'Mary and the city':
The media focuses instead
on the Pope's criticism
Editorial
by Giovanni Maria Vian
Translated from
the 12/9-12/10 issue of
The media was struck by the remarks that Benedict XVI delivered in front of the image of the Immacolata in Piazza di Spagna on Tuesday afternoon.
The relationship between the Pope and the information world is not easy. It was never easy, and it is not easy now, to the point that an authoritative French journalist and historian recently wrote a book on this very issue (Bernarde Lecomte,
Pourquoi le pape a mauvaise presse. Entretiens avec Marc Leboucher, Desclée de Brouwer, Why the Pope has a bad press).
Thus, even his remarks about Mary and the city of Rome were reported in the media - even if with much agreement - above all for the Pope's criticism that the media dwell on bad news without too many scruples.
Benedict XVI's reflection was not principally focused on this issue, even if it is highly relevant. In fact, the Pope once more, and with simplicity, had gone to the root issue, taking his cue from the Marian images that are found around Rome to remind men of God's presence among them.
Images to remind man that evil was conquered precisely in a human being - a woman - who was preserved from original sin. To remind every creature that hope is possible.
The presence of God can change things, "or better said, it changes persons, and consequently, it makes society better", Benedict XVI said yesterday.
In short, what really matters is that evil was defeated - it can be defeated. This is the 'good news' to keep in mind against evil that can make man gradually insensitive - which leads to a hardening of the heart, a darkening of thought and disposition, reducing human beings to soulless objects.
This is a reality that is not seldom the result of choices made by those who control the media and bring information to the level of spectacle. With the consequence of taking away a sense of responsibility from those whom media has come to consider only as 'spectators'.
Beyond this analysis, which is widely shared, the Pope recalled realistically that every human being, whether he is aware of it or not, is nonetheless an actor in the theater of life, for good or bad, because his daily choices, even if seemingly trivial, always have consequences.
Thus, even in reporting evil, in the pitiless abuse of persons by the media - each person body and soul, realities assumed by Christ himself - especially those who are usually ignored ('invisible') and therefore defenseless, it must be remembered that "every human story is a sacred story".
Benedict XVI said this forcefully in explaining the reason for the dehumanization of contemporary society: if God is removed from the human horizon, from the public scene as well as from the human heart, then the desecration (desacralization) includes the human being, who is the image of God.
Of course, Vian is being unrealistic. The secular media would never have led off with 'Pope says God should be present in the world', partly because, for the Pope, any Pope, it's like reporting 'dog bites man'. Whereas every beginning journalist is taught that 'dog bites man' is not news at all, but 'man bites dog' is. So in this case, the secular media simply reported 'man bites dog' - the Pope is on the warpath against the media.
One of the major Italian newspapers even sought out a Catholic newspaper editor on the subject:
'Too often, we pump up
the news with hormones'
Translated from
dEC. 9, 2009
We spoke to Marco Tarquinio, editor of
Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference [which has been the object of brutal attacks from some the secular media in recent months] about Benedict XVI's remarks at piazza di Spagna in Rome on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception yesterday:
Do you share the Pope's harsh criticism of the media?
Harsh? I thought it was very much on target. It should be an effective memorandum for us journalists.
The spectacle often made of the news in newspapers and TV is too often disrespectful of the person
[who is the subject of the news story] whether he is the victim, an offender or even just a suspect. Everyone is tried and condemned 'by publicity' these days, except those who write these stories, even when they make a mistake.
[The case of Tarquinio's predecessor Dino Boffo is most instructive and very much to the point. See latest development in the CHURCH&VATICAN thread.]
And TV is even more pervasive.
Those are serious accusations. [Yes, but they are also very obvious to anyone who follows the media, especially if one has to do so out of necessity, not for 'pleasure' or even entertainment!]
The fact is none of us should feel entitled to judge others - the point may seem to be banal, but it is not.
Will it help if things are toned down? [DUH1]
The tone, if appropriate, may serve a purpose but it depends how it is used. It would be good if media reports everything including what is positive in society. But first of all, the media should show more respect for persons.
In what sense?
We newsmen always tend to outrun events - there is an obsession to anticipate everything, and thus, there is a tendency to try for the preemptive announcement - even about the culpability of persons.
There is an improper exploitation of persons in the news. And if the person happens to be a celebrity, or is someone attractive, then the news becomes even more pervasive.
[And invasive!]
Amanda Knox, for instance? [The 23-year-old American student recently sentenced to 26 years in prison for the stabbing death of her British roommate. She is one of three persons sentenced for the crime.]
If she had been a plain Jane, she would have received far less attention... The problem is that media have too many preconceived narrative schemes.
For instance?
We fill up pages and pages with photographs, though a newspaper reader probably spends only 20 minutes to look through the whole paper. And so all the newspapers today are oversize. To go with this, to build up the spectacle that is being presented, we tend to pump up the news with hormones, so to speak, even as we have really become more lazy.
Lazy?
Yes, too lazy to examine a news report in depth, too lazy to bring out all sides of a story. Of course, that's a more effortful way, but then, laziness also means mistakes are more likely. Even if the mistakes are later corrected, the correction usually goes unnoticed.
Do the newspapers risk being less credible? [Most of the major newspapers in the United States already are - that is why their readership has been falling steadily. Their readers are now able to check their reporting against other information available on the Internet.]
That too. The sad fact is that we often speak about 'the truth', but without exercising responsibility to the truth, our profession becomes meaningless.
On the other hand, there is the risk of self-censorship. [And what is wrong with that? Except the right term is self-editing.]
Yes, we should be more even-tempered - have a calmer attitude towards the news. Instead of simply blowing up some items - without seeking to really examine them or look deeper. Perhaps because in doing so, one might find the story no longer fits the headline or the effect one has imagined for it.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/12/2009 00:24]