| QUOTE (HMiS @ Aug 30 2009, 09:09 PM) |
| I generally prefer to think people demonized in the mass media of the establishment should be given a chance at least. Most of them are martyrs of truth. Some are however clear nuts. But many are just political opponents of the mass media's own ideology of social liberalism. Of course certain journalists try to be objective - and on certain themes and eras they are quite objective. But recent history and politics and religion is mostly one bunch of lies and propaganda. |
| QUOTE (Anne-Marie) |
| Sometimes, the media is honest (with some mistakes); Sometime the media is deliberately dishonest, for varying reasons; All too often (as Blair's spokesman, Alastair Campbell, loved to poimt out) those in the media are too bone idle to bother getting the truth and will happily use/report whatever garbage is given to them. |
| QUOTE |
| Posted by Anne-Marie Once again, I find I can't answer the question with the options supplied. Sometimes, the media is honest (with some mistakes); Sometime the media is deliberately dishonest, for varying reasons; All too often (as Blair's spokesman, Alastair Campbell, loved to poimt out) those in the media are too bone idle to bother getting the truth and will happily use/report whatever garbage is given to them. There are no options to cover any or all of these reasonable responses! So I can't vote in this poll. |
| QUOTE |
| WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A CNN anchor told his viewers last week that he could not make out for certain whether there were more pro-life or pro-abortion advocates demonstrating at the 37th annual March for Life - despite the fact that conservative estimates place several hundred thousand pro-life protesters in D.C. that day, compared to a few dozen pro-abortion counter-demonstrators. Noting that there was a rally on the Washington Mall, CNN’s Rick Sanchez asserted, “So as you might imagine there are both sides being represented.” But Sanchez then surmised that both sides might have had comparable numbers present... |
| QUOTE |
| There are several outright lies in this article from Der Spiegel. Bishop Williamson is not ill. He does not employ Orwellian "Holocaust" Newspeak and therefore does not "deny the Holocaust," but rather the homicidal gas chamber allegation and the Kabbalistic casualty figure of six million. He did not, in Quebec (or anywhere else), call Auschwitz itself an invention, and he did not give the recent interview to French television in a room at SSPX headquarters in London. |
| QUOTE |
| ... The lawyer proposes another Spiegel interview, like the one he arranged in the spring. Now, you should know that Krah was the person who helped “proctor” the last Spiegel interview. For that interview the Bishop was given written questions, he answered, Krah reviewed the answers for propriety, and then Spiegel changed their questions so that they could look more ferocious and the Bishop could look more meek... ... 5 January 2010 Krah insists on coming for the pre-interview “coaching session.” The Bishop expresses the discomfort he has with Krah’s proposal and expresses the desire to change the interview format to the same as last time: written questions. Such a situation would make any London visit of Krah and the journalists unnecessary. The Bishop says to Krah, “Do NOT come, because I will not speak”. The yellow light turned red. 12 January 2010 Bishop Fellay’s personal secretary telephones St. George’s House at 1500 GMT to notify the Bishop that Krah and “two friends” will visit on Wednesday. It is said that they may indeed "already be in London." That same Tuesday evening at 2030 Krah and two Spiegel journalists knock on the door at St. George’s House in Wimbledon. It is an odd hour for visiting clergy, and certainly for conducting an interview of this nature. While there was an announcement that “two friends plus Krah” would be coming, no further notice had been given by Krah all Tuesday. The Bishop says his private Mass at 0545 every morning (a punishing time for a normally late-rising American) so he heads to bed before 2200. He is working on the second-floor common computer when Krah et al. arrive. Fr. Lindstrom, the “gaunt Swede” as he is labeled in the Spiegel hit-piece, shows them in to the first-floor library. The reader may assume at this point that had Krah not come with the permission of Bishop Fellay, he and the journalists would hardly have been admitted to an SSPX priory at 2030. The journalists have their laptops with them, and Krah sends an email to the Bishop, who is upstairs, as they know, letting him know that they are ready to do an interview with him. The Bishop refuses to see them. They leave after waiting for some 50 minutes, taking a few pictures, as they are not allowed to venture upstairs. At 2130 the Bishop, feeling bad for Krah, once again reiterates his offer to do a written-question interview. 13 January 2010 In the morning a colleague shows the Bishop a dossier of Spiegel articles written mainly by the senior journalist who had come the night before. The entire tenor of their writing is anti-clerical. The Bishop remembers how he was used last time, concludes that liberals rarely change their spots, and decides in principle to not even do the written questions. It is roughly at 0800 that he is perusing these documents, and at 0815 comes the knock at the door. Krah is noticeably absent, as he thinks he is the problem (He is not). The journalists try to persuade the Bishop to be interviewed, but he refuses. They plead: “But please, let us at least take a picture of you, so we can tell our bosses that you were here.” He refuses. At 1000, they return, and Krah with them. Final refusal from the Bishop. Rejected when they are usually welcomed and drooled over, the spurned journalists write a hit-piece which manages to tar every cleric mentioned in it. Der Spiegel has its revenge for having no story to tell, holds the “mirror” up to itself, and shows us a “spaniel.” Some minor corrections The above account should serve to correct a mass of disinformation that the article projected. There are some items here or there that unconsciously point to some other important omissions: 1. They frequently cite from the Bishop’s weekly column [and pretend that the bishop actually spoke those words to them in the phantom interview - PoG]. They must be subscribers, and they have the luxury of reading the column in German. 2. There are citations of emails he has written to “fellow members of the SSPX.” If this is true, this means that clergy are leaking these emails to the paper. If they are just being incorrect in their terminology and are calling laypeople “members” then laypeople are leaking these emails. In either case, such leaking is unwarranted and wrong, and given where the leaking has led, perhaps sinful. 3. To give the appearance that they actually had access, they describe Bishop Williamson’s “private room” which sounds a lot like the vestibule or sacristy of the Chapel. Nice try, gentlemen. Bishop Williamson’s room is on the third floor; how could you describe that which you’ve never seen? 4. The Facebook page cited is not run by me or the Bishop, and the owner has never contacted either of us. He may indeed be a supporter, but until we hear from him, it can’t really be called “the Bishop’s facebook page.” Nice research job, gentlemen. 5. “Hundreds” do not read his column weekly. The number is “thousands.” |
