The pope and the media

[Torsten]

I am no friend of the pope, and if al quaeda wants to smoke him then that's fine by me. But they should do it for the right reasons, not for a media fuck up as has just happened.

I just wanted to post about this because it is one of those sticky situations where the media reported one headline story on the first day, but then did not give the correction the same prominence. This means that most people will only know the distorted media truth. IN most cases that is not significant, but in this case it could well be the escalation of WW III.

What the media reported were comments by the Pope about violence in religion. They quoted him as saying that islam is a religion of violence. This is the news that spread around the world.

What the news did not report was the fact that the pope was actually quoting a historical figure. They also did not mention that he was addressing an auditorium of academics. The pope's presentation was in fact exactly the opposite of what the media cited. The pope was using the historical quote as a counterpoint and had previously clearly stated this to be a quote and also stated that he did not share this opinion. The presentation was on the futility and incompatibility of violence and religion.

So how did the media get it so wrong? It could be foreign language problems or it could be mischief. But more likely it was simply ignorance. It is unlikely that an educated reporter could have misunderstood this quote to be anything other than what it was. Naturally no one in the audience misunderstood it. So, maybe this means to protect ones integrity it will be essential to eliminate careless and uneducated reporters from academic presentations. So the result of reporters doing their job sloppily could be that the population misses out on such presentations because the media can't be trusted.

Let's not forget this disaster when the next sky scraper tumbles or the next nighclub blows up. The violence was not incited by muslims, nor the pope, but by that other great religion - the tabloid media. Think about that when you next offer them money for their entertainment 'services'.

[Pelinster]

What you have said here has made me think of something (which is quite rare, well done ). I wonder what kind of impact western style journalism will have in the Middle East? I know nothing about middle eastern media, but I understand that they interpret things differently than we do.

We have been brought up with journalists who constantly take things out of context and write their news articles so that it becomes an opinion, not a reflection of the facts. So we are better equipped to deal with this kind of reporting and more objective when reading claims without first hearing the full story.

In the middle east, when something insulting is published in the media, it seems that the people who feel humiliated by these insults react very strongly and take the claims very seriously. Obviously the way they see themselves publicly is very important to them so being put down publicly is one of the worst things that can happen to them. The rise of Western styled journalism could only fuel the fire. The ability to publish a story that has people rioting overnight, is a power that the media should not have and will surely abuse. It is scary and I understand what you say about the Media being a possible source for starting a chain reaction that could lead to something catastrophic.

Imagine Today Tonight, or A Current Affair in a society where they take these things a little more seriously. Imagine being the poor guy who gets sledged for 'bludging' or even for being an 'infidel' by his lunatic ex wife on one of those programs. You would probably walk out your front door in the morning and get gunned down! I wonder what Ray Martin would do with that kind of power? (He would probably place a fatwa on John Safran )

Edited September 18, 2006 by Pelinster

[Maturin]

I hate the media, it's why I don't watch any TV (discussed in another thread).

But what I don't understand is that some people just don't see the massive elephant in the room. A small percentage of Muslims ARE violent. And when you have 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, that small percentage actually adds up to something rather significant.

Sure, the media placed this out of context...but it takes two to tango. Do you go off just because someone said something, or do you investigate further before reacting? In Africa a nun was stabbed and various churches were burnt down...by people from the 'religion of peace'. Did they not at any time stop and try to actually read or interpret what was said before they went nuts? Apparently not.

And the joke of it is, someone is misquoted saying 'blah, blah, Islam is violent' and how do SOME Muslims react? They react with violence. Good one.

[Maturin]

Oops, double post.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Maturin

[Torsten]

Don't get me wrong Maturin, I am not defending the actions of the violent muslims, and the irony of the violence as protest against being called violent does not escape me either. My opinion about the destructive nature of religion is probably well known by now, so I did not elaborate on that. I was just commenting on how a trivial misunderstanding promoted/caused by the world media could easily escalate a simmering conflict into all out war without there being any accountability for those who were chasing the dollars to get the headlines.

If I was a bit more cynical or a conspiracy theorist I would have suggested that maybe the Pope engineered this situation to show up Islam for the violent religion it actually is in some countries. And no, Islam does not have a monopoly on this as judaochristian fundamentalist are causing far more death and destruction at the moment than all other religions together.

[Pelinster]

I hate the media, it's why I don't watch any TV (discussed in another thread).

But what I don't understand is that some people just don't see the massive elephant in the room. A small percentage of Muslims ARE violent. And when you have 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, that small percentage actually adds up to something rather significant.

Sure, the media placed this out of context...but it takes two to tango. Do you go off just because someone said something, or do you investigate further before reacting? In Africa a nun was stabbed and various churches were burnt down...by people from the 'religion of peace'. Did they not at any time stop and try to actually read or interpret what was said before they went nuts? Apparently not.

