The Media is Looking the Wrong Way

Comedian Bill Connolly, disucssing his view of critics, stated in an in interview on NPR's Weekend Edition this past May that

critics are looking the wrong way. It's a given he's good, that's why three thousand people are sitting there with tickets. He shouldn't be looking at his own sensitivities but at the impact on the audience -- the critic is looking the wrong way.

As a note of clarification, I am not implying - by using a quote from a well-known comedian - that roused passions among Muslims are comedic in any way. Rather, it is useful to demonstrate that, much like critics, journalists are looking the wrong way.

"Three Stages in the Program of De-Hellinization" was the title of the speech given by the Pope. It's a thick read in terms of theological discourse. I am not a theologian. However, the gestalt seemed to be the ongoing efforts of Catholic theologians to remove the shaping influence of Greek thought from spiritual reasoning. Much of the New Testament was written in, and formed by, Greek culture.

The Pope's use of transcripted dialogue between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Perisan to demonstrate that reason, as born of Greek influence, is part and parcel of religious thought may or may not be valid or even applicable. I don't know, I was not part of the audience - largely academic - at the Unviersity of Regensburg, where he previously taught. It is insightful that in his conclusion the Pope stated

The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time . . .it is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

It seems that only cursory treatment was given to churches being set on fire in Gaza or a nun being murdered in Somalia. Rather, the highlight was that reaction stemmed from remarks made by the Pope. It makes great video to pan from burning effigies and ranting crowds to the staid and vested Pope. Wouldn't the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, have been better instructed to learn the context and subject of the speech? Wouldn't the media glare prove more illuminating if it were trained on the outrageous and unacceptable overreaction of certain groups of Muslims? I believe so.

Nadia Taha @ September 28, 2006 - 7:17am

Wouldn't the public be better served if we could look at the statements in a broader context, ranging from the war in Lebanon and the war on Iraqis or terror or whatever, to the Danish cartoons and the German disembodied Prophet Muhammad? One of the biggest failures of the media is to provide a larger framework through which the public can see the issues of the day. Only once (on NPR, coincidentally), have I heard any mention that the pope's statement is seen as part of a repeated, steady barrage of cultural and religious (and political and violent) attacks on the faith of a billion people.

Conor R. Friedersdorf (not verified) @ September 28, 2006 - 5:25pm

Is that the context?

The Pope is on record as vehemently opposed to the Iraq War. Insofar as I know he didn't voice support for Israeli action in Lebanon. And he most certainly criticized the Danish newspaper -- not the rioting Muslims -- in the Danish cartoon affair, standing up for religious believers generally and saying that their beliefs and sensitivities shouldn't be mocked.

Given all that, it hardly seems fair to frame the Pope's remarks as part of an attack that includes those other things he has disavowed.

Moreover, if we're really to conceive of critical remarks as "attacks," then attacks are quite pervasive -- Western Society, and other societies too, enjoy freedom of speech and pursuade one another with rhetoric, often rhetoric that is offensive to some on the receiving end.

Ann Coulter offends me and a whole lot of other people. So does that radical imam whose name escapes me that Britain exiled, and the Klu Klux Klan, and Latino supremacist groups who advocate the mass expulsion of white people from this continent.

Others are most offended by the Christian right, often legitimately, or by President Bush, or by radical feminists, or by people who eat meat, or any number of other things.

To the extent that these groups speak their mind -- and that others disagree and respond -- "attacks" are both inevitable and quite proper, at least if you believe as I do that reasoned discourse is the best way to test ideas.

Public discourse can be a crucible that breaks apart our worst ideas and prejudices, proving the worth of others as though in fire.

When someone like the Pope is engaged in the very common practice of asserting some idea and offending someone who disagrees in the process, that is a minor, rather commonplace story worth reporting. Hell, I was raised Catholic, and I'm offended by the Pope often enough. Imagine how molestation victims feel when they hear him speak.

But when the offended party begins to murder innocents and threaten the speaker with death, that is another thing entirely.

Insofar as it threatens the freedom of speech and public discourse at the core of our society, it seems to me quite proper that the context is that unjustifiably violent response.

Of course, you're a reasonable, intelligent person Nadia, and the fact that we seem to disagree so vehemently is precisely why the media often has a hard time putting statements in a broader context.

It's not so easy deciding what the right context is...

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content