OFFLINE
TERESA BENEDETTA
Post: 31.144
Post: 13.234
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Gold
May 24, 2017 headlines
PewSitter
Canon212.com
The pickle face is, of course, Pope Francis's countenance in the photo above, which was the most used by the world's
media yesterday on the meeting between the president and the pope... You know, Dumbo Sleazo America-first Trump
with the wide stupid grin, while the world's foremost moral authority, and the now undisputed leader of the Global
Left, frowns to show how much he disapproves of the man and his policies....
Of course, there were dozens of other photos as well, such as the ff which one might call a two-step loosening of
the Francis frown...'
And one where he looks every inch the pleasant host when greeting Melania Trump (below, right):
So, not wanting to bother yesterday with the dozens of news reports about THE MEETING, here is a good round-up which also
underscores the determined reportorial and editorial anti-Trump bias that dictated how the story was covered.
The Trump-Bergoglio meeting:
Did your news sources tell you
there was any ‘common ground’?
By Terry Mattingly
May 25, 2017
Several weeks after the stunning election of Donald Trump, I was in New York City and attended an event that drew a large flock of urbane Catholics. There was, of course, lots of talk about the election. But many people were already thinking about the inevitable moment when
Pope Francis would meet President Donald Trump.
Several people said something like this: Everybody already knows about their disagreements. It will be interesting to learn what they agree on.
With that in mind, let's turn to several examples of the press coverage of their Vatican meeting. From a journalism point of view, the key is that their actual talk was behind closed doors – with only an interpreter present. So other than comments on facial expressions, fashion and symbolic gifts, what is the key material here for journalists?
There was, of course, a Vatican statement released afterwards, which can be seen as a short, dry summary of what official voices want outsiders to know was on the agenda.
So how much attention did that statement receive in the Associated Press report that will be buried somewhere inside most newspapers (since there were no public fireworks)? This is all that readers got, down in the story text:
When Trump departed, he told the pope: "Thank you, I won't forget what you said." ...
Hours later, Trump tweeted the meeting was the "honor of a lifetime."
A statement released by the Vatican later said "satisfaction was expressed" at their "joint commitment in favor of life" and that there was hoped-for collaboration on health care and assistance to immigrants and protection of Christian communities in the Middle East.
Needless to say, the AP team played quite a bit of attention to the two men's past disagreements. That's valid. But why not focus similar attention on this statement?
I would ask the same question about the main
New York Times report. It opened – as one would expect – with a predictable statement of differences.
VATICAN CITY -- Pope Francis welcomed President Trump to the Vatican on Wednesday, shaking his hand before ushering him into his study for the first face-to-face meeting of the two leaders, who symbolize starkly different views of the world.
Later, after a tsunami of details about fashion and protocol, the Times team added:
Smiles and pleasantries aside, the atmospherics of this meeting were fraught. Pope Francis and Mr. Trump have diametrically opposed views on issues as varied as immigration, climate change and arms sales. Although both men seemed determined not to let politics intrude on their encounter, the underlying tensions were clear.
So that was that.
There was no mention of the Vatican statement, with its descriptions of the topics on which the two leaders sought common ground. Zero. Zip. Nada. Niente. Nichevo.
The
Washington Post report was pretty much the same, other than this:
A brief Vatican communique later called the meeting “cordial,” and expressed hope for collaboration with the administration on “health care, education and assistance to immigrants.”
It said Trump and Francis had exchanged views on “international affairs and the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation and inter-religious dialogue, with particular reference to the situation in the Middle East and the protection of Christian communities.”
That "particular reference" might have been worth some follow-up questions. Still it was good that the Post at least made a small nod to the religious persecution issue.
Obviously, what little is known about the content of the private meeting received much more attention at
Crux, a news website that focuses on global Catholic news and trends. The headline there said:
"Pope and Trump focused on life, religious freedom and conscience, Vatican says."
The bottom line: It would be hard to write a headline and overture that was more different than those seen in mainstream news reports.
Pope Francis and President Donald Trump had a "cordial" talk Wednesday morning, according to a Vatican statement, which said they focused on areas of agreement including a “joint commitment in favor of life, and freedom of worship and conscience.”
Following this morning’s first-ever encounter between Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump, a Vatican statement said that the two men focused on concerns they have in common during their half-hour together, including a “joint commitment in favor of life, and freedom of worship and conscience.”
Wait a minute. These two men have something in common? Note in particular the reference to freedom of religion or, in mainstream media talk, that would be "religious liberty" (inside scare quotes).
The sad implication is that
many mainstream journalists must have assumed that only "religious" readers would want to know on-the-record details about any positive elements, any common ground, explored during this interesting encounter.
The
Crux report added:
The Vatican statement, issued shortly before noon Rome time on Wednesday, some three hours after the meeting concluded, also said it’s hoped that there may be “serene collaboration between the state and the Catholic Church in the United States, engaged in service to the people in the fields of healthcare, education and assistance to immigrants.”
