Skip to comments.FOX News has a problem (Fox shabby reporting and maligning of conservative Christians)
Posted on 02/20/2004 9:05:05 AM PST by AAABEST
Headline via FOXNEWS: "Mel Gibson: $5 Mil to Fringe Church."
LINK to Friedman article (Screenshot included below in case HTML of original is changed)
Fox seems to have a problem.
Maybe their problem stems from passing up the opportunity of a lifetime when given the chance to distribute one of the biggest blockbusters to come along in a long time ( possibly a lifetime) due to their preference of praying at the altar of political correctness.
Maybe their problem stems from becoming more and more like the media that many of their viewers have run from due to liberalism and shoddy reporting. CNN, the alphabet networks and the New York Times come to mind.
Whatever their problem is, there is no question that they have one. They have a problem with traditional Catholicism, they have a problem with "The Passion" (Passion Bashin') and they have a problem with half-baked reporting from Roger Friedman.
Why is it that there is a quirk in the media where nearly all denigration of religion is completely off limits, except of course the denigration of conservative Christianity or conservative Christians? We expect this behavior from the old-time dinosaur networks (who are in the process of being strangled by fiber optics, rendering them obsolete), but not the "alternative" known as Fox.
Roger Friedman, who has already been exposed as a perfect example of a shoddy reporter with an agenda by William Donahue of the Catholic league seems to not have had enough of instigating ill-will within the "fair and balanced" family. As if it wasn't bad enough that his previous inflammatory article where he outrageously and falsely accused the distributors of "The Passion" of avoiding Jewish neighborhood theaters (a claim totally debunked in the Donahue article), he now has the nerve to call Gibson's church "fringe" while at the same time labeling the millions of Catholics who practice pre-Vatican II customs such as fasting, catechism, Latin mass and Eucharistic practices "antiquated".
Sorry Mr. Friedman, but we've been adhering to these "antiquated" practices for centuries and millions of us will continue to do so, despite the silly and transparent Jihad against us.
Whether you're a traditional Catholic or a conservative Christian, Fox should be warned that if they choose to follow along the same path as their liberal and less-than-reliable counterparts they too can be turned off. All it takes anymore is a the simple click of a button.
For a click-able or cut-and-paste ready list of Fox email addresses go here and scroll down.
Please fact check. It has nothing to do with his eighty-something year old dad's sedavacantism or holocaust statements.
Not a single thing. Not even the Jihadist Friedman is making such a charge.
Aren't all the gospels "antiquated"?
Um, I think that was the point.
Calling something "antiquated" isn't an abject slur. The Amish live an antiquated lifestyle in many respects. By saying that, am I insulting them? Of course not.
One thing is for sure: Mr. Gibson's movie certainly has sounded the alarm for the loonies on all sides. It's a movie, for cryin' out loud.
This statement makes no sense. If the teachings of Vatican II were universally accepted, than there would not be a traditionalist church to support, now would there?
Since you seem to know who all the "loonies" and have sufficiently labeled them as such, would you mind sharing who they are with us? Be specific please.
"Too old to be fashionable, suitable, or useful; outmoded."
It's very suitable, useful and certainly not outmoded for millions of us who still practice it. But thank you for your input.
adj. so extremely old as seeming to belong to an earlier period
Lighten up, Francis. By "loonies" I mean every single person (Jew, Catholic, Druid, whatever) who seems to think this movie is even remotely important compared to the other events going on in the world (which happen to have very real implications on Christianity and Judaism). But go ahead, form the circular firing squad. I'll try to keep watch.
LOL. Ok yes that's much better!
Better that is if you feel as the liberals do that belief in the Gospel as written is outdated or outmoded.
Lighten up, Francis. By "loonies" I mean every single person (Jew, Catholic, Druid, whatever) who seems to think this movie is even remotely important compared to the other events going on in the world....
My name isn't "Francis" and I'm lighter than you can ever imagine.
I'm sorry that you don't feel that saving souls or spreading the truth of the Gospel as far and as wide as possible to be "even remotely important" but some of us (who you seem to think of as "loonies") do.
Thank you for the revealing conversation.
I have sent a number of emails complaining to Fox's website recently for routinely showing only negative articles about the Passion movie, and positive ones about Janet Jackson, and other things I had believed were specifically to annoy the Religious Right. In particular from their idiot collumnist Rodger Friedman. With no response and a continued effort to attack this movie on the most scurilous and scattershot angles that would make Abe Foxman blush, I am official done visiting their website. I am convinced that they are the Country Club Republican types who loath the Religious Right and are seeking to discredit it in order to make a more palatable Republican Party. No wonder Drudge hates them so much.
I'd say its more insidious than that, although to be honest with you I simply haven't watched them much the past few weeks. I think they are still Ra Ra for the GOP, in the same underhanded way that CNN is Ra Ra for the DNC, but they are the (R)nold social liberal wing of the GOP only.
That "moderate" wing of the GOP has the parasitic tendency of wanting to destroy the host, "for the good of the party."
No Lunatic, Mel's father did not start the Catholic Church, but you're close....his Father did.
That's probably where you got so confused.
I think most Traditionalist Catholics accept Vatican II as a legitimate Council, but accept it in the light of tradition, as Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II said it must be interpreted. The texts of the Second Vatican Council are pastoral in nature and not ex cathedra statements, and any ambiguities in them(and there are a few ambigious passages that have been twisted to fit a modernist interpretation) have to be interpreted in light of all of Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the other Councils, not vice versa.
Whenever a liberal Catholic sneers at a pre-Vatican II practice with the condescending words, "That's pre-Vatican II!", I reply with, "So was Jesus".