| QUOTE |
| North London parish protests over BBC report Posted: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:14 am A parish in north London has complained over the way in which the BBC carried out an interview in their church. They say that although they were approached by a BBC reporter who asked to speak with parishioners about their views on the Pope's visit - in fact a service at the church was just used as a backdrop to an interview with someone from a campaigning group not based in the parish. Parishioner, Barbara O’Driscoll, has sent the following letter to Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC about the episode. Dear Sir I saw the news item on the Poll for the BBC of Catholics in the UK ahead of the Pope’s visit on the BBC 6pm news yesterday evening. I was shocked and very disappointed with the report. I feel that the BBC has misrepresented my parish of St John Vianney’s in South Tottenham, North London. I am also very disturbed at the devious way in which Robert Pigott, the BBC Religious Correspondent and his department has deceived the parish, the public and the BBC management. The following is an account of what happened. This morning our parish priest, Father Joe Ryan informed us that the BBC would be filming in our parish during the 11 o’clock Mass and asking parishioners for their views on the Pope’s visit and Catholic issues surrounding it. The camera man arrived at around 10am, spoke to Father Ryan about the filming and started to get ready. He informed Father that the interviewer was due at 10.30. He did not come at the stated time and the Mass began punctually without him. The camera man started filming. The interviewer, Robert Pigott arrived about seven minutes after 11 and so he did not speak to Father about any aspect of the filming. He escorted Penelope Middelboe to the front of the church and “planted” her in a prominent position in one of the pews. The camera man continued filming, pointing his camera at the congregation and Penelope Middelboe. Penelope Middelboe left the church during the service. I was standing at the back of the church, because I was distributing information packs for the papal visit to Compton Park. I saw Robert Pigott interviewing her outside the church for a considerable amount of time while the Mass was still continuing. Sister Stephanie of the parish team asked me who Penelope was, as she did not recognise her as a parishioner. I said I didn’t know her either, even though I have been active in the parish all my life. After the interview Robert Pigott and Penelope Middelboe went to their car, so I went up to them, asked her if she was one of our parishioners and questioned whether she was representing the parish with her views. Robert Pigott dismissed me, answering that it was all right, he had Fr Joe Ryan’s permission. (I checked this with Father after Mass and he said he had given permission for the BBC to film the service in our church and speak to the parishioners but not to give a platform to any third party.) They both sat in the car till the service was over. Robert Pigott then got out and finished his report using the congregation leaving the church as a backdrop. He spoke briefly to Father Ryan excusing himself that he needed to take someone to the local tube station in a hurry and drove away with Penelope Middelboe without interviewing any parishioners. The camera man stayed behind and he asked a few parishioners to express their views on the role of women in the church and on the issue of celibacy. In the report on the news I feel we were misrepresented in the following ways: • Penelope Middelboe, of the newly created Catholic Voices for Reform ( May 2010) was shown attending the service at St John Vianney’s, including a close-up, and being interviewed outside the church, giving the impression that she was a parishioner and supposedly a spokesperson for the parish. (I do not understand why she was brought to St John Vianney’s when the interview could have been held elsewhere.) • When the reporter Robert Pigott was speaking, parishioners were shown in the background leaving the church. He said: “The poll shows that large numbers of ordinary Catholics are, by disputing important teachings on issues like celibacy and the role of women, prepared to challenge the Pope’s view on exactly what the church’s message should be”. The report does not show any of our parishioners expressing their opinions. So this could be understood that those parishioners who were filmed leaving the church shared the views of what the reporter referred to as ‘ordinary Catholics’.? It pains and saddens me that I now have to question the integrity of the BBC. It deceived our parish priest and did not do what it had explicitly received permission for, which was to seek the opinions of parishioners at St John Vianney’s. I hope that the BBC will provide fair and honest reporting of the Pope’s historic visit. On a personal note, I thank our Queen for inviting the Pope to the nation. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, Barbara O’Driscoll * Several members of St John Vianney’s parish have spoken with ICN and endorsed Barbara's letter. |
| QUOTE (Credo @ Oct 30 2010, 10:21 PM) |
| A video in relation to the alleged attack on Frank Ross during the campaign on the Lisbon Treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proinsias_De_Rossa [doHTML]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gD13gXmYOgo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gD13gXmYOgo?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/doHTML] |
