|
Post by trisha on Feb 26, 2004 14:26:21 GMT -5
Right. "There's no such animal"
I am posting this thread because I both excited and disturbed by the amount of media attention being paid to the "real" life and death of Jesus.
With all the hype of Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of Christ, and books like The Da Vinci Code, Jesus has been getting a lot of media attention.
Last Friday there was a Dateline special, and now an upcoming CNN special.
Credible new sources that we as a nation have grown to accept as honest and unbiassed are reporting on the history of Christ. But in our predominantly Judeo-Christian society, how much of an unbiassed report can we really expect to get?
I watched the Dateline special just to see what they would say, and it was very disappointing, cut and dry church propaganda to my eye. But I really didn't expect much more.
I will watch the CNN special just to see what they do with it, but being a natural born skeptic like Goren, I don't expect it to be much different from the Dateline special.
What do you guys make of all this?
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Feb 26, 2004 14:38:05 GMT -5
An unbiased media? Isn't that an oxymoron?! Trisha, when is the CNN special on? I'm afraid I didn't see the Dateline special. Roger Ebert states that "The Passion of The Christ" is the most violent film he's seen: www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.htmlETA: Mel Gibson is on tonight's schedule for "The Tonight Show".
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Feb 26, 2004 15:54:01 GMT -5
Oh crap. I forgot the date and there is nothing about it on CNN's website. If I recall correctly, it won't be on for a few weeks. So, I'll keep my eye out for more ads. Yeah, there is no such animal as an unbiassed media source. I didn't mean that I take Dateline and CNN as unbiassed sources, but as a nation, Americans tend trust them. There are plenty of natural born skeptics out there who like to flip things over and look at them from the other side. I'm proud to be one of them, hence my propensity for arguing both sides of the fence
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 26, 2004 16:10:20 GMT -5
Being a major in history and religious studies (truth be told I haven't done much of those courses yet), I've done some reading on my own. Admittedly a pro-Christian slant, based on how I've been brought up.
I think the media is going to place a great emphasis on it, because Jesus and Christianity are hot-button issues that make people sit up and take notice. Some specials have been very interesting--PBS, Discovery, the occassional History Channel when they've gotten over the military.
But CNN and the other shows? I haven't kept up with many of them, but I do know that I'm fed up with the emphasis on pop culture. Good grief, it's embarassing toa dmit it but I get my news from the "Daily Show" because I've gotten fed up with everybody obsessing over Michael Jackson and the Atkins diet. Are Jon Stewart and the others a bit irreverent? Yes, but they at least deal with the issues and, even thoough funny, they raise some points to think about.
Part of me wants to see "Passion"--admittedly the hype has me curious. Besides, I hate to make judgements before I know what it is, and before I jump onto the whole anti-Semitic thing I want to know what I'm talking about. But the graphic violence has me edgy, I don't handle that well. Plus, so many groups have pre-booked the theatre from what I've heard you can't hardly get in, and won't for a few weeks. (Don't you love the timing that it was released on Ash Wednesday?)
For those looking for interpretations of the story, admittedly from the entertainment field, I can talk about a few things.
"Jesus Christ Superstar"--it can be seen as campy, but remember that Lloyd Webber and Rice were pretty yound when they did it in the sixties. They make no claims that oh-this-is-the-real-story, in interviews RIce (lyrics) has talked about how these were ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, what would he have done in their place? Judas is seen as a sympathetic, scared and confused disciple--to quote Time Rice, "As a writer it's much easier to identify with Judas than it is to identify with Jesus; if you identify with Jesus you'd probably get locked up." There was a movie version in the early '70s, a few years ago there was a British revival that PBS showed and released on video and DVD. Check out the original recording soundtrack.
"The Last Temptation of Christ"--Martin Scorsese directed this, I have not read the novel it's based on. And they say that very clearly at the beginning: inspired by a novel and NOT meant to be taken as the gospel truth. It emphasizes the human aspects of Jesus, and we see him struggling, not wanting the mission, etc. This is the one that raised a big stink because we see Jesus and Mary Magdalene having marital relations (yes, marital). All I'm gonna say: Martin Scorsese's a good Catholic boy so he's not going to ruin Christianity through this. I don't want to give the ending away, if I do later on I'll put a spoiler alert. The accents are odd: Harvey Keitel does Judas from Brooklyn, Willem Dafoe is a blond/blue-eyed Jesus, David Bowie is Pilate.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Feb 26, 2004 16:42:47 GMT -5
I don't want a religious debate by any means. I think faith is great. I personally have very little and never have. Even as a child I couldn't pray without rolling my eyes. But I think faith is a great thing for most people and I spent many years envying them for the ease of mind they got from it.
My concern is not in what would happen to people of faith if sources like CNN give a scholars view of things like the Dead Sea scrolls (which clearly refer to Mary Magdalene as Jesus' spouse), but whether or not they even could report such a thing. Are their hands forced by network executives who either don't want to rock the Christian boat or who want to spread "the good word"? That's my question.
Is the door open yet for the skeptics? Or will we face a modern day inquisition for pointing out historical inconsistencies and reporting them on national tv?
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 26, 2004 17:11:31 GMT -5
I do agree that major networks are afraid of what to do with the story, because even Christians can't quite agree on details and they don't want to be at the center of a storm over things. Besides, nowadays with certain people in key positions they'd raise a big stink about threats to morals and everything.
I do think it's a good thing that people are considering the different cultures--there are significant portions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists, and lots of others who must get sick of having the Christian faith jammed down their throats, especially in December. Unfortuntaely the consideration is along the lines of "What will get us sued" and not "What would be thoughtless and offensive".
