Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

It's not unique to the Times, but the tendency of American outlets to frame Trump attacking the Pope as a "feud" is a way to "both sides" a conflict that really has only one side to it. Which comes across as bringing Leo down to Trump's level (he's not) and making the conflict seem like it's mutual (it isn't)

I think is is accurate. The problem for the Times is that they are no-doubt a militantly secular culture (other than Op-Ed writers Douthat and French) and so I doubt most Times journalists take the Papacy and the RCC very seriously.

[mtutiger]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

What is the problem you see in the article quoted in the meme that highlights your point? I'm missing it.

The screenshot clearly refers to this as a conflict (it's not a conflict if it's one sided IMO), and it refers to "these two people" as if the Pope has even really done more than just simply state the Catholic Church's view on just war policy multiple times.

Pretty much is a textbook example of my point.

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think is is accurate. The problem for the Times is that they are no-doubt a militantly secular culture (other than Op-Ed writers Douthat and French) and so I doubt most Times journalists take the Papacy and the RCC very seriously.

Maybe it's that, but I think political media at large (not just the Times) has a very difficult time covering politics right now in a way that doesn't center literally everything on Trump.

What's remarkable to me is that nothing that Leo has said is all that different than what any previous Pope would have said had this same conflict began, at least of the ones in my lifetime.... but because Trump is involved (and started the conflict, frankly), anodyne but important statements from the Pope about this war are now seen as a some sort of personal fight between the two when it's simply the Catholic Church taking the position the Catholic Church would have always taken in this situation.

[chasfh]

48 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The screenshot clearly refers to this as a conflict (it's not a conflict if it's one sided IMO), and it refers to "these two people" as if the Pope has even really done more than just simply state the Catholic Church's view on just war policy multiple times.

Pretty much is a textbook example of my point.

This particular quote, in context with what went before it, refers to people who have previously occupied the offices of the president and the pope in general, not these two specific people. In any event, the conflict is not one-directional as you imply, since Leo is specifically responding to Trump's words and his actions in Iran. It's true that Trump is breathing fire at Leo who is deftly using verbal jiu-jitsu to respond, so in that sense the hostility attribute is definitely one-sided. But since Leo is engaging instead of ignoring, he does have a role, however softly pedaled, in the conflict. You may disagree, but that's how it looks to me.

[mtutiger]

https://www.usccb.org/news/2026/following-trumps-critical-post-pope-leo-continues-his-plea-peace

"I’m not a politician, and I have no intention of getting into a debate with him," he told an Italian television reporter April 13. "Rather, the message has always been the same: to promote peace -- and I say this for all world leaders, not just him."

"To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think, is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is," Pope Leo said. "I'm sorry to hear that, but I will continue on with what I believe is the mission of the Church in the world today."

These quotes from the Pope himself illustrate the issue for me. It frames the Pope's words in the context of the traditional American political food fight, and it pretty clearly isn't... He's representing the views of the church. And he'd be saying the exact same thing regardless of whichever President started this war.

Edited 3 minutes ago by mtutiger