The Vatican communique indicated that Trump and Francis also discussed a variety of international issues.
“The discussions then enabled an exchange of views on various themes relating to international affairs and the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation and inter-religious dialogue, with particular reference to the situation in the Middle East and the protection of Christian communities,” it said...
Yes, there are smooth pin pricks in the text alluding to differences between the Vatican and this White House – such as the references to healthcare, immigration and seeking peace through dialogue (after headlines about the new $110 billion U.S.-Saudi arms deal).
[Of course, Bergoglios maintain that the arms trade is really behind all the terrorism in the world. I wonder if he brought up the Saudi arms deal to Trump.
Nevertheless, it was clear that religious freedom and the crushing of ancient churches in the Middle East were topics that were emphasized – as subjects on which there was substantial agreement.
So what's the logic, in terms of Journalism 101, for ignoring or burying material from the Vatican statement? Just asking.
By the way, here is the crucial language from an English translation of the actual Vatican statement:
During the cordial discussions, satisfaction was expressed for the good existing bilateral relations between the Holy See and the United States of America, as well as the joint commitment in favor of life, and freedom of worship and conscience.
It is hoped that there may be serene collaboration between the state and the Catholic Church in the United States, engaged in service to the people in the fields of healthcare, education and assistance to immigrants.
The discussions then enabled an exchange of views on various themes relating to international affairs and the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation and inter-religious dialogue, with particular reference to the situation in the Middle East and the protection of Christian communities.
Oh, and here are the top two (here and here) USA Today stories on the meeting that are getting the most traffic
(screenshot of email pushing that content):
Meanwhile, two rather feeble takes on the Trump-Bergoglio meeting from two commentators for the UK Spectator. Damian Thompson
was a former editor of Catholic Herald and is back as one of its editorial directors, while Dan Hitchens is current deputy editor of the CH.
I might tag both pieces with "Not so fast, guys. Superficial impressions are useless at this level". .
The strange similarity between
Donald Trump and Pope Francis
by Dan Hitchens
24 May 2017
Donald Trump’s verdict on his audience with Pope Francis – ‘fantastic meeting’, ‘honor of a lifetime’ – may disappoint those who were expecting a showdown.
[On the other hand, what else is new? Trump is the master of indiscriminate hyperbole which gives him a maddeningly limited lexicon of terms, laudatory or otherwise.]
The Pope is supposed to be Trump’s ‘antithesis’, ‘the anti-Trump’, his‘polar opposite’ and so on and so on.
But in the end the meeting was merely awkward, to judge by the photos, and the discussion was mostly confined to safe issues (life, peace and liberty good, persecution of Christians bad). People are making much of the grumpiest Pope photo, but Francis often looks bored and uneasy when he meets important dignitaries.
[Unless they happen to be one of the Cuba Castros, Evo Morales or Bolivia, or some non-Catholic dignitary!]
If the meeting was an anti-climax, that is appropriate, because for all that is written on both leaders and what they symbolise, Francis and Trump are both distinguished by a lack of clarity about what they actually stand for.
[And a highly reprehensible and undisciplined loquacity!]
Trump is meant to be the champion of the ‘forgotten men and women’, but this doesn’t seem to be reflected in his policies or his poll ratings. He is meant to be a courageous speaker of truth to the cultural elite, but on the crunch issue of religious liberty he has backed down.
He is meant to be a no-nonsense opponent of Islamist violence – in 2011, for instance, Trump declared that Saudi Arabia is ‘the world’s biggest funder of terrorism’ – but he has just travelled to Saudi Arabia to reassure them that the US is on their side. Maybe that is just diplomacy, but it is not what we were led to believe about Donald Trump.
[In other words, Trump has learned to be a politician. Politician President Trump cannot articulate some things he could say freely as a candidate, or at least not to everyone, especially not those most directly concerned if he happens to need them for some aspect of his policies.]
Pope Francis, in his own way, is equally confusing. Francis eloquently insists on the moral absolutes which should govern the treatment of the weak by the strong: he appeals for the rights of workers, migrants, the unborn, the unemployed, the homeless, the elderly, the disabled and other victims of – as he put it in his finest phrase – ‘the throwaway culture’. That is what people expect from religious leaders: an appeal to a standard which is more than human.
This morning Trump gave the Pope a collection of Martin Luther King’s writings: a sensible choice, since there the Pope will find King’s magnificent words about
the divine law that cannot change, the possible duty to disobey ‘a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and the natural law’.
Francis has often echoed those principles. But his actions have also undermined them. Jesus is severe about the treatment of the vulnerable; he is equally severe about marriage, and it is incoherent for Christians to ignore either point.
