He talks about most mainstream journalists being little more than campaigners for pseudo-liberal agendas.
'Most journalists' surely is vague and what is a 'pseudo-liberal agenda'?
He writes that Catholic churchgoers are gratuitously denigrated. And blames it all on the 'Dublin media'
The Archbishop of Dublin comes in for criticism. It would seem he includes Diarmuid Martin as one of those church leaders who indulges media prejudices and reinforces highly debatable stereotypes.
McMahon analyses an article about Ireland in the New York Times, which he accuses of using a familiar range of clichés.
But Fr McMahon's article is one long cliché. It's clear the author has issues with people who disagree with his view of Irish society.
His dismissal of journalists helps no-one.
The Catholic Church in Ireland was a conservative church. To use terms such as 'media-speak', 'agenda' and 'a sexually liberal and overwhelmingly bourgeois media' sounds nasty and helps no one, instead it pushes people into camps. There is a touch of Trump in the langage of the article.
He refers to an article written by Hilary Fannin, which appeared in The Irish Times on December 8, but he could also have mentioned numerous articles that appear in the media with a Catholic bias. The Irish Times regularly publishes artcles, letters, opinion pieces upholding Catholic thinking. Indeed, the paper has a regular weekly Chrisitan column.
That word 'bourgeois': who better identified the bourgeoise class in Ireland in most of the decades of the 20th century? Priests.
If McMahon is correct and the 'Dubln media' has an anti-Catholic agenda, why is that so?
As a journalist, I find the piece 'gratuitously' insulting and most unhelpful.
Unfortunately there is an aggressive tone to the piece, which most likely will bring none of us closer to the goodness and kindness of God.
Unfortunately there is an aggressive tone to the piece, which most likely will bring none of us closer to the goodness and kindness of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment