has some great news headlines today

I really like! Here are today’s headlines:

National Pro-Life Group Tells Obama before Canadian Visit: Stop the Black Genocide by Abortion

Husband of Woman in Coma for 17 Years Visits Wife Three Times Daily, Won’t Give Up

Pelosi Spin on Meeting With Pope Dramatically Different From Vatican Statement
Pope Rebukes Pelosi, Tells Her Catholic Legislators Obligated to Protect Life: No Pelosi/Pope photos permitted

Following Meeting with Pope, News of Secret Meeting between Pelosi and her Bishop on Abortion

Unborn Child Saved by 12-Year-Old’s Popular Pro-Life Presentation

Seven States Have Launched Efforts for Personhood Rights for Pre-born - More Expected

Mexican State Amends Constitution to Protect Right to Life from Conception, 19-0

San Diego Firefighters Win Lawsuit over Forced Participation in “Gay Pride” Parade

Brazilian Government Shuts Down Websites Distributing Abortion Drugs

It’s Tough to be a Prophet in Today’s Half-Believing World - Vision of Future Begets Condemnation
Australian pastor published vision of devastating bush fires 3 1/2 months before they occured

Religion’s “NATIONAL ENQUIRER”. :slight_smile:

Hi, I’m :confused: .
I think is a reliable and important news agency. :slight_smile:

It seems to be very much pro-life and a voice for Catholic morality.

Yes, I think it is a Catholic version of the National Enquirer. It doesn’t totally make up news stories, but it does slant the news so much that it isn’t trustworthy. When threads are started using it as a source, I always do a fact check - often there is much which is left unmentioned or has been distorted.

On the other hand, LifeSite does collect news of interest to Catholics and it occasionally breaks a news story.

Hi -I’ve been reading for awhile now, along with other news sources, and I’ve never gotten the impression that they slant stories. Are we talking about the same news agency? I’m being serious here, because I do value the feedback and experience of others. You said that often distorts or leaves unmentioned information. I’d really be interested if you could give an example.
Thanks! :slight_smile:

PS - What news sources do you feel are reliable because I have seen people on this forum offer the same comments regarding Zenit, the Catholic League, and other sources.

I don’t mind Zenit as a news source.

My distaste for LSN was when they made a non-sensical article with no sources saying that the EU had refused to fund Nigeria if it didn’t legalise gay marriage, which is preposterous, if you need me to explain why, I will.

Also, Jimmy Akin spoke out against it one time when it twisted a story about the church and harry potter.

The bias from LifeSite positively oozes from the web page!

I remember when they called the Spanish government the “Zapatero regime” because it had done something they didn’t like, what a joke. :rolleyes:

This is all very helpful! I have been reading the news articles at and responding to the links they provide to contact, say a university or a judge, whoever the story is about. Now I’m wondering based on your comments if I should be more discerning before following through with such actions? How does one discern what news sources are reliable? What news sources do you find trustworthy? Thanks! :slight_smile:

I’m going to disagree with you. I think there’s been a couple time times where I’ve felt that way about lifesite news, but it’s always factual, from ym point of view. I think what it does is expose things from a certain point of view, and being that it’s largely a catholic publication, it’s views things from that prisim of understanding.

Personally, I find anything by Fr Frank Provone to me more sensationalistic.

“FOX NEWS cited last night during its popular 6pm news program, called the Political Grapevine. Host Bret Baier cited us as the source on a story about Bill Clinton’s hypocrisy. Here’s a link to the text of the Fox News report and following that the link to the coverage they’re referring to:”,2933,496027,00.html

If was that bad would FOX NEWS use them as a source?

FOX ‘News’ are just as bad! :eek: :smiley:

Fox News is more unbiased than the rest of the MSM.

No, that isn’t true. Their online articles seem pretty straight forward, although their broadcasts occasionally does some editorializing e.g. during a pro-immigration parade the camera picked out a lone Mexican flag in a sea of American flags. The camera then followed that Mexican flag as the parade moved along, swiveling to keep the Mexican flag in the center of the screen. But such things are minor. Fox News doesn’t purposefully omit key details like LifeSite does.

I just read the following and thought of this thread:

March 11, 2009 is used by leaders in the pro-life movement, by activists, journalists, students for research projects, and also used heavily by bloggers. Thomas Peters one of the most prominent Catholic bloggers in the US who has appeared on CNN, NBC, MSNBC and EWTN uses extensively. So much so that he has selected as his ‘website of the month’. Check out his blog here:

We don’t have any news source that is 100% accurate. Everything is relative. Compared to MSM sources…(NBC, CBS etc) Lifesite and Fox are as unbiased as it gets. MSM sources only report what they WANT YOU TO KNOW. They throw a ton of important news out the window. Anyone that gets their source of news from only MSM is missing the “other half” of the story. They are ALL in the tank for the liberal left wing agenda…and it’s showing up in their ratings.

Look at who is putting LSN down–the atheists. Just something to take into consideration, Therese. :slight_smile: Of course they are going to think it’s not factual since it is written from and about Christian points of view. Someone who is so wrong on something so important (God) is not someone I generally trust to have the right idea on anything else. :wink:

Here’s the tail end of a thread where I discussed one such example.

Here’s a case where the title is alarmist and misleading, even though they had a more complete and accurate description of events later in the article.

Here’s a case where LifeSiteNews again published another misleading headline suggesting that a federal court had ruled against a state rule requiring pharmacists to dispense abortifacients - this would a great victory for those opposing such practices, and the precedent could have been used in courts in other states. The reality was that no decision had been issued, there had merely been an agreement between the two parties in the suit.

Here is a case where the subhead of the article attributes a phrase to a diocese spokesman that was actually spoken by another person.

Those are just a few that I complained about over the years. Since I don’t read LifeSiteNews except when it’s linked to by an article here, I’m confident there are many more like that. However, I will admit in looking back, that it’s mostly the sensationalist headlines that I found misleading. Except for my first example, which in a paranoid way suggested that major news organizations were intentionally collaborating to create news events and violent protests, rather than simply reporting on them, the articles above all had enough clues in the text itself to reveal the truth behind the deceptive headline.

Don’t dare call me an atheist.

Quite a few people said they didn’t like LSN, and most of them weren’t atheists.

Oh for goodness’ sake, are you really so insecure?

There are perfectly respectable Christian news agencies. When a ‘news’ source however distorts the information to whip up hysteria, there’s a problem. LifeSite contains opinion based on dubious sources, not news.

BTW, that goes for atheists, Catholics, protestants, liberals, conservatives, whatever.

Good grief.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit