Liberal media's hostility towards Christianity

[Art Vandelay]

I see that despite happening every year, Easter is considered newsworthy enough to inspire a news story on Jesus. Has a year ever gone by without Newsweek having a cover story on Jesus? While things that have even the slightest possibility of being false, such as Michael Jackson molesting children or OJ killing his ex-wife, merit the qualification "alleged", that term is notably absent from the repetition of the empty tomb claim (which in turn is treated as nearly synonymous with Jesus' resurrection). And while I may not be an expert in journalism practices, I can't help but feel that basing one's story entirely on a single, unconfirmed, anonymous, and completely context-free account is a bit unusual, especially when it is regularly contradicted by other accounts. And I can't see how anyone who hasn't had every bit of their journalistic objectivity scrubbed away by Christian brainwashing could claim that "Without the Resurrection, it is virtually impossible to imagine that the Jesus movement of the first decades of the first century [sic] would have long endured."

I can also not see how anyone looking at the issue critically can think that "First, the tomb in which Jesus' corpse was placed after his execution was empty; if it were not, then Christianity's opponents could have produced his bones" is not swarming with logical fallacies, or that "Matthew also says the temple priests tried to bribe Roman guards at the tomb, saying 'Tell the people, "His disciples came by the night and stole him away while we were asleep" ' implying the body was in fact gone" is not begging the very question of whether the Gospels are correct. Furthermore the author quotes Josephus, making no mention of the doubts that have been cast on the authenticity of those accounts. He also tries to have his cake and eat it too, presenting any connection between the Gospels and the Old Testament as support for Christianity, while any disagreement shows the "originality" of Christianity, also supporting his claim.

Despite his obsession with the Bible, he doesn't seem to have read it very carefully; he says that "Of his followers, only the women stayed as Jesus was taken from the cross, wrapped in a linen shroud and placed in a tomb carved out of the rock of a hillside," while Mark, apparently his favorite Gospel, says that "Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."

In short, this is not merely an article written by a Christian speaking in favor of Christianity. This is a complete rejection of journalistic sensibilities, throwing aside not just facts but basic reason in order to justify his apology, putting religion ahead of truth. How anyone can think that toleration of such blatant partisanship is compatible with "hostility" towards Christianity is beyond me.

 

[Brown]

I too am puzzled by the kind of "evidence" that major news publications cite as proof of the fantastic tale.

It is one thing for believers to be blind to the problems; but a reputable news publisher shouldn't have the blinkers on.

Would Newsweek be equally eager to report that Elvis was alive? The evidence that Elvis did not die is strikingly similar to the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and more people have claimed to see Elvis than ever claimed to see Jesus.

What can we make of the fact that no one has produced Elvis's bones for a forensic examination? Should we conclude that, because the Elvis-is-alive story is so preposterous, that it must be credible? Is it reasonable to determine historical truth based upon the fact that several apparently rational people believe it to be so? Is it wise to ignore contemporary evidence that holds that Elvis did indeed die?

Would Newsweek be equally eager to report that the bizarre beliefs of Muslim terrorists probably have some validity, because some of the terrorists have died on account of their beliefs? Should the terrorists be given respect because some aspects of their faith are uplifting? Does Islam have a greater claim to validity because the evidence of Muhammad's existence is superior to that for the existence of Jesus? Does the longevity of Islam mean that there must be some truth in its doctrines?

It seems that Newsweek has chosen to "cut some slack" to the Christian stories, applying far more lax standards than would be applied to other tales that claim to be historical.

 

[hgc]

Any notion that Newsweek does journalism instead of infotainment was laid to rest when they fixed up septuplet mom Bobbi McCaughey's teeth in a cover photo retouch job.

I wouldn't normally stand up for Time Magazine, but their cover the same week, with the same subject, showed the actual teeth, thus highlighting Newsweek's lie right there for all to see. Thanks, Time.

Ah, but then Time does the Jeebus-is-news extravaganza too.

 

[Psi Baba]

Any notion that Newsweek does journalism instead of infotainment was laid to rest when they fixed up septuplet mom Bobbi McCaughey's teeth in a cover photo retouch job.

I wouldn't normally stand up for Time Magazine, but their cover the same week, with the same subject, showed the actual teeth, thus highlighting Newsweek's lie right there for all to see. Thanks, Time.

Ah, but then Time does the Jeebus-is-news extravaganza too.

The irony is that Time started down that road with their altered photo of OJ (while Newsweek showed the same photo unaltered), but Newsweek didn't seem to learn the lesson, since they have been guilty of this on several occasions. The new buzzword is "photo-illustration" which photojournalists seem to think gives them an out when they alter a photograph. Now it seems that you have to check the contents page of news magazines every time if you want to know if the cover picture is real or not.
NPPA Calls Newsweek's Martha Stewart Cover "A Major Ethical Breach"

 

[Bruce]

Why do you hate Jesus?

 

[aerocontrols]

Newsweek Story

While things that have even the slightest possibility of being false, such as Michael Jackson molesting children or OJ killing his ex-wife, merit the qualification "alleged", that term is notably absent from the repetition of the empty tomb claim

Newsweek
A stone sealed the grave and, according to Mark, just after the sun rose two days later, Mary Magdalene and two other women were on their way to anoint the corpse with spices. Their concerns were practical, ordinary: were they strong enough to move the stone aside? As they drew near, however, they saw that the tomb was already open. Puzzled, they went inside, and a young man in a white robe—not Jesus—sitting on the right side of the tomb said: "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here, see the place where they laid him." Absorbing these words, the women, Mark says, "went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid."

Yeah, you're right. "Allegedly" is missing. In journalism, one can either say

OJ allegedly killed his ex-wife.

or one can say

MattJ says that OJ killed his ex-wife.

Either is acceptable.

MattJ

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Ah, but then Time does the Jeebus-is-news extravaganza too.

Yes, they both do a few of these a year, right on schedule. A way to spike news stand sales, I'd wager.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

 

[LostAngeles]

Why do you hate Jesus?

Because he kicked my puppy.

 

[Bruce]

Yes, they both do a few of these a year, right on schedule. A way to spike news stand sales, I'd wager.

It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

No, it's because he hates our free will.

 

[Renfield]

This kind of story doesn't stop the right wing of complaining about liberal bias in media coverage of religion. The truth is if the media gives any kind of consideration to the other side, no matter how small, it must be biases. There is room for only one perspective, their own. Among the more sensible of them, I think the whining about the liberal media is probably more of a strategic move. Democratic leadership does nothing to dispute their claims, so they may as well go on making them.

Hell, they are even claiming bias in the Shiavo case, when the media has gone out of its way to give us stories of brain damaged people who have recovered or to find Doctors to say Shiavo could be rehabilated. That her case is extremely severe or that the vast majority of Doctors would disagree is barely or never mentioned.

 

[Renfield]

Any notion that Newsweek does journalism instead of infotainment was laid to rest when they fixed up septuplet mom Bobbi McCaughey's teeth in a cover photo retouch job.

I wouldn't normally stand up for Time Magazine, but their cover the same week, with the same subject, showed the actual teeth, thus highlighting Newsweek's lie right there for all to see. Thanks, Time.

Ah, but then Time does the Jeebus-is-news extravaganza too.

How about their dark, sinister retouching of a Howard Dean photo on the cover? That wasn't just a puff piece either. Of course, it was fitting that they would do that in a way, in that it was indicitave of the quality their reporting on Dean.

 

[hgc]

I read a copy of Time Magazine yesterday, and was reminded of why I don't read either of these mags on a regular basis: they are unfailingly stupid. I do, however, see why I did like reading them when I was 12 years old. They are geared to that level of intellect.

Give me The Economist, The New York Review of Books, Scientific American and Natural History, and I'm mag-happy.

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: Re: Liberal media's hostility towards Christianity

Hell, they are even claiming bias in the Shiavo case, when the media has gone out of its way to give us stories of brain damaged people who have recovered or to find Doctors to say Shiavo could be rehabilated. That her case is extremely severe or that the vast majority of Doctors would disagree is barely or never mentioned.

This is the old, "fair and balanced treatment of both sides" in an issue where both sides are far from equal (with something like 8 courts and 18 of 20 judges and even 60% of all americans are on one side). To imply that both sides deserve equal weight in the matter is basically pandering to evangelical christians, and then still 53% think she should be allowed to die.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, you're right. "Allegedly" is missing. In journalism, one can either say

OJ allegedly killed his ex-wife.

or one can say

MattJ says that OJ killed his ex-wife.

Either is acceptable.

MattJ

Again, I am not an expert on journalism practices. But it seems to me that the references to Mark are casual, as if he were simply putting them in as a formality, rather than to create a journalist distance. He also does not make it clear whether they are meant to refer to just the sentences which contain them, or every sentence in the entire paragraph. The paragraph, from my point of view, is written with the author's voice, with the mentions of Mark presented merely as support, not to imply that these are merely allegations.

Newsweek
A stone sealed the grave and, according to Mark, just after the sun rose two days later, Mary Magdalene and two other women were on their way to anoint the corpse with spices. Their concerns were practical, ordinary: were they strong enough to move the stone aside? As they drew near, however, they saw that the tomb was already open. Puzzled, they went inside, and a young man in a white robe—not Jesus—sitting on the right side of the tomb said: "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here, see the place where they laid him." Absorbing these words, the women, Mark says, "went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid."

Note the editorilizing and personal touches added: "their concerns were practical, ordinary"; "Puzzled, they went inside, and a young man in a white robe-not Jesus...". Was the analysis of their concerns from Mark? Did Mark mention them being puzzled at the movement of the stone? Does one find Mark emphasizing that the young man is not Jesus? Or are these things which the author is not merely reporting, but claiming?

 

[Tony]

I read a copy of Time Magazine yesterday,.

Which one?

 

[Beerina]

he says that "Of his followers, only the women stayed as Jesus was taken from the cross, wrapped in a linen shroud and placed in a tomb carved out of the rock of a hillside,

Well, what woman wouldn't wanna take a lil' peek at God's wiener?

 

[Ed]

Time, Newsweek, Fox, CBS, etc. etc. are businesses. If they do not pander they go out of business.

Come on, did anyone really think that Chris Reeve was Superman?