Needed: Evidence of Media Bias Against Pope


Could someone help provide me with rock solid examples of how the press has distorted the current Pope’s words? I just got into a discussion with some very biased people… who no matter what examples from the Pope’s own speeches… continued to base their interpretations on what they had read in the BBC or New York Times. Since I agree with the Pope, I’ve been judged by these people in the same way.

I honestly can’t believe how some people are perfectly willing to listen to ABC News without question, but are totally close minded about Pope Benedict XVI (despite him being a major religious leader, a excellent scholar, an a major world leader)!

I know I’m probably not going to convince these people, but I’d still like excellent examples for future (and more charitable) discussions.

God bless Papa for taking the time to bring up the hard subjects, which many seem unwilling to discuss of address.

(see my post for full text of speech)

Search the archives of this site. :thumbsup:

The media frequently make mistakes when reporting on matters relating to religion. The same is true when they report on scientific matters. Such topics are frequently unfamiliar to the reporter and they misunderstand (or just plain miss) the details.

I’m not sure there is willful bias in the media towards the Pope. They just don’t understand the facts.

There was this news that the Pope said that condoms condoms do not have the expected effect of reducing HIV infections, on the contrary, AIDS was even more spread in the continents such as Afrika. This suggestion is backed by secular research bodies.

What the public hears is because The Church condemns the use of condoms, the Pope will say anything to sell the propaganda including telling that condoms do not help reduce AIDS.

Condoms if used properly and wisely can PROBABLY help reduce the spread of HIV, but NOTHING (emphasied again) NOTHING can effectively eradicate HIV/AIDS but the practice of abstinence and chastity. This is the Pope’s true message, however, trying to sell the news, media filtered the message to their own liking.

Another example is on the International Women’s Day, the Pope said that the invention of washing machine does more in the liberation of womed than “the pill”. This outrage all the feminists and the media is banking on this.
However, if these people read the full message of the Pope, the true message is again the practice of abstinence and chastity. “The pill” effect did nothing but destroying the dignity of women and has transformed the sacred sexual nature of humanity into a mere commodity, making women sex objects.

I’m sure that there are more, but these 2 are the most current, apart from the one mentioned in the above link. Just google the news and I sure you will find tonnes. just remember try to find out read what the Vatican has to say on a paricular new.

God Bless

I always try to myself, but I find that even when presented with actual quotes, people will still insist the press article didn’t misquote (mistakenly or on purpose) the Pope. Usually, it’s examples like yours that I use, but they don’t seem to have an effect on some people. It’s like hitting a brick wall.

I’ve been thinking, and maybe the press simply reflects the bias of it’s readers and viewers instead of the other way around. Sort of like the old concept of everyone likes a good story and good villain to boo. Perhaps, this is done to sell papers to a target audience, or a combination of “agenda” and desire for profit. I don’t know for sure, and I really can’t quantify that statement yet.

The Catholic League is also a great resource, but sometimes getting people to read the information is like pulling teeth. I think the worst excuse for not reading a source is “It’s a Catholic Website. Don’t you have anything that is not bias?”

That excuse always leaves me with a big “huh” moment. Maybe it’s my way of dealing with ignorance/ arrogance, but I feel I need to create this huge list of well cited sources.

God bless you all who post here, too. :slight_smile:

What you just explained to me is exactly what Catholic apologists do. Apologists have this understanding of the Catholic faith that oridnary people cannot grasp. By trying to explain this to the ordinary people is (like you say) like pulling one’s teeth.

I do not know what sort of resource you have in Catholic League. This website have an awesome collection of past editions of The Rock Magazine. In the “Step by Step” section, I learned a lot on how to talk to these “brick walls”. Have a look and see if it is worth to read.

This particular link is on how an apologist defend Sacrament of Confessions provided by the Church against an objector that held no man can forgive sins.
A good read in deed.

God Bless

I’ve used these sources to answer questions from protestants. I agree that they are very good. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to have much effect on non-Christians and Atheists, because those that I speak to outright reject any information related to religion. It can be kind of disheartening. I try to be logical in my explanations, but the brick wall I hit is based on a concept that there is nothing of value from religion or philosophy. The only thing that does seem to work is facts, but that has often lead to simply being told to keep quiet and being shouted down. The sad part is that this behavior is coming from people younger than myself… many of which are in college and claim to be “open minded”.

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