Under Francis’s watch, the upper echelons of the Church have been consumed by a debate about whether Church teachings on divorce and other matters are worth taking seriously. Without explicitly denying the Church’s doctrines, the Pope has quietly encouraged those who challenge those doctrines, and obliquely dismissed those who defend them. As well as distressing Catholics, this rather complicates Francis’s image as
an unflinching voice of moral clarity. [Really, Mr Hitchens? When did Jorge Bergoglio ever sound like the unflinching voice of 'moral clarity'? Why do we have the DUBIA about Amoris laetitia? To his favorite leftist Marxist politicians? To the Chinese Communist regime he is desperately trying to win over so he can be the first pope ever to visit China? To the Order of Malta" To the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate?]
Today’s meeting may lead to some concrete outcomes: it could be a moment when Trump gets serious about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, or a sign that the Vatican will press more for migrants’ rights in the US. But perhaps its biggest significance is in helping to puncture some illusions about world leaders and the fantasies we project onto them.
And one must, of course, dismiss Thompson's quirky conclusion that the two men 'hit it off' in any way...
Pope Francis’s liberal fan club visibly
upset after he hits it off with Trump
by Damian Thompson
24 May 2017
Pope Francis met President Trump this morning and they appear to have hit it off. After a 30-minute meeting in the Vatican, the president emerged beaming, describing the private audience as ‘the honour of a lifetime’.
The Pope, too, was described as ‘grinning from ear to ear’. [Sez who? The pickle-face photo was the global media's chosen takehome message #1 from the meeting!]
We don’t know if the two men discussed global warming, on which they famously disagree. Francis did give Trump a copy of
Laudato Si’, his encyclical on the environment – but as Christoper Lamb, Rome correspondent of the left-wing Tablet, glumly tweeted:
‘No mention of climate change in Vatican statement’.
Lamb is not a happy bunny today. Last week he was excited about ‘the potential for fireworks’ at the meeting:
The Pope has become a de facto leader of the globalist, compassionate post-war consensus with his focus on refugees, climate change and inequality while the president is a more unpredictable figure. His largely nationalist ‘America first’ tone has been coupled with airstrikes in Syria and an escalation of tensions with North Korea.
That’s the level of analysis we’ve come to expect from the small group of liberal journalists who have effectively canonised Francis while he’s still alive. Before the visit, they were very annoyed by suggestions that the Pope and the president had a certain amount in common – they’re populists, they shoot from the hip, and neither is adept at turning grandstanding into legislation.
Today it appeared that the two men’s similar modus operandi got in the way of the ‘fireworks’ Catholic liberals had hoped for. Trump and Francis are both susceptible to flattery. The president was laying it on with a trowel as he emerged from the meeting, but it sounds to me as if he’d liked what he heard.
[Yeah, right! Other than the intemperate Muslim jihadists, name me a leader worth media attention anywhere who will ever say "Make war, not peace"! Even the ayatollahs of Iran and Kim something-or-other in North Korea don't.]
‘I leave the Vatican even more determined to pursue PEACE in the world’, he tweeted. Is there a hint there that Francis suggested they might work together as peacemakers? Stranger things have happened.
Finally, let me end this omnibus post with the spotlight on Melania Trump who, in Rome yesterday, created more genuine news than
has ever been reported on her since she became the First Lady of the USA.
In the first two photos, she is shown having a rosary blessed by the pope. In the middle photos, praying before a statue of
Our Lady at the Bambino Gesu Hospital and later at the hospital chapel.
Lastly, with the children she visited with at the hospital, reading to them and taking part in some coloring activities. She is
shown kissing a boy who was awaiting a donor heart for a transplant, and Melania's day was capped by getting the news
a few hours later in Brussels that the boy got his new heart. All photos and information from the UK
Daily Mail.
One big news in all this, of course, was the disclosure that she is a Roman Catholic, which was confirmed by her press officer but without
any details. [Why did the reporters not press for details??? Maybe it is not important to them, as if it might have been if she had turned
out to be, say, a Scientologist!] When in the past 12 years did she become Catholic? (She and Trump were married in an Episcopalian
church in Florida.) She was born and raised in Slovenia, which although it does have a long Catholic tradition, was also part of Communist
Yugoslavia. Her father, having been a Communist official, neither she nor her sister were baptized nor raised Catholic. And why would
the Trump PR apparatus have kept her Catholicism under wraps? Is anyone in the US media pursuing this story at all? As the Mail
points out, she would be the first Catholic in the White House since the Kennedys in the 1960s...
I have two big questions naturally if it is true that Melania Trump is a Catholic. The first being, what kind of Catholic, exactly? John and
Jacqueline Kennedy and their huge extended clans were hardly poster material for Catholicism. And now the pope himself is anti-Catholic!
The other question is - what, if any, effect or influence will Melania's religion have on her husband's policies? (After all, he is already
committed in principle to the right to life and to religious freedom, and I think his business sense will not allow him to get involved
in any major climate-catastrophism measures which will cost the earth (to use the metaphor paradoxically in its usual figurative meaning)
and which would be largely futile and unnecessary.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 25/05/2017 22:48]