Again, i haven't taken many courses yet, but I will. My approach is very relativist: I'm nto going to try to convince or convert anybody, but I am curious to know how what they believe (or don't) matches up with my own experience. I'm all about comparative dialogues and mutual understanding.
Besides, in the media don't forget that they have a small amount of time and money to report stuff--at least in the daily news--so they're going to say the general buzzwords that, out of context, may or may not be entirely accurate. When you get to documentary specials, they're going to be for an intendd audience and they're going to be affected by current events. History Channel, Discovery, A&E, all of them have a tendency to run specials about Jesus, archaeological or otherwise, during the Chrsitmas and Easter rushes. (You have to chuckle at the "Peter Paul and Mary" special History does to talk about the beginnings of CHristianity.)
You know, it's easier to do a historic study of the spread of a movement than to get into debates of what is true. You can look at scrolls and stuff all you like, but ultimately faith has to come into play. Do I want to see scholarship of an intelligent, neutral nature into the social context, what the scrolls mean, etc? That's always fascinated me personally, so yes. Are these specials ever going to prove anything other than carbon-dating type science? Doubtful.
|
|
coth
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 78
|
Post by coth on Feb 27, 2004 2:19:51 GMT -5
I think Nikki said it best, unbiased media is an oxymoron. Not to make this political but if anyone does not believe the media has influence on a lot of people's opinions, look at the Howard Dean campaign.
I am dismayed by the fact that the media seems to influence ideas before people even have the facts. I may be a bit "old school" on this but I prefer to read newspapers or magazines before I make a judgement on anything. Catbird made an almost unheard of idea that she would actually like to see this movie before she decided if it was good or bad. It seems we are expected to take some else's subjective take on something without judging it for ourselves. For instance, from ratings we would have to assume that "My Fat Survivor Big Bachlorette American Idoliot" was the best show on television.
I really wish people would look at the facts, and historical, (not hysterical) documentation before rendering any judgements.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Feb 27, 2004 7:47:32 GMT -5
Catbird is right on, even the Christians don't know what temperment they need to show their religion in -so how can the media when they are trying to "shock" and also to parent the population at the same time. The media has created an untenable position for itself - to parent "tell them what is important and even what to think of the important issue" AND to get ratings "shock". So in really deep issues - they sit and spin.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Feb 27, 2004 19:34:23 GMT -5
Interesting points, Catbird. What you wrote about "certain people in key positions" raising a big stink about threats to morals, really struck a cord for me.
To me, it's not about morals or even faith. The truth is ambiguous when it comes to religion, but not in science; a fact is a fact only when proven. But like you wrote, with people in power like gwb, who defends his proposed ban gay marriage as a way to preserve the "sanctity" of the institution, I can easily see how the truth can be twisted or even obliterated by a religious fanatic (even if they are only fanatical on the outside).
And I certainly don't want to convert anyone, either, but I wouldn't mind seeing them educated.
I just see these news sources as trying to hit public interest while hiding from the religious stone throwers, and all we really get is church propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Feb 27, 2004 23:13:26 GMT -5
Well, I wasn't gonna mention names, but...yeah, Trisha, that's who I had in mind. Shrub needs to get out, the sooner the better.
What was it Jon Stewart said on "The Daily Show"? When they were showing a clip of Gibson's interview with Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly was just schmoozing over what a difficult time Gibson had, Stewarts comment: "Yes, indeed, a bold and gutsy move, releasing a pro-Jesus movie in America."
Well, I've switched to "West Side Story" but most of the good songs are done. So I'm mouthing the words happy as a clam. Later all!
Catbird
"It's not I'm anti-social, I'm only anti-work! Glory oskee, that's why I'm a jerk!"
"Gee Officer Krupke--krup you!"#nosmileys
|
|
coth
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 78
|
Post by coth on Mar 3, 2004 3:11:00 GMT -5
I don't want to go off on a rant here, (apologies to Dennis Miller), but what happened to just reporting the truth and letting people make up their own minds? People that have read some of my posts may think it is a bit dangerous to let me make up my own mind, but we almost seem to be getting to the point that we are supposed to ask someone else how to feel. I just want the facts Madam or Sir and then please let me decide. I respect your opinion, so please accept or consider mine.
|
|
Duet
Silver Shield Investigator
Bing.... Reality.
Posts: 129
|
Post by Duet on Jul 4, 2006 14:21:42 GMT -5
"So in really deep issues - they sit and spin." I do hope the pun was intended Metella.
"And I certainly don't want to convert anyone, either, but I wouldn't mind seeing them educated." Trisha I whole heartingly agree.....
Thank you all for this thread.....
|
|
|
Post by BegToDiffer on Jul 5, 2006 9:55:42 GMT -5
The media is a business. The integrity it once had is long gone. The local TV breaks their arm patting themselves on the back for "telling the truth". What a joke. Another sad thing here, we are a one newspaper town, the PD. I get so upset when someone says, "Well, it was in the PD, and they can't print anything that isn't true." Yea, sure and on the weekends I fly monkeys to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by madger on Jul 5, 2006 9:59:48 GMT -5
The movie "Good Night and Good Luck" is very relevant to this subject and also to today's politics. It happens to be a good movie too.
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Jul 5, 2006 11:21:20 GMT -5
And to illustrate the point, but unfortunately I don't have the exact quote or link to the source. But I read recently a CBS executive, responding to critics' comments about Katie Couric taking over the anchor position on the CBS Evening News, said the issue isn't whether she can do it or not, the issue is whether she's "watchable." So there you have it. Are you also spinning in your grave Edward R. Murrow?
|
|