What irritates me is your assumption that I'm "gratuitously" and intentionally slamming the RC hierarchy. I'm sorry you're irritated, but a throwaway line about an unsubstantiated story about a Catholic bishop at the end of a post about Methodists is definitionally gratuitous. That word is what it is, it doesn't mean wrong, or malevolent, or whatever, it just means that it had no purpose in telling the story at hand. As a journalist you should know the value of economy of narration.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A stunningly credible source
The Riverfront Times? Now there's a stunningly credible source. On a par with citing Dan Savage as a reliable commenter on Deus Caritas Est. Even then, please note that the story you cite offers no substantation to the charge whatsoever. It simply repeats a second-hand allegation (an attachment to a Holy Office inquiry), made third-hand by the RFT's mention of it. Made fourth-hand by your repition of it. Rod, I'll make you a deal. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this and offer an apology if you could get this assertion as is past your editorial supervisor at DMN and into print.
Context.
You're a professional journalist?
Wasn't there a Catholic bishop not too long ago who gave permission for a man surgically rearranged to resemble a woman to enter a convent as a nun? Is it a rule of this blog that every post regarding a given non-RC denomination has to include a gratuitous slam at the Catholic hierarchy? Even if it has to be accomplished by simple assertion without citation, support or factual basis, as here? You're a professional journalist?
Context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
