While looking up some international stories for my tutorial this week I came across a few articles about the Pope.
He visited Malta recently to meet with sexual abuse victims. This story was covered by the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and the London Independent. While the story is barely a blurb in the London Independent, the other two gave a more detailed review with the New York Times giving the lengthiest account of the visit.
It is obvious why this story made the news, this issue is one that is extremely important world wide. This abuse has been going on the world over and it is time for the Catholic Church to step up and take the responsibility. Is this a way of doing that?
What I am really interested in is this: should we, as journalists, be putting more pressure on the Catholic Church? Would that be fair? Should we be putting pressure on the government to deal with pedophilia more generally rather than aiming it at the Catholic Church alone? How can an international journalist stay neutral in a topic that causes so much controversy?
Is there ever a time when a journalist should forget about being unbiased and just write?
OW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's very hard to go against the grain. I think that our job is to remain neutral and let the reader decide. However, the facts and figures we choose to include in our article often give one side of the argument. Personally, I think it's no harm that the Catholic Church takes it fair share of blame. They were often great at preaching, but not practising the trinity.
ReplyDeleteD.K.
Okay I get that but what about all the other instances of child abuse?
ReplyDeleteDo articles like those I mentioned above serve to highlight the whole issue or just the damage the Catholic Church has done?
OW
I felt obliged to comment after reading this insightful piece.
ReplyDeleteI think as journalists we have a duty to report the facts. If, though doing so, we put pressure on certain people and groups, then so be it.
Of course it's important to be unbiasesd, but I think when sexual abuse on children is concerned, we really don't need to be impartial.
NT
Let's strip away the whole "religious" thing for a minute,because that is the magic cloak the Pope has been hiding behind. Let's look at the facts:
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is a man, subject to the Law like every other man.
This man is the head of a global organisation which, it has been discovered, WILLINGLY COVERED UP cases of sexual abuse of children by paedophile members in it's ranks.
The men responsible for committing these atrocities and ruining the lives of their victims and families weren't reported to police, they weren't even excommunicated.
This man must be held accountable for his actions, along with all the rest of them.
No one is immune from the Law. And yet, they are.
We have a responsibility.
A responsibility to the victims whose lives have been shattered, and who have been ignored at every turn in seeking justice.
We must be their voice, for they have no other.
If agitation through the press is the only way for justice to be served in this situation, so be it.
The Catholic Church must not be allowed to get away with this heinous crime against humanity.
No more protection for paedophiles.
I think as journalists our only loyalty is to the truth. This sounds like total spiel, but it all comes down to what we can and cant prove.
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge [and it's nearing deadline time, so I haven't been following some stories I should of been] the pope has been covering for paedophiles, both from a moral and legal standpoint, that's messed up.
We've got a responsibility to tell the truth, and make sure our facts are correct.
Although I totally disagree with the view that agitation through the press is the best way to move against the church, and if it was decided that it was the best way to move against the church, who is to say that journalists are the people to decide this?
Writing this at 3:10 after some intense Lit review was not my smartest move, but I hope the point of my comment still comes through.
ReplyDelete