)
SDG has been trying to help ‘school’ me on charity; which I greatly appreciate — but habits die hard.
Sorry to hear of what seems like your plight.
Please do not insult our Mother, the Church — the Spouse of Christ (Rv 19:7, 2 Cor:11:2).
Thank you and God Bless.
Hi Fred,
If you’re interested in the Baltimore Catechism you can find it at TAN Books. Just type “Baltimore” in the search box and all the results will come up.
There’s 4 versions: #1 is for grades 4-7, #2 is for grades 6-9, #3 is for grades 10-12, and #4 is the teacher’s/advanced edition. I think they each over the same topics just in greater depth for each level, so I think #4 might be best for you. But I’ve never read them myself – maybe someone else can provide better advice.
The Baltimore Catechism is published by several publishers you might be able to find a used copy for less on Amazon or some other site. Or if you’d like to find one locally any Catholic Store should have it.
And if I may offer a word of encouragement, my wife is Protestant so I can relate to how difficult it is to try to understand how things work on the other side of the Tiber. It’s a completely different way of thinking and I still haven’t been able to figure it out very well. I respect your effort to try to learn about Catholicism even while disagreeing with it.
Brian,
Thank you very much.
This would be one of the reasons we do not watch CNN, Fox, etc reguarly; we do not consider their “view” as news. When popular celebrities come before more important isssues then it is no more than tabolid or trash to us.
Also, I do believe it is the Muslim’s holy season so it would make sense that their is less fighting. But, great time to fish them out too.
When popular celebrities come before more important isssues then it is no more than tabolid or trash to us.
AnnonyMouse,
THANKS AGAIN for your sobering comments!
EXACTLY!
I scarcely remember when growing up that Celebrity gossip and trivia actually held the spotlight on what supposed to be legitimate news programs but, for some reason, are now actually considered major news segments!
Also, why not air the decrease in casualities?
Politically-motivated, perhaps?
Mmmmm…
Fred,
Your original idea, I think, is the best. Read up on the Fathers of the Church. And you need to be open to both logic, reason and common sense..as well as divine faith, to understand the organic and natural development of Christianity and the Early Church.
And mixed in with this study of the Early Church, you should read up on early Christian spirituality, of which much comes from the “Lives and Sayings of the Desert Fathers”. From the Desert Fathers you can come to understand better religious ‘orders’, of which the Desert Fathers and St. Pachomius, specifically, were the founders.
From there you can follow the development of the Church from the eastern world to the western world, and see how Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, Benedict and Martin, all had important roles to play. This is the conversion of western Europe.
And then you can also read about the Conversion of England and Ireland, maybe read St. Bedes “History of the English Church and People” and the “Confession of St. Patrick”, a short (about 20 pgs.), but extremely inspiration autobiography.
And this will lead you finally to St. Anselm, and then to St. Bernard of Clairveax, St.Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic and St. Thomas Aquinas.
And almost all of this is readily available on the web…just google everything!
Bests of luck! It’s the greatest study anyone can do, with endlessly interesting topics, facts, spiritual wisdom and sacred history.
This is indeed – both for the better and for the worse, the History of the Church that Christ our Lord and our God, founded, until now.
And the story continues!…
Getting back to the original post, I think for the actual news outlets that didn’t emphasize the report it is a “If it bleeds, it leads” situation but the two analysts, if you can call them that, on the show were most definitely biased. That was the most ridiculous set of circular logic defenses of why not to publish it, stuff that would just as easily apply to why an increase in deaths should not be reported, I have heard in a long time. Add the whole “the administrator can’t be trusted” argument at the end (an argument that AT BEST really only means the front page story might deserve some notes about how we might not be able to trust the numbers, not that it should be buried) and it’s clear their bias is so heavy they couldn’t keep it from leaking out during the discussion.
All of that said, I think the analysts are not reflective of those printing the papers. Publishers just care about what gets readers attention and “deaths down” doesn’t get many readers unless the numbers are so dramatic as to “wow” everyone. While there are plenty of examples of media bias, this isn’t one of them.
Fred, you’re right, Catholics do live by a Person.
But you’re also wrong:
Catholics do live by the Word of God, who is a Person, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ.
From Jesus Christ flows both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
You know Charlie Gibson is on the outs with management right now.
Remember, the MSM is controlled by the moveon.org democrat party. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the democrat party. Therefore, good news in Iraq is not reported by the MSM.
“Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”
Sounds like she’s on the wrong end of the news reporting process. Thanks big sister. Or is that why they call them news journalists these days instead of news reporters? How about newscrafters or newsshapers?
“Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”
Sounds like she’s on the wrong end of the news reporting process. Thanks big sister. Or is that why they call them news journalists these days instead of news reporters? How about newscrafters or newsshapers?
The difference between a reporter and a journalist is that a reporter reports facts; a journalist wants to make a difference in the world.
Any journalism graduates or in the profession? Aren’t there some objective criteria for choosing what gets reported?
In the first 9 months of 2006, there were 534 Americans killed.
In the first 9 months of 2007, there were 804 Americans killed. That looks like a 51% increase to me.
Must be that old statistics game.
Speaking about the media with an agenda, have you guys seen DiCaproi’s 11th Hour yet? It is pretty vitriolic in its anti-God campaign. They took the students at my school to see it because it was an “educational” movie. I took a notebook just in case and got five fat pages of notes and quotes. A review of that movie might make a good blog topic.
Here are some of the cheesiest quotes I jotted down:
“We are not apart from nature. We are a part of nature. We are nature. This basic misunderstanding is causing our problems today.”
“It’s easy to think we’re different from other creatures.”
“90% of our cells are not human.”
“Life is only possible because of certain improbable parameters meeting together.”
“The tragedy is not the possible extinction of humankind, but those [species]we’re taking with us.”
“[after global warming has run its course] Earth becomes Venus.”
“We’re the third chimpanzee.”
“If you take the earth’s perspective, not a human perspective, it can be a crisis for the other creatures to live with.”
and so on…
I hope our Bishops dedicate more of their fiscal budgets to Catholic radio and t.v. to combat this irresponsible and nonsensical reporting.
Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”
Sounds like she’s on the wrong end of the news reporting process. Thanks big sister. Or is that why they call them news journalists these days instead of news reporters? How about newscrafters or newsshapers?
John E, my thoughts are in line with yours. If the stats showed an increase in casualties they wouldn’t have been saying, “Hold on, we can’t call attention to this unless we’re sure this trend is going to last.”
And the argument about not being able to trust the accuracy of the stats is completely unfounded. I’m sure they were more than happy to cite the same military statistics in the past when they showed higher casualty rates.
Ted,
Go back and read the posting, the statistic in question was regarding the last couple of months, not the year to date. While it may not mean that we’ve rounded the corner, it means something to Americans that less of our men are dieing now than were dieing last month, if only for morale. It’s one thing to report the facts and give them a negative spin, it’s another thing altogether to bury them on page 7.
God Bless,
Matt
“We are not apart from nature. We are a part of nature. We are nature. This basic misunderstanding is causing our problems today.”
I love that. So global warming, deforestation, the ozone hole, ecologically-catastrophic dams, oil spills, soil runoff, groundwater contamination, etc., are “natural,” just as much as bird nests and beaver dams. And hatred based on race and sex are “natural” too– just as its natural for rival bands of a single species of animals to beat up on each other, or for sexual relations in the animal world to be horrifically violent. As a matter of fact, whatever it comes into my head to do– along with any unfortunate side-effects or consequences thereof– is just as natural as any instinctual urge any other animal has.
If only we realized that we’re just a part of nature, we wouldn’t have so many problems.
On the topic of the original post: if a trend is long enough and of great enough magnitude to report, then which direction it’s going in shouldn’t affect its newsworthiness. Of course the deaths of individual soldiers are news regardless of any trend, but if an increase of deaths is newsworthy, then a decrease of equal magnitude and duration is too. I don’t blame anyone for being suspicious of the government’s numbers, but if reporters aren’t able to come up with usable statistics of their own then they’ve got to report it both ways on the ones they’ve got. They only way to avoid that is to adopt some sort of principle that you’re never going to report facts that reflect well on the person supplying them to you– which I’m sure the media is not ready to do.
The response of the “reporter” that there are different ways deaths are reported was a non sequitor, the numbers of US deaths are known precisely, and that is the news in question. The stats that are difficult to pin down are for Iraqi deaths those are trending down as well by any measure.
God Bless,
Matt
The number of deaths only goes up.
We aren’t a part of nature? Where is THIS in Catholic teaching? It isn’t.
Whether we are part of “nature” depends on how you define “nature”. Creation we are certainly part of, but given that we, for instance, often describe angels as “supernatural” the question of “nature” is more open.
C.S. Lewis, in Studies In Words, has an excellent treatment of the manifold and very confused meanings of the term “nature.”
