I listen to live news on the radio most days of the week, so I’ve been following the gradual death of John Paul II over the last few days.
As per usual, the radio read out e-mails, took phone calls and so on, although for once I declined to let them know what I thought
One guy sent in a message complaining about the coverage, he thought the issue was irrelevant to him as he was an atheist
The presenter rather sardonically pointed out that since 1 in 6 people (roughly) is a Catholic he couldn’t think of an issue at the present which affected more people.
Instantly I felt that the atheist who e-mailed the show was probably one of those who believe the Marxist mantra about religion being the opiate of the masses, and sees every mention of organised religion as oppressive. These are the same people, invariably, who bang on about that most mythical of notions, freedom of speech.
Regardless of one’s religious convictions, or lack thereof, the death of the Pope is a huge news story. Obviously the networks exist as a commercial entity, and they package and sell a product. They will cover what people want to see.
The death of Pope John Paul II will have a major impact on the world, and not just Catholics. The RCC has a lot of power and influence in the world, and the course his successor takes will influence billions of people. I don’t follow Catholicism enough to have any idea who’s the likely candidate to replace him, but I’m curious to see nonetheless.
John Paul II was a fascinating person, IMO, regardless of one’s philosophy towards religion. He was highly educated, spoke six or seven languages, and I think showed a lot of moral courage. Those of you driven to distraction at the thought of Christianity may hate the man and all he represented, but I think he was a man of faith who honestly believed in God and wanted to make the world a better place.
On a personal level, I can’t really remember a time when he wasn’t the Pope. Yes, I recall the white smoke coming up on the TV, but I can’t recall the man who held the Papacy before him. For me it’s the passing of an era, and another reminder of my advancing age. If only for that self centered reason, I have some feelings of meloncholy for his passing
Funny how you just commited a fallacy. You are taking one person and assuming that all anti-organized religion people feel the same. I am a person who believes organized religion is the opiate of the masses, and that it is now a negative institution of soceity. However, I truly respected John Paul II and most of what he did. To me, he was a revolutionary pope, and made many changes for the better. And while I disagree with him on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and women. It did not offend me because he seemed to not be spiteful in his beliefs. He was truly pro-life: anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-death penalty–and that is a position I can respect…
Not to even mention the fact that he apologized to the Jews, reached out to judaism and islam, supported israel’s right to exist and the palestinians cause (the man visited arafat 12 times), and above all strived for peace.
As a rule, I am cautious about being too critical of Christianity, because I know that there are many sad, bitter people who like to post overly-critical comments about Christianity because, well, they’re just sad, bitter people. So, please, before reading the rest of my post, keep in mind that I am not in the habit of “having a go” at Christianity.
However, the wall-to-wall media coverage of the Pope’s death does feel to me like a modern version of what European Christians have done for centuries i.e. exported their belief system around the world. Centuries ago, power and influence was exercised by colonising physical spaces such as Africa, today it is exercised by colonising virtual spaces such as the global media. And if you think this sounds like a conspiracy theory, then let’s wait and see if the media respond with anything like the same wall-to-wall coverage when the Dalai Lama dies - given that Buddhism does not have the same history of colonialism that Christianity does, I expect they will not.
There aren’t as many Buddhists as there are Catholics, that was the point. When the spiritual leader of a billion people dies, in particular one who was so widely respected beyond those 1 billion people, then I think it is fair to spend a couple of days on it.
More coverage was given to the death of Princess Diana, who was little more than a posh wh*re who married a big time Charlie
I hardly thinking the media covering the death of the Pope is equivalent to the colonial exporting of Christianity. The comparison is spurious, even laughable.
^^^
Due entirely to the currents of public opinion. Not many people are buddhist in the west.
The pope was for a long time a doddering figurehead of an institution which serves humanity no empirical purpose other than a questionable morale enhancement (they say no publicity is bad publicity, but pedarastic publicity is definitely bad publicity), and the occasional inefficate scolding of political figures, there are many more things that should garner far more attention. 1 out of 3 verging on 1 out of 2 people in western cultures will get cancer, the latest report on the looming energy crisis is dire indeed, the rapid deforestation of the planet, destruction of habitat in general, the consistent and measured rise in Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere of the planet over the past 50 years. I could go on and on, to the probable effect of being written off as a radical vegetarian tree hugging hippie.
The way we’re dealing with the environment in general is much like this:
You’re in your house smoking. You really dig smoking. You really, really, like smoking. So you’re smoking away happily when your doorbell rings. Upon answering it you are met by your neighbor who says his house smells like gas, and there might be a gas leek. A big one. You slowly take a drag as you appraise this meek little man at your door. He has long nappy hair and worn out brown jesus sandles and brown, dirty feet where the skin is showing. He wears a thick hemp necklace like a mantle of foolery. He talks about animals and cars, and doesn’t like to drive anywhere. He stand fiddling with his hemp belt on his clamdigger pants with a shirt that says “Think now or forever rest in peace” circumscribing a cracked globe oozing oil. This skinny little man sometimes tries to tell you how to live, but you’re not going to listen to some smelly hippie; what does he know about progress? What does he know about economics? You tell him thanks as you exhale in his face, a nice enveloping cloud of smoke. You smirk as his cough crosses the threshold as the door bangs shut.
