Furry,"Evangelicals are often dismissed, particularly in political
reporting, as exotic; or, worse, as a menace to civil society""coverage during Holy Week that were "so inaccurate and off-key that
they comprised a kind of impromptu 'Gong Show.’”That's your idea of fair, accurate, and unbiased?Boy, I'd hate
to see something you thought was mean and biased!Mark,Are you
saying religious people should be barred from newsrooms? how does that square
with the 1st amendment?
Furry1993It's sad (but consistent) that you would think that poor
treatment is "fair, accurate and unbiased" treatment.
@Mark BHow did non-religous journalists do at exposing Kermit
Gosnell's abortion clinic?Oh yea: No hard questions were asked
until they were shamed into it.So it seems balance IS needed
Would having religious journalists mean asking no hard questions to religious
leaders? How did that work out with finding abuse of children by Catholic
Furry1993Fair, accurate, and unbiased.We could cut every
last thief's hand off in order to be fair due to the equal gravity of the
crime weighed against the punishment, accurate to the crime committed, and
unbiased to each criminal as the law would apply equally. Although I suspect
most of us would believe this to be cruel and inhumane, even well beyond poor
treatment.Dieter F. Uchtdorf said..."When we talk
about testimony, we refer to feelings of our heart and mind rather than an
accumulation of logical, sterile facts."I like the way this is
phrased. The world may see religion with an inaccurate lens, and that lens may
show a sterile truth. Uchtdorf also reminded us at a CES Devotional that even
though we may see a portion of the truth, it does not mean we have a fullness of
it or can assume to accurately judge what we do not yet know.bw00ds
and myself have all experienced things in our lives which testify of the poor
treatment religion receives in the media. What is sad is spending wasted and
unproductive time criticizing others who gave no offense. It wasn't
Obviously, furry, you have a different view point. I think you could choose a
more polite form of expression if you were looking for a discussion. But then
again, you probably just wanted to spout.
@bw00ds It's sad that you would think fair, accurate and unbiased
treatment is "poor" treatment.
This makes sense. If there are hardly any reporters who regularly practice a
religion or even consider themselves to be a believer of some sort, then any
religious entities are truly the "outsiders" to them. Now I understand
one of the reasons why religion gets such poor treatment in the press.