And the joke of it is, someone is misquoted saying 'blah, blah, Islam is violent' and how do SOME Muslims react? They react with violence. Good one.

I put it to you that if I was to grow up in identical circumstances to the people who committed the violent examples you mentioned, I believe I would likely do exactly the same thing. I don't think anyone is inherently violent, but I am sure you can create a violent person with the right environment/circumstances. I think pointing the finger at any group of people no matter how the statistics weigh out is wrong and if you want to address a broad term, address the environment. As long as the rest of the world continues to indulge in superiority and simplify the issues at hand, things will only get worse.

[/my 2bob]

Edited September 19, 2006 by Pelinster

[Maturin]

Torsten, yeah I know where you're coming from, and I wasn't having a go at anyone in particular. Christianity is very destructive as well, although I see the destruction as being mostly in a different light. For instance, the Vatican saying don't use condoms is inherently stupid in that it causes more unwanted births and the spread of AIDS and so forth. There is the arrogance factor that proselytises as well, and many, many more things. I guess I'm just sick of the whole 'don't criticise Islam' thing. No religion is beyond criticism in my eyes, if it is harming others that is. If they keep to themselves, I don't care.

Pelinster, I somewhat disagree. The terrorists that have polarised these issues and brought them to light in the Western world did not come from some oppressed background. They were middle class, tertiary educated people. They were engineers and uni grads. Some, like those caught in England recently, are also not living in some shit hole existence, but had the opportunity like all those living in Western society to make something of their lives. They chose some bullshit ideology instead. Perhaps those living in Palestine and so forth may have some cause to complain...but then again this is also too easy to simplify. Why kill and riot because someone voiced an opinion? Why not let it go and prove them wrong by being peaceful?

[Pelinster]

Pelinster, I somewhat disagree. The terrorists that have polarised these issues and brought them to light in the Western world did not come from some oppressed background. They were middle class, tertiary educated people. They were engineers and uni grads. Some, like those caught in England recently, are also not living in some shit hole existence, but had the opportunity like all those living in Western society to make something of their lives. They chose some bullshit ideology instead. Perhaps those living in Palestine and so forth may have some cause to complain...but then again this is also too easy to simplify. Why kill and riot because someone voiced an opinion? Why not let it go and prove them wrong by being peaceful?

I wasn't referring to an abusive up bringing. What I was referring to was the fact that people don't just wake up one day and become 'evil'. They are a product of their upbringing/life/circumstances/environment. I believe that put me in the shoes of any of the people who committed any of these crimes, and I mean from birth to the events, there would be a high chance of me performing the same acts. Minus a small amount of genetic brain defects I feel people will basically do exactly what any other would do given the completely same circumstances. Being a member of a particular religion is just one part of what makes someone who they are. The way they have lived their lives will dictate how they choose to interpret that data.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Pelinster

[apothecary]

I think that's the main point.

This was Professor Ratzinger, a well known (and in some circles, well respected) theologian, from University of Bonn.

And he was just one academic talking to a room of others academics!

The media is the wedge here. It's plain to see that.

If this Pope was a little less spineless (or maybe he just doesn't want to start anything considering he'll be demoted in a few years anyway) then he would have used his two so far press releases to blame the whole thing on the media and tell the Muslims to declare Jihad on THEM!

Now that's a WW3 I'm down for

[The Dude]

Interesting I think how cultures behave in which ever ways yeah. Bought about by their situation their history and such. Was reading that ..reptillian mans post about the english, quite interesting. I also find that some german Artwork and Music.. Giger, Rammstein.. ;) is very daaark. So what I'm saying is yeah obviously ones culture and the history of that culture has an impact on the present day actions and such..

and to look at history and say, well islam has a history of violence, is quite fucking hillarious when you think of the christian crusades that came with the very purpose of fucking their shit up. Still the .. collective soul of the people carries the shadow of past and now very recent history, shiit, shit is getting fucked up all the time up in the middle-east in the name of liberation and such, it's like beating a dog and wondering why it's aggressive.

It seems the machinations of what has taken place leaves the situation with again a convenient scapegoat of 'histoically violent' 'crazy fundamentalists', which really should get their shit together or we're gonna fuck their shit up and bring them democracy, I mean, they LOOOVE violence, we need to impose our rule to clean shit up....

Now good on the Pope for having an academic lecture about how that sort of view is wak. Fuck the media for exploiting this for sensationalistic means.. pure and simple, hysteria = sales.

Fuck that George Pell for just being a fucktard in every sense of the word. he hold that 'british mentalilty' im sure. First suggesting that the girl was provoking the priest to rape her, and now for saying 'well i think we should really look in to the qu'ran about this matter.. bla bla some bullshit' suggesting that their holy book has what? some kind of fucking RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTIONS for violence? haha look at your holy book fuckface.