Chronicle finds a connection between Mel Gibson and Hitler
So, why is the Chronicle in a troubling and declining circulation trend? Why does the paper make a Top 10 list of newspapers that rely on "freebies"? Stories like today's on the recut Passion of the Christ are most likely a factor.
It's a head-shaking "news" story, filled with assumptions, distortions, editorializing and anti-Christian bias. If the reporter, Jeannie Kever, has even a rudimentary understanding of Christianity or Christians, it doesn't come through in the story.
I'll single out two passages. First:
Sister Mary C. Boys, a professor at Columbia University's Union Theological Seminary, was one of four Catholic scholars asked by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to review an early version of the script. Publicity over their fears of an anti-Semitic backlash inadvertently helped promote the movie.
Even now, Boys worries "that we're going to have a whole generation of people who will grow up thinking this is how it went down, and that's how Jews are."
News reports suggest there has been an increase in anti-Semitism, both locally and worldwide, over the past year, although Martin Cominsky, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, says there is no proof the movie was behind it.
Those are three incredible paragraphs. According to Kever, the Passion stirred "fears of an anti-Semitic backlash" that the ADL admits it can't prove. So WHY report it? Rumors. Possibilities. Potentials. Is the "professional" media supposed to report facts or fan rumors? Is this an example of an "ideal state"?
But it gets so much worse:
Historically, passion plays have sparked violence against Jews, most spectacularly when Hitler invoked the passion play enacted by the Bavarian village of Oberammergau after attending a 1934 performance.
Hitler. The Chronicle reporter has to add a comparison to Hitler.
In case there is a really good explanation for that comparison, I emailed the reporter and the Chronicle's reader representative. So far, I haven't heard back from either of them, but if I do, I'll be sure to add an update.
RELATED: Oh no, here come the pogroms again (Orrin Judd)
UPDATE: Jeannie Kever responds to my email:
The paragraph was not a comparison between Hitler and Mel Gibson; it was an explanation of why Jews have historically worried about the fallout from Passion Plays.
Jeannie
I'm not sure why Kever felt the need to explain "why Jews have historically worried" about Passion Plays, with Hitler as the example. This movie is a rerelease. Since Christian anti-Semitism didn't materialize when the Passion was first released, why bring it up? Are Christians who have seen the Passion the biggest threat Jews face today? Hardly. Evangelical Christians are among the biggest supporters of the Jewish people and Israel.
UPDATE 2: Owen Courreges comments.
KEVIN WHITED ADDS: I was so stunned to see that article that I forwarded it to my friend Orrin Judd, who frequently is my muse. Certainly, Kever's writing is set up to insinuate that Gibson's movie is behind an increase of anti-Semitism in the world and locally, even if she produces a quote that says there is no evidence for any such thing. As for the increase of anti-Semitism globally, that is a fact, but some of the most disturbing incidents seem to be coming in post-Christian, secular (but increasingly Islamic) Europe. Locally, the source of the anti-Semitic incidents reported at the end of last year is undetermined, but nobody has thus far suggested it was a clan of Christians motivated by Mel Gibson's movie. Kever's insinuation is reckless. Whether it was intentional or not is not relevant. It made it into print past an editor (one presumes) with her name on it, and it reads as it reads.
As far as the reference to Hitler, I think I would simply refer Kever to Orrin's observation -- it's not as if Hitler was a devout Christian who was inspired to exterminate Jews after watching the Passion. Indeed, historically we have referred to Hitler accurately as the anti-Christ.
And I'm still puzzled by this statement at the beginning:
Last year's success of The Passion of the Christ foretold the red state-blue state electoral vote divide as the nation's culture wars played out at the box office.
Kever provides no evidence for this assertion, which seems silly on its face. Christians are prevalent throughout the nation, and boosted gate receipts for this movie, yes. But Christians don't exclusively vote for one party, or exclusively live in states that went for Bush. It's this sort of amateur editorializing in news coverage that the Chronicle needs to find some way to eliminate. Not only is it erroneous, but it just doesn't belong on the news pages.
Professional journalists frequently criticize bloggers for making "assumptions." I would bark back at professional journalists that some of their number need to check their own assumptions, and need to write much more carefully.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 03/11/05 11:31 AM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.