Of course we’re a part of nature. But we’re not just a part of nature. And it certainly can’t be said that we “are” nature.
Oh no. This never happened to me before.
Stop it!
“The number of deaths only goes up.”
You want to clarify that? Is that just a personal dogma of yours?
“The number of deaths only goes up.”
Outside of miraculous circumstances people don’t come back to life from the grave. So even if there were only one casualty per month, the total number of deaths goes up.
I’m not sure how that contributes to the conversation, though. In any segment of any population the number of deaths only goes up over time.
“Must be that old statistics game.”
Yes, it is.
It compares averages over arbitrary time periods. I suggest that if one graphs results by week or month over the last two years, the statistics game Ted is playing would become evident.
I have no real appetite to engage in the discussion of media bias, since I have nothing helpful to add, but Ted’s contribution really is just a statistics game.
Something tells me it’s always a game with Ted.
“I need to see a little more than 1 month of declines before I’ll report on it as progress”.
Didn’t he lead with Charlie Gibson saying “declined for the 4th straight month”? Didn’t she also admit that if it suddenly went up from last month, that would “most certainly be news”? Why is “up” news, but “down” isn’t, unless it’s a trend (which it already has 4 months of)?
What a crock! I’m sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. I hate to say it, but you cannot believe anybody anywhere anymore.
Under the category of ‘NOT NEWS’ should be the following: Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
Darn!
I wish I could’ve won a prize for trying to warn the world that the ‘Sky is Falling’, too!
Well put, Esau. I’ll be stealing that line.
How much does any one want to bet that should a Democrat be elected Presidentin 2008, that a decline in military deaths in early 2009 will be headline news?
How much does any one want to bet that should a Democrat be elected Presidentin 2008, that a decline in military deaths in early 2009 will be headline news?
As I said — why not air the decrease in casualities?
Politically-motivated, perhaps?
Mmmmm…
I suggest that if one graphs results by week or month over the last two years, the statistics game Ted is playing would become evident.
Can’t draw a graph for you, but here are the month-by-month ups and downs since January 2006:
Down Down Up Down Down Down Up Up Up Down Up Down Down Level Up Up Down Down Up Down
That’s 11 downs, 8 ups and one level since January 2006. They’ve been keeping all those downturns secret. Maybe they’ve been secretly celebrating too.
Ted,
the point is that the mainstream media treats any drop from a prior month as non-news, any month with an increase as news.
God Bless,
Matt
Looking at the history as I’ve just shown you, drops have been the rule, and an increase the exception.
Looking at the history as I’ve just shown you, drops have been the rule, and an increase the exception.
Very interesting. Thanks again for the research, B.
You wouldn’t necessarily get that impression from the MSM reporting, though, would you? The impression is that bad news is the norm.
Ted,
the point is that the mainstream media treats any drop from a prior month as non-news, any month with an increase as news.
God Bless,
Matt
The point is we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but oh well, the next president will have to fix that mess…
I still don’t know whom I will be voting for. I wish there were a good Pro-Life Catholic Democrat.
I thought the point was media bias, but maybe I misread Jimmy’s post.
The impression is that bad news is the norm.
When was the last war when good news was the norm?
When — in peace or war — was good news the norm?
When was the last war when good news was the norm?
I guess that would depend on what you consider good news, wouldn’t it?
In this case, relatively speaking, insofar as Down=Good and Up=Bad, the news since January 2006 has been better than one might gather from casual perusal of the MSM.
David, The point is we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but oh well, the next president will have to fix that mess…
A good discussion, but not the point of this post, unless you think it justifies misleading the public by not reporting a drop in US SOLDIERS DIEING from one month to the next. Let’s not forget folks, that these are human beings, and they are being killed, this is not a video game. Regardless of your stance on the war I hope you consider a decrease in US or Iraqi deaths to be good news and worth CELEBRATING and REJOICING.
I still don’t know whom I will be voting for. I wish there were a good Pro-Life Catholic Democrat.
The candidate of which you speak is non-existent and will not surface until the Democrat party abandons the culture of death they have embraced. I sure hope if any candidate of either party is presented who opposes abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem-cell research you will support them regardless of your feelings on less important issues.
By the way, in case you forgot the Democrats overwhelmingly supported entering this war as did 77% of the US public by most polls, so stop whining about how long it’s taking to get the job done.
God Bless,
Matt
the news since January 2006 has been better than one might gather from casual perusal of the MSM.
