Hugh's question is, "What does Newsweek's story on Christmas tell us about MSM?" The Newsweek story is a skeptical, doubting look at the Christmas story.
So what does this story tell us about MSM? Well, it's really pretty simple (and I say this before reading all the other bloggers' submissions in the symposium; when I do that, I'm sure I'll find out that it's not that simple at all!)
Anyway, here's my opinion: Journalists are taught to be skeptical, and the field itself probably attracts people who are skeptical to begin with. Faith probably comes hard for them, I think, just as it does for people in the field of psychology (I know, because that's my field). They're taught -- or naturally inclined -- to not trust those in positions of authority, to look for ulterior motives, to doubt the veracity of sources, to check, check, double check. You know the line: If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out!
So, I'm sure they find it very hard to accept what 2000 years of Church teaching sets forth in regard to the Christmas story (or anything else, for that matter, such as abortion or euthanasia).
I'm not saying that all reporters are non-believers, just as not all psychologists are. But it doesn't surprise me in the least to see this kind of story published in Newsweek.
Of course, you have to wonder where all that skepticism goes when a "journalist" is given fraudulent documents....
UPDATE: Welcome, Hugh Hewitt visitors, and Merry Christmas to you all!
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Hugh Hewitt's Symposium VI
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I found your post through Hugh Hewitt. I agree with you that journalists are taught to be skeptical, but I think that rather than checking, checking and double checking, they look for sources to support their point of view and stop there. In the Newsweek article, Meacham tosses out a point, say the virgin birth, and then works to discredit it. He makes no effort to source anyone who has studied this and believes it's true. The only sources he quotes are those that consider the Bible somewhat fictional.
Sensible Mom has a good point, which dovetails with the one I made about journalists not trusting authority. If, for example, the situation were suddenly reversed, so that the "official" view of church authorities was that there WASN'T a Virgin Birth, and there were just a few voices saying that it was, the Newsweek article would have probably sided with the dissenters. You see what I'm saying? Journalists just are not inclined to believe anything that a person in authority says. In their minds (if I can play a mind-reader for a moment), "checking" means, "quoting those who disagree with the authorities".
They do this on news broadcasts constantly. For any given story, you'll hear, "Authorities say that blah blah blah, BUT, we found instead that blah blah blah." Or, "The President today said blah blah blahbitty blah, BUT a spokesperson for the group Save our Ferndocs said [exact opposite of blah blah blahbitty blah]." And of course, as Sensible Mom said, journalists certainly have a tendency to only look for sources that confirm what they already believe. We all do that to some degree, which is why I read leftie blogs (though I don't bother linking to them!)
I like Sensible Mom's comment that reporters "look for sources to support their point of view and stop there". I find it interesting that this particular Newsweek reporter applies that same criticism to the authors of the Gospels as a method of discrediting them. This debunking of the Nativity and the virgin birth is predicated on speculation that the authors of the Gospels cooked this up to sell Christianity to Jews and Gentiles. In other words, these people are figuring that the apostles had an agenda and wrote a slanted account. If that's how Dan Rather operates, it's got to be where Matthew, Mark. Luke and John were coming from, right? But what they don't account for is this: if I were an apostle and early Christian and I made up stuff to pad the 'Jesus story', I don't think I go through a torturous death over it, would you? The apostles did, in the name of Christ.
I love this line from the Newsweek article: 'In 1965, the Second Vatican Council held that while the Scriptures are ultimately "true," they are not necessarily to be taken as accurate in the sense we might take an Associated Press wire report about what happened at a school-board meeting as accurate.'. First of all, I don't recall the Second Vatican Council ever mentioning the Associated Press, but apparently they were big fans. Second, an AP article on something mudane like a school board meeting very well may have bias and slant and be predicated more on an agenda than on historical accuracy.
Here's another way in which the author tips his hand on his bias - he presents "The DaVinci Code" as 'historical view' -- "The clash between literalism and a more historical view of faith is also playing out in theaters and bookstores….. With 9 million hardcover copies in print, Dan Brown's thriller "The Da Vinci Code," one of the most widely read books of our time, is partly built around the assertion that the early church covered up important facts about Jesus in order to manufacture Christian creeds." So the fictitious work of Dan Brown is the definitive word on items of faith and history, after all it sold 9 million hardcover.
On the topic of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the divinity/humanity of Christ, and the Resurrection for that matter, it still all comes down to Jesus said he was the Son of God. If you believe that and that God created the entire universe, then it's not too hard to accept virgin births, God becoming man, the Star of Bethlehem, miracles, and the resurrection. God owns the joint, he can do whatever He pleases! But ironically, some of these Jesus scholars don't believe in creation nor in God becoming man. Since one won't find historical proof for Jesus being God, it's easy for them, or reporters, or PBS for that matter, to pick at 2000 year old history and extrude the Gospels through their modern day skepticism and wash away the divinity, the miracles, the plan for salvation. They speculate what the Jews were thinking 2000 years ago and what the apostles would have done to appeal to them and the Gentiles, and they present it as fact. They have every right to speculate, that's the offer God is giving each one of us: believe or don't, it's your choice. I think it's by design that all we really have are the written accounts, it requires a leap of faith. If the evidence were undisputed, completely documented, and witnessed by all - it would be easy to believe and to pray more and to do God's will. But it would be less your choice. If we saw God's full divinity it would be compelling.
Faith is a religious issue and these are supposed to be objective reporters and scholars, but it appears to me that they're being religious, their faith is that this divinity stuff is false.
TJS
Saw your site at Hewitt's Symposium. Hope you get a ton of hits! A little off subject as I don't have your email address, but I found a fantastic education/homeschool link you and your home school friends may be interested in. You may be familiar with it, it's "brian's education blog", linked under my blogs. It's terrific! Check it out!
www.thisisrich.blogspot.com
Post a Comment