É verdade, a mídia global, em geral, está do lado daqueles que atacam a Igreja Católica. Mas a reação da mídia à Correção Filial tem sido mais benéfica do que seria esperado.
É o que diz o próprio Dr. Joseph Shaw que organizou a Correção Filial. E também é o que diz Dr. Roberto Mattei, que assinou a Correção Filial.
A minha impressão é que os católicos (os verdadeiros católicos, aqueles que são preocupados em manter a doutrina milenar da Igreja) não entenderam que a politização que o Papa Francisco faz do seu pontificado está incomodando até os esquerdistas. Quando eu falo com pessoas que não acompanham de perto a Igreja, mas simplesmente leem sites jornalísticos, e eles falam sobre o Papa, a primeira coisa que me dizem é que o Papa parece um político.
Os jornais de esquerda também entenderam a confusão que o Papa faz ao fazer política, que as posições dele não são firmes, mesmo aquelas posições que favorecem à esquerda. Sem falar, que algumas palavras parecem absurdas mesmo para quem não entende de doutrina da Igreja, como sua posição desenfreada pela aceitação de muçulmanos.
Finalmente, e esse fato é lembrado pelo Dr. Shaw, a mídia já sabe que o Papa não dialoga com aqueles que não concordam com ele e sabe que alguns que questionam a posição do Papa são demitidos ou rebaixados.
Vejamos as palavras do Dr. Shaw:
The mainstream media on the Correctio Filialis
I agreed to be spokesman or media contact for the Correctio Filialis I didn't realise quite was I was letting myself in for. I've now lost count of the number of telephone and email mini-interviews I've done, and I don't have time to keep track on the number of reports online which have resulted from these.
This could have been a nightmare, but it's not at all. The journalists have been polite and professional. (Associated Press was a teeny bit naughty breaking the media embargo, but it was only by an hour or two.) And all things considered, we are getting amazingly favourable coverage in Catholic and non-Catholic sources.
The New York Times and the Daily Mail, which both picked up the AP material, took the fairly obvious (to them) line that the Pope was being nice to people and that we want to take the sweeties away from the children - or something like that. (A Guardian comment piece says the same thing.) They paid us the incomparable compliment, however, of reporting us, and indeed of doing so at some length and with a degree of prominence, and the articles are hardly hatchet-jobs. The story of the 'Pope vs. conservative critics' has become part of the media narrative about Pope Francis, so it goes down without obstruction. But critical distance between the liberal media and what we might call the 'reforming agenda' in the Church seems to have opened up nevertheless, thanks no doubt to stories such as about Professor Seifert losing his job over criticisms Amoris laetitia. The liberals in the Church are less and less recognisable as such; the conservatives are clearly now the underdogs.
So now we have a story from CNN which is really very balanced, even favourable to us.
In the meantime, Catholic outlets seem to be divided between those who want to report the story in an objective or favourable way, who find themselves doing multiple stories as the news develops (Catholic Herald here and here, Lifesite here, here, here, etc.), and those who wish to play it down or ignore it completely. The problem for the latter is that it is too late: the mainstream media have already picked it up.
It's no fun ignoring something on one's own. And it doesn't have the desired effect, either.
This could have been a nightmare, but it's not at all. The journalists have been polite and professional. (Associated Press was a teeny bit naughty breaking the media embargo, but it was only by an hour or two.) And all things considered, we are getting amazingly favourable coverage in Catholic and non-Catholic sources.
The New York Times and the Daily Mail, which both picked up the AP material, took the fairly obvious (to them) line that the Pope was being nice to people and that we want to take the sweeties away from the children - or something like that. (A Guardian comment piece says the same thing.) They paid us the incomparable compliment, however, of reporting us, and indeed of doing so at some length and with a degree of prominence, and the articles are hardly hatchet-jobs. The story of the 'Pope vs. conservative critics' has become part of the media narrative about Pope Francis, so it goes down without obstruction. But critical distance between the liberal media and what we might call the 'reforming agenda' in the Church seems to have opened up nevertheless, thanks no doubt to stories such as about Professor Seifert losing his job over criticisms Amoris laetitia. The liberals in the Church are less and less recognisable as such; the conservatives are clearly now the underdogs.
So now we have a story from CNN which is really very balanced, even favourable to us.
In the meantime, Catholic outlets seem to be divided between those who want to report the story in an objective or favourable way, who find themselves doing multiple stories as the news develops (Catholic Herald here and here, Lifesite here, here, here, etc.), and those who wish to play it down or ignore it completely. The problem for the latter is that it is too late: the mainstream media have already picked it up.
It's no fun ignoring something on one's own. And it doesn't have the desired effect, either.
As esquerdas pareceriam entao desorientadas entre si ao colocarem restrições ao papa Francisco pois pareceria ele estar as contemplando como pretenderiam, algo meio estranho...
ResponderExcluirA não ser que via Trump e agora por estarem acuadas, caso Alemanha recentemente com a quase derrocada de Merkel com a ascensao da direita que fará enorme diferença antiglobalista-Islã!
Enquanto isso, os sites independentes desmascaram os intestinos putrefatos das esquerdas e as mantém sob assedio constante!
Elas não contavam com as redes sociais que as detonam 24 H!