Yet, as of just this week, even with only three UP months in 2007, the number killed in 2007, now 9.5 months old, has now surpassed all of 2006.
Yet, as of just this week, even with only three UP months in 2007, the number killed in 2007, now 9.5 months old, has now surpassed all of 2006.
Eek! So there you go. “Up” and “Down” don’t tell the whole story, because they don’t say how far Up or Down. You can have more Down months than Up months, and yet the total picture may be getting worse.
Then again, if you break down the number of Up/Down months by year, it turns out that the ratio of Down to Up in 2006 was 7/5 in favor of down, whereas in 2007 the ratio so far drops to 3/4 (excluding the one level month). So even on a simple Up/Down level, the news is getting worse.
I like discussing this subject with you, B. You do much better with facts than with definitions of “computer” or exegesis of other people’s statements of faith. Carry on.
Ted revealed his purpose in his original post, which was, as suggested, a statistics game. As then corroborated by his subsequent posts, he is not interested in whether the media have in fact been biased in how they report on the War in Iraq; instead he is interested in scoring superficial debating points for his subtextual position that the War is a bad idea.
Yawn.
I say we concede the game to Ted(he was the only one playing, anyway).
Now, after the failed hijack attempt, back to our original subject.
I cannot believe that I am going to be put into the position of siding with Ted/B. (Or B’Ted. Or whatever. I’ve decided to just call him B.)
Sticking to the question of whether the media reporting has been biased, broadly speaking, if the overall trend this year is worse than last year (more deaths this year so far than in all of last year), isn’t that more important than monthly fluctuations?
Sticking to the question of whether the media reporting has been biased, broadly speaking, if the overall trend this year is worse than last year (more deaths this year so far than in all of last year), isn’t that more important than monthly fluctuations?
I think the issue wasn’t about casualties in 2007 vs. 2006 but whether or not the recent downturn marks the end of the higher casualty rates from earlier in the year or if its just a lull. I think most people agree that we can’t say for sure right now. The problem is that seems the media treats any spike in casualty rates as front page news, but not any drop in the rates.
If I hadn’t have watched that video I might have just attributed it to the fact that people dying in war is news in and of itself but people not dying isn’t. But the two women in that video make it clear that they’re willing to use any excuse available to not report good news from Iraq. Most of the reasons they gave (like not being able to trust the statistics and not being sure if this is a trend or an aberration) could also be used as excuses not to report higher casualty rates.
Each of the first eight months of 2007 were all above the monthly means for 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003. Not until September did that month’s count dip below the monthly average for any year, but even then, the count for September was about the same as the monthly average for 2006 (which is also close to the average values in 2005 and 2004). Still, September was the lowest month in a year, as was March 2006, March 2005, and February 2004 — though September was more than twice as large as any of those other lows. October may well be quite low too, if one is only counting U.S. military bodies.
It is plain that the number of US casualties go up and down, and that it can be fairly considered premature to characterize the most recent particular downticks as indicative of a significant trend. But I thought the point was that the media are quick to report upward ticks as significant and newsworthy, but not downward ticks. This seems true to me, but I have not studied the matter. In any case, I think any discussion about whether these most recent results are significant is beside the point, which is whether the media’s assessment of significance is biased.
American reporters should report the drop in American Catholicism and the rise in Protestantism.
There is a reason for this.
Catholics refuse to live by the word of God,which is not a person but divinely inspired writing, given to the church[protestant] by Christ himself working primarily through the reformers.
An increase in American deaths is in line with their template and, therefore, must be trumpeted; a decrease is not, and, therefore, must be downplayed.
Remember the motto of the New York Times: “All the news that fits, we print.”
Perhaps it’s time for Fred’s Hobby Horse warning.
American reporters should report the drop in American Catholicism and the rise in Protestantism.
Really?
SDG’s statistics would prove the contrary.
Catholics refuse to live by the word of God,which is not a person but divinely inspired writing, given to the church[protestant] by Christ himself working primarily through the reformers.
Interesting to note that it was actually THE CATHOLIC CHURCH who at the Councils of Rome (382 AD) had actually determined the Canon of Scripture (the New Testament Canon which even today Protestants acknowledge!); which was reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD)!
Even Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known NOTHING at all about it.”
Esau,
If I was to ever consider the Catholic Church’s teaching as worthy of serious investigation I would go to the so-called Fathers writings and look into them.
Also as far as the Catholic mass goes I would look into this extraordinary form that I have been reading about as of late. It seems to be a much richer version of the ordinary form.
