Gay Bishop Story Shows Media Biases

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | Aug. 15, 2003 | Lila Arzua

[baseballmom]

'Don't believe what you read in the secular press," an Episcopal priest warned his congregation in Sebring, Fla., on Sunday. And perhaps with good reason.

Despite the emphasis on sensitivity and fairness in today's newsrooms, many in the media have failed to uphold their standards of equity and reliability in their coverage of the recent controversy in the Episcopal Church.

Last week the church made history when it confirmed the election of an openly gay bishop and recognized the blessing of same-sex unions. The moves have caused great consternation within the body, which is a province of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and divided clergy and laymen alike over interpretation of Biblical Scripture and modern-day marriage. In response, the archbishop of Canterbury has summoned church leaders worldwide for an emergency meeting in October.

Journalists shouldn't be choosing sides.

[baseballmom]

Excellent article.

This article is excerpted, because the author, Lila Arzua, is an intern for the editorial page at the Wash.Post. I wasn't sure if the rules applied. Better to be safe than sorry. I'll be happy to post the whole article if it is allowed.

[Eala]

Don't worry. I won't post my excerpt remark. *\;-)

[dighton]

Here's a direct link.

[baseballmom]

Thank you for posting that direct link. I thought I had - aaaarrrggghhhhh. :-)

[visitor]

I can't find the article at the link you provided ...rto

[Eala]

Um. The link goes to the main page, not the article.

[Mercat]

No disrespect to the Anglicans intended but wasn't this church founded on the basis of serial marriage? Seems to me that's not a particularly rock solid foundation.

[Eala]

Thanks dighton. I'd just found the story and was about to post the link...

[Eala]

Journalists must represent the opposing sides of the controversy as thoroughly and honestly as possible. They owe this to their readership, faithful and secular alike.

She's clearly an intern. Those rules are no longer being applied by the press, especially at the NYT, LATimes, WaPost. After all, if truth is relative, then truth is whatever you want it to be.

[baseballmom]

I apologize for messing up the link. Thank you again, Dighton for providing the correct link.

Can I fix it now or is it too late? Oh, the shame....

[JennysCool]

Touche, Mercat! :-)

[Eala]

No disrespect to the Anglicans intended but wasn't this church founded on the basis of serial marriage? Seems to me that's not a particularly rock solid foundation.

No offense taken, Mercat. As noted here, the story is a bit more involved than that, though that's what got all the press...

"...But tension is no stranger to the Anglican Church.

The easy explanation for its creation is that Henry VIII of England wanted a new wife, one who might give him a male heir, and the pope wouldn't grant an annulment of his existing marriage. Henry, impetuous on a good day, responded by breaking with the Vatican and establishing the Church of England.

But Henry's marital troubles are too simple an explanation for the founding of a church. Earlier attempts by English monarchs to declare independence from Rome had failed. Henry's decision came along just as Martin Luther's followers were triggering the Protestant Reformation, and the king's movement rode some of the same cultural riptides.

From the start, there was an attempt to shift power and participation to the worshippers while retaining some of the ritual and tradition of Catholicism.

That balance has been preserved into the present church. Some rituals in some churches would feel familiar to Catholics. But there is no central authority comparable to the pope or the Vatican.

Anglicans often say their church is based on three things: Scripture, tradition and reason. ..."

[dighton]

You're welcome.

Can I fix it now [the incomplete links] or is it too late?

You or I can't, but Admin Moderator might if you request. Here again is the direct link: Gay bishop story shows media biases.

[Eala]

I apologize for messing up the link. Thank you again, Dighton for providing the correct link.
Can I fix it now or is it too late? Oh, the shame....

The Admin Moderators have been known sometimes to bestow mercies upon us poor FReepers, if we but ask nicely enough...

[auntdot]

Henry VIII had married Catherine of Aragon with the blessings of the Church only after he had argued that the marriage between Catherine and his dead brother Arthur had never been consummated.

Then, eighteen years later, he tried to argue that the union was illegal because he married his brother's wife.

The Church, which was very politicized at the moment and the Pope was essentially under house arrest by the Spanish, found that Henry could not have it both ways and denied a divorce.

Then Henry, with his mistress Anne Boleyn pregnant, broke with Rome.

[sweetliberty]

"Anglicans often say their church is based on three things: Scripture, tradition and reason."

Seems that our church in the US is working to throw out all three. Can an entire province be excommunicated?

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

Choice4Truth

[FormerLib]

Instead, news reports often emphasize that those upset with the decision have threatened to split the church, a characterization so simplistic it borders on inaccurate. While some groups have splintered from the church in the past, what many traditionalists now seek is a realignment within the existing framework of the Anglican Communion. They believe that by making a decision that violates the established beliefs of the faith, the Episcopal Church has in effect split itself off from the larger body. The traditionalist goal, though rarely explained by the media, is to restore the worldwide church, not divide it.

This person won't be at the Washington (Com)Post for long if she keeps undermining liberal blather with the truth!

[VOA]

bump

[EdReform]

"Journalists shouldn't be choosing sides. Yet as the controversy has unfolded, many in the mainstream media have revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of this church and its members. Advocates of the gay bishop and the blessing of gay unions are regularly portrayed as progressive, inclusive and conciliatory, while the other side is described as infuriated, intolerant and, worst of all, schismatic.

Due, in part, to The lavender takeover of mainstream newspapers