Article on Vatican trial: too few facts

Note: Most newspaper content reprinted here is incomplete and delayed. Want it all? Sooner? You can subscribe to our full print and online editions by calling (559) 674-4207 and get both editions for the price of one!

webmaster | 10/03/12

In the article, "Pope's ex-butler goes on trial for leaked papers," Nicole Winfield gave "her opinion" on the Vatican, and left out the part about this ex-butler did, and what, when, and how, he was being prosecuted.

It was quite disturbing, as a Catholic, to see that Nicole definitely does not like the Vatican and was very open about starting her article with, "There was a time when a Vatican trial could end with a heretic being burned at the stake." What does that have to do with the wrong that the butler did? When people report about people breaking into homes, do they start their articles with that kind of statement, or do they report the incident as it happened?

Winfield goes on to report about what has happened in the Vatican on other legal affairs