Also the pre-vatican II catechisms seem closer to the Protestant style of teaching and would therefore be more accessable to the average Protestant
It has been years since I read the baltimore catechism. Does anyone know where I can get a copy?
If I was to ever consider the Catholic Church’s teaching as worthy of serious investigation I would go to the so-called Fathers writings and look into them.
So, I see — not only are you AFRAID of the TRUTH but you don’t even know the HISTORY of Christianity!
It seems you hardly even know ANYTHING about Christianity!
You’re so hilarious!
I enjoy the riscible comments you’ve been posting all throughout this blog.
You know what — just to give you some advise — it would be commendable if you FIRST KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT prior to ATTACKING the Catholic Church (and even talk about Christianity and Christian Truths, for that matter) about which YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!
Fred123,
You have unanswered questions waiting for you in the other thread.
Please do not litter this thread with posts unrelated to the topic. That is a Rule #1 violation.
SDG,
Thanks for that!
Fred123’s Anti-Catholic venom is spilling over to even unrelated topics.
Esau,
I am attempting to tone it down and open myself up to reality.
I am going through a difficult period in my life and I need help from God.
Please do not insult me
fred123,
I hadn’t known that —
I can’t read minds, unfortunately.
So, my fallen human nature tends to return people’s insults especially when their insults attack something I hold rather deeply and close to heart.
Much more than this, whenever I witness folks as yourselves maliciously attacking the Church, I see that as an attack on Christ Himself — adding to his injuries; who we cannot ignore in Acts having said to Saul:
Acts 9:4:
4 And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (DRV)
SDG has been trying to help ‘school’ me on charity; which I greatly appreciate — but habits die hard.
Sorry to hear of what seems like your plight.
Please do not insult our Mother, the Church — the Spouse of Christ (Rv 19:7, 2 Cor:11:2).
Thank you and God Bless.
Hi Fred,
If you’re interested in the Baltimore Catechism you can find it at TAN Books. Just type “Baltimore” in the search box and all the results will come up.
There’s 4 versions: #1 is for grades 4-7, #2 is for grades 6-9, #3 is for grades 10-12, and #4 is the teacher’s/advanced edition. I think they each over the same topics just in greater depth for each level, so I think #4 might be best for you. But I’ve never read them myself – maybe someone else can provide better advice.
The Baltimore Catechism is published by several publishers you might be able to find a used copy for less on Amazon or some other site. Or if you’d like to find one locally any Catholic Store should have it.
And if I may offer a word of encouragement, my wife is Protestant so I can relate to how difficult it is to try to understand how things work on the other side of the Tiber. It’s a completely different way of thinking and I still haven’t been able to figure it out very well. I respect your effort to try to learn about Catholicism even while disagreeing with it.
Brian,
Thank you very much.
This would be one of the reasons we do not watch CNN, Fox, etc reguarly; we do not consider their “view” as news. When popular celebrities come before more important isssues then it is no more than tabolid or trash to us.
Also, I do believe it is the Muslim’s holy season so it would make sense that their is less fighting. But, great time to fish them out too.
When popular celebrities come before more important isssues then it is no more than tabolid or trash to us.
AnnonyMouse,
THANKS AGAIN for your sobering comments!
EXACTLY!
I scarcely remember when growing up that Celebrity gossip and trivia actually held the spotlight on what supposed to be legitimate news programs but, for some reason, are now actually considered major news segments!
Also, why not air the decrease in casualities?
Politically-motivated, perhaps?
Mmmmm…
Fred,
Your original idea, I think, is the best. Read up on the Fathers of the Church. And you need to be open to both logic, reason and common sense..as well as divine faith, to understand the organic and natural development of Christianity and the Early Church.
And mixed in with this study of the Early Church, you should read up on early Christian spirituality, of which much comes from the “Lives and Sayings of the Desert Fathers”. From the Desert Fathers you can come to understand better religious ‘orders’, of which the Desert Fathers and St. Pachomius, specifically, were the founders.
From there you can follow the development of the Church from the eastern world to the western world, and see how Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, Benedict and Martin, all had important roles to play. This is the conversion of western Europe.
And then you can also read about the Conversion of England and Ireland, maybe read St. Bedes “History of the English Church and People” and the “Confession of St. Patrick”, a short (about 20 pgs.), but extremely inspiration autobiography.
And this will lead you finally to St. Anselm, and then to St. Bernard of Clairveax, St.Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic and St. Thomas Aquinas.
And almost all of this is readily available on the web…just google everything!
