[NYer]

And this is yet one more reason why one should turn off the mainstream media and tune in to EWTN for coverage of such events. Next papal stop - Spain in November. Heads up!

[marron]

I know: it's tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there's something sadder and less sinister at work:

No, you were right the first time. Anti-christian bias in the media. If they can't attack the church, the church isn't news.

[marron]

I keep saying, turn off the junk media. Find sources of information you trust, and turn the others off.

[iowamark]

We can no longer rely on the MSM for our news, they are worse than worthless, they are malicious.

[Talisker]

Now, I know: it's tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there's something sadder and less sinister at work: it's the economy, stupid. ...Call me old school, but there's something wrong here.

LOL, yeah, it's tempting, in the same way it's tempting to blame the hammer for the broken thumb, or the rain for being wet, or the noonday sun for sweat. In other words it not only freaking obvious, it's true.

What's wrong here is therefore why a pro-Catholic writer is giving the media a pass for obviously not reporting the enormous significance of the Papal visit.

Lord Occam of Razor would respond that what you see, is what you're supposed to see - or not. Lord Occam would point out that the Catholic Church is well able to manage it's own press, thankyouverymuch.

So why would the Church want this minimization of reporting? How about precisely because this is such a big deal? In fact, if it got a lot of press, things could easily blow up between Britons and Rome - big, big time. So, the Pope does what he does, the media looks the other way, and then the Pope leaves.

But for historical purposes, the deed is done.

The writer of a related article concerning this event, posted on Free Republic as Paper on Pope's Visit: "This was the End of the British Empire" even alludes to this strategy in the article, when the author writes: Benedict XVI’s speeches are worth reading several times; they often turn out to be more radical than they first appear. But one thing is for sure. Despite the unassuming courtesy of the Pope’s manner, he didn’t give an inch.

Indeed he did not - and "unassuming" is exactly the way he wanted it.

[Slyfox]

During the reign of Elizabeth I, the priest-hunter Topcliffe condemned a good, old parish priest named Father Mumford Scot, signifying that "it was good policy to put him to death and said his austere life was a means to draw people to him, for he said that Mr. Scot was accounted a saint." He was condemned, hanged, drawn and quartered. When the hangman held up his quarters it was noticed by all that, "his knees were hardened as horn by much prayer."

The Other Face: Catholic Life under Elizabeth I by Philip Caraman

[utahagen]

“...it’s tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there’s something sadder and less sinister at work: it’s the economy, stupid.”

Nope. It’s media bias.

[utahagen]

“...it’s tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there’s something sadder and less sinister at work: it’s the economy, stupid.”

Nope. It’s media bias.

[utahagen]

“...it’s tempting to argue that it was a conspiracy of media bias. But I think there’s something sadder and less sinister at work: it’s the economy, stupid.”

Nope. It’s media bias.