Then you light up another smoke.
/digression.
The point is that the coverage of the pope’s death, while significant to some, is UTTERLY INSIGNIFICANT in contrast to most of the issues we’re dealing with today, and issues that are relevant to EVERY person. The Pope is just some dude. That’s it.
You’re writing the caller off, and by using a stereotype no less. You’re assuming that he’s complaining merely because of the religiosity of the event. That he’s contemptuously talking about all these sheep getting a good dose of their drug. If it were me calling, I’d certainly illustrate my point by providing examples of more worthy news. I’m sure the man didn’t suggest covering a dog show instead.
It wouldn’t work though. The coverage of the Popeiate, is just entertainment in the end. The real issues most people know about already, they’re just swept under the rug - the problem we all try to ignore in all our docility.
I have no problem with reporting the Pope’s death.
But I do ‘object’ to the saturation coverage. There is only so much that can be said, but the media just go on and on, with little new information.
It starts with a statement ‘The Pope is dead’. Then they switch to the correspondent in Rome: ‘The Pope has died’. And then over to the eligious affairs guy: ‘The Pope has died’. Yes, I know!
I had the same irritation when the BBC covered the ‘revolution’ in Georgia: they showed a webcam of the main square in the capital and just repeated, ad nauseam, the little information they had.
Go for large coverage, yes, but do not feel that anything is added by repeating the information endlessly. Other things are going on in the world.
It wasn’t intended as a comparison. The French philosopher Paul Virilio has recently been exploring the relationship between electronic images and power relations. And it’s precisely this kind of analysis I was getting at.
As for whether there are more Catholics than Buddhists in the world - the numbers are besides the point. I know lots of people who call themselves “Catholic” but actually attend church very rarely and seem to have been born into a belief system which bears absolutely no relation to how they live their lives. I don’t know many Buddhists who fit that same category. I also know philosophers who work with the writings of Jacques Derrida every single day of their lives (and have a ‘spiritual’ connection with his philosophy)… but when he died last year, I doubt even they would have wanted to sit through hours of TV coverage of his death!
So a key question which must be asked is: why would someone want to sit through hours and hours of the same material? Is it theraputic? The fact is: the Pope died on Saturday night. Beyond that fact, there is very little that can be said at the moment. On BBC 24 hour News, however, there seems to be endless analysis of the Pope’s legacy, the future of the Catholic Church etc. This is analysis, not news.
Ultimately, I think Christianity has developed a very interesting relationship with the media - a relationship which is under-examined. Thank goodness we have people like Virilio (who, btw, is himself a Christian) doing excellent and innovative work in this area.
What kind of analysis? You’ve simply mentioned a name
The Pope’s death is of more significance to the general public tha, say, Robert Webb’s therefore is more deserving of coverage
I’ve met dozens who call themselves Buddhists but aren’t anything approximating that. California is full of them.
I would have loved every moment of it
The news is redundant and repetitive so that it is easy to understand, no matter when you happen to turn on the TV, which is a factor governed primarily by budget
Oooh, ideology and mass media, can’t think where I’ve heard that before…
Why don’t you actually explain the analysis he made, rather than banging on about how important it is? So far you’ve offered very little comment that pertains to the recent coverage of the Pope
Point taken. But to be fair, in America all new is coved that way. It’s called “the news cycle” here and reflects that 24 hr cable news dominates nowadays. It’s far more commercially practical to repeat/rehash the same stories all day than to hire enough correspondants to dig up other legitimate news stories.
Well, seeing as the word “ideology” appears nowhere in either of my two previous posts in this thread, then you certainly didn’t hear it from me. I actually used the phrase “power-relations”.
I did not “bang on” about how important Virilio is. All I did was mention his name as a possible reference point which may have helped you understand that my comments about the media, Christianity and colonialism were certainly not “spurious”. I did not necessarily expect you to get the reference. And, in any case, you only addressed the general nature of what I’d posted, calling it “spurious” and “laughable” (which, in fact, implies that you understood what I meant - despite the fact that you now suggest that what was actually required was a further explication of Virilio’s work in this area). I wasn’t quite sure how to respond to such, erm, “criticisms”.
I’m Christian and the death of the Pope slipped by me, I’m not the least interested when, where and how he dies, enough is that I know it happened, I didn;t have time and chance to watch a minute of TV or any radio coverage on the issue. I learned it from my colleeagues at work and I somehow don’t feel guilty or anything for not being interested in it now. I know I can find more information about it whenever I want in the future.
I respected the Pope but I’m glad I’m that aloof. I’m simply maybe a bit disgusted by everyone going on about it, even the people who never knew the basic facts about Christianity demonstrating their competence to talk about the importance of the personality of the next pope, well that’s how it is…
If only for that self centered reason, I have some feelings of meloncholy for his passing