Bests of luck! It’s the greatest study anyone can do, with endlessly interesting topics, facts, spiritual wisdom and sacred history.
This is indeed – both for the better and for the worse, the History of the Church that Christ our Lord and our God, founded, until now.
And the story continues!…
Getting back to the original post, I think for the actual news outlets that didn’t emphasize the report it is a “If it bleeds, it leads” situation but the two analysts, if you can call them that, on the show were most definitely biased. That was the most ridiculous set of circular logic defenses of why not to publish it, stuff that would just as easily apply to why an increase in deaths should not be reported, I have heard in a long time. Add the whole “the administrator can’t be trusted” argument at the end (an argument that AT BEST really only means the front page story might deserve some notes about how we might not be able to trust the numbers, not that it should be buried) and it’s clear their bias is so heavy they couldn’t keep it from leaking out during the discussion.
All of that said, I think the analysts are not reflective of those printing the papers. Publishers just care about what gets readers attention and “deaths down” doesn’t get many readers unless the numbers are so dramatic as to “wow” everyone. While there are plenty of examples of media bias, this isn’t one of them.
Fred, you’re right, Catholics do live by a Person.
But you’re also wrong:
Catholics do live by the Word of God, who is a Person, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ.
From Jesus Christ flows both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
You know Charlie Gibson is on the outs with management right now.
Remember, the MSM is controlled by the moveon.org democrat party. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the democrat party. Therefore, good news in Iraq is not reported by the MSM.
“Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”
Sounds like she’s on the wrong end of the news reporting process. Thanks big sister. Or is that why they call them news journalists these days instead of news reporters? How about newscrafters or newsshapers?
“Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”
Sounds like she’s on the wrong end of the news reporting process. Thanks big sister. Or is that why they call them news journalists these days instead of news reporters? How about newscrafters or newsshapers?
The difference between a reporter and a journalist is that a reporter reports facts; a journalist wants to make a difference in the world.
Any journalism graduates or in the profession? Aren’t there some objective criteria for choosing what gets reported?
In the first 9 months of 2006, there were 534 Americans killed.
In the first 9 months of 2007, there were 804 Americans killed. That looks like a 51% increase to me.
Must be that old statistics game.
Speaking about the media with an agenda, have you guys seen DiCaproi’s 11th Hour yet? It is pretty vitriolic in its anti-God campaign. They took the students at my school to see it because it was an “educational” movie. I took a notebook just in case and got five fat pages of notes and quotes. A review of that movie might make a good blog topic.
Here are some of the cheesiest quotes I jotted down:
“We are not apart from nature. We are a part of nature. We are nature. This basic misunderstanding is causing our problems today.”
“It’s easy to think we’re different from other creatures.”
“90% of our cells are not human.”
“Life is only possible because of certain improbable parameters meeting together.”
“The tragedy is not the possible extinction of humankind, but those [species]we’re taking with us.”
“[after global warming has run its course] Earth becomes Venus.”
“We’re the third chimpanzee.”
“If you take the earth’s perspective, not a human perspective, it can be a crisis for the other creatures to live with.”
and so on…
I hope our Bishops dedicate more of their fiscal budgets to Catholic radio and t.v. to combat this irresponsible and nonsensical reporting.
Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.”
Sounds like she’s on the wrong end of the news reporting process. Thanks big sister. Or is that why they call them news journalists these days instead of news reporters? How about newscrafters or newsshapers?
John E, my thoughts are in line with yours. If the stats showed an increase in casualties they wouldn’t have been saying, “Hold on, we can’t call attention to this unless we’re sure this trend is going to last.”
And the argument about not being able to trust the accuracy of the stats is completely unfounded. I’m sure they were more than happy to cite the same military statistics in the past when they showed higher casualty rates.
Ted,
Go back and read the posting, the statistic in question was regarding the last couple of months, not the year to date. While it may not mean that we’ve rounded the corner, it means something to Americans that less of our men are dieing now than were dieing last month, if only for morale. It’s one thing to report the facts and give them a negative spin, it’s another thing altogether to bury them on page 7.
God Bless,
Matt
“We are not apart from nature. We are a part of nature. We are nature. This basic misunderstanding is causing our problems today.”
I love that. So global warming, deforestation, the ozone hole, ecologically-catastrophic dams, oil spills, soil runoff, groundwater contamination, etc., are “natural,” just as much as bird nests and beaver dams. And hatred based on race and sex are “natural” too– just as its natural for rival bands of a single species of animals to beat up on each other, or for sexual relations in the animal world to be horrifically violent. As a matter of fact, whatever it comes into my head to do– along with any unfortunate side-effects or consequences thereof– is just as natural as any instinctual urge any other animal has.
If only we realized that we’re just a part of nature, we wouldn’t have so many problems.
On the topic of the original post: if a trend is long enough and of great enough magnitude to report, then which direction it’s going in shouldn’t affect its newsworthiness. Of course the deaths of individual soldiers are news regardless of any trend, but if an increase of deaths is newsworthy, then a decrease of equal magnitude and duration is too. I don’t blame anyone for being suspicious of the government’s numbers, but if reporters aren’t able to come up with usable statistics of their own then they’ve got to report it both ways on the ones they’ve got. They only way to avoid that is to adopt some sort of principle that you’re never going to report facts that reflect well on the person supplying them to you– which I’m sure the media is not ready to do.
The response of the “reporter” that there are different ways deaths are reported was a non sequitor, the numbers of US deaths are known precisely, and that is the news in question. The stats that are difficult to pin down are for Iraqi deaths those are trending down as well by any measure.
God Bless,
Matt
The number of deaths only goes up.
We aren’t a part of nature? Where is THIS in Catholic teaching? It isn’t.
Whether we are part of “nature” depends on how you define “nature”. Creation we are certainly part of, but given that we, for instance, often describe angels as “supernatural” the question of “nature” is more open.
C.S. Lewis, in Studies In Words, has an excellent treatment of the manifold and very confused meanings of the term “nature.”
Of course we’re a part of nature. But we’re not just a part of nature. And it certainly can’t be said that we “are” nature.
Oh no. This never happened to me before.
Stop it!
“The number of deaths only goes up.”
You want to clarify that? Is that just a personal dogma of yours?
“The number of deaths only goes up.”
Outside of miraculous circumstances people don’t come back to life from the grave. So even if there were only one casualty per month, the total number of deaths goes up.
I’m not sure how that contributes to the conversation, though. In any segment of any population the number of deaths only goes up over time.
“Must be that old statistics game.”
Yes, it is.
It compares averages over arbitrary time periods. I suggest that if one graphs results by week or month over the last two years, the statistics game Ted is playing would become evident.
I have no real appetite to engage in the discussion of media bias, since I have nothing helpful to add, but Ted’s contribution really is just a statistics game.
Something tells me it’s always a game with Ted.
“I need to see a little more than 1 month of declines before I’ll report on it as progress”.
Didn’t he lead with Charlie Gibson saying “declined for the 4th straight month”? Didn’t she also admit that if it suddenly went up from last month, that would “most certainly be news”? Why is “up” news, but “down” isn’t, unless it’s a trend (which it already has 4 months of)?
What a crock! I’m sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. I hate to say it, but you cannot believe anybody anywhere anymore.
Under the category of ‘NOT NEWS’ should be the following:
Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
Darn!
I wish I could’ve won a prize for trying to warn the world that the ‘Sky is Falling’, too!
Well put, Esau. I’ll be stealing that line.
How much does any one want to bet that should a Democrat be elected Presidentin 2008, that a decline in military deaths in early 2009 will be headline news?
How much does any one want to bet that should a Democrat be elected Presidentin 2008, that a decline in military deaths in early 2009 will be headline news?
As I said — why not air the decrease in casualities?
Politically-motivated, perhaps?
Mmmmm…
I suggest that if one graphs results by week or month over the last two years, the statistics game Ted is playing would become evident.
Can’t draw a graph for you, but here are the month-by-month ups and downs since January 2006:
Down Down Up Down Down Down Up Up Up Down Up Down Down Level Up Up Down Down Up Down
That’s 11 downs, 8 ups and one level since January 2006. They’ve been keeping all those downturns secret. Maybe they’ve been secretly celebrating too.
Ted,
the point is that the mainstream media treats any drop from a prior month as non-news, any month with an increase as news.
God Bless,
Matt
Looking at the history as I’ve just shown you, drops have been the rule, and an increase the exception.
Very interesting. Thanks again for the research, B.
You wouldn’t necessarily get that impression from the MSM reporting, though, would you? The impression is that bad news is the norm.
Ted,
the point is that the mainstream media treats any drop from a prior month as non-news, any month with an increase as news.
God Bless,
Matt
The point is we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but oh well, the next president will have to fix that mess…
I still don’t know whom I will be voting for. I wish there were a good Pro-Life Catholic Democrat.
I thought the point was media bias, but maybe I misread Jimmy’s post.
The impression is that bad news is the norm.
When was the last war when good news was the norm?
When — in peace or war — was good news the norm?
I guess that would depend on what you consider good news, wouldn’t it?
In this case, relatively speaking, insofar as Down=Good and Up=Bad, the news since January 2006 has been better than one might gather from casual perusal of the MSM.
David,
The point is we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but oh well, the next president will have to fix that mess…
A good discussion, but not the point of this post, unless you think it justifies misleading the public by not reporting a drop in US SOLDIERS DIEING from one month to the next. Let’s not forget folks, that these are human beings, and they are being killed, this is not a video game. Regardless of your stance on the war I hope you consider a decrease in US or Iraqi deaths to be good news and worth CELEBRATING and REJOICING.
I still don’t know whom I will be voting for. I wish there were a good Pro-Life Catholic Democrat.
The candidate of which you speak is non-existent and will not surface until the Democrat party abandons the culture of death they have embraced. I sure hope if any candidate of either party is presented who opposes abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem-cell research you will support them regardless of your feelings on less important issues.
By the way, in case you forgot the Democrats overwhelmingly supported entering this war as did 77% of the US public by most polls, so stop whining about how long it’s taking to get the job done.
God Bless,
Matt
the news since January 2006 has been better than one might gather from casual perusal of the MSM.
Yet, as of just this week, even with only three UP months in 2007, the number killed in 2007, now 9.5 months old, has now surpassed all of 2006.
Eek! So there you go. “Up” and “Down” don’t tell the whole story, because they don’t say how far Up or Down. You can have more Down months than Up months, and yet the total picture may be getting worse.
Then again, if you break down the number of Up/Down months by year, it turns out that the ratio of Down to Up in 2006 was 7/5 in favor of down, whereas in 2007 the ratio so far drops to 3/4 (excluding the one level month). So even on a simple Up/Down level, the news is getting worse.
I like discussing this subject with you, B. You do much better with facts than with definitions of “computer” or exegesis of other people’s statements of faith. Carry on.
Ted revealed his purpose in his original post, which was, as suggested, a statistics game. As then corroborated by his subsequent posts, he is not interested in whether the media have in fact been biased in how they report on the War in Iraq; instead he is interested in scoring superficial debating points for his subtextual position that the War is a bad idea.
Yawn.
I say we concede the game to Ted(he was the only one playing, anyway).
Now, after the failed hijack attempt, back to our original subject.
I cannot believe that I am going to be put into the position of siding with Ted/B. (Or B’Ted. Or whatever. I’ve decided to just call him B.)
Sticking to the question of whether the media reporting has been biased, broadly speaking, if the overall trend this year is worse than last year (more deaths this year so far than in all of last year), isn’t that more important than monthly fluctuations?
Sticking to the question of whether the media reporting has been biased, broadly speaking, if the overall trend this year is worse than last year (more deaths this year so far than in all of last year), isn’t that more important than monthly fluctuations?
I think the issue wasn’t about casualties in 2007 vs. 2006 but whether or not the recent downturn marks the end of the higher casualty rates from earlier in the year or if its just a lull. I think most people agree that we can’t say for sure right now. The problem is that seems the media treats any spike in casualty rates as front page news, but not any drop in the rates.
If I hadn’t have watched that video I might have just attributed it to the fact that people dying in war is news in and of itself but people not dying isn’t. But the two women in that video make it clear that they’re willing to use any excuse available to not report good news from Iraq. Most of the reasons they gave (like not being able to trust the statistics and not being sure if this is a trend or an aberration) could also be used as excuses not to report higher casualty rates.
Each of the first eight months of 2007 were all above the monthly means for 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003. Not until September did that month’s count dip below the monthly average for any year, but even then, the count for September was about the same as the monthly average for 2006 (which is also close to the average values in 2005 and 2004). Still, September was the lowest month in a year, as was March 2006, March 2005, and February 2004 — though September was more than twice as large as any of those other lows. October may well be quite low too, if one is only counting U.S. military bodies.
It is plain that the number of US casualties go up and down, and that it can be fairly considered premature to characterize the most recent particular downticks as indicative of a significant trend. But I thought the point was that the media are quick to report upward ticks as significant and newsworthy, but not downward ticks. This seems true to me, but I have not studied the matter. In any case, I think any discussion about whether these most recent results are significant is beside the point, which is whether the media’s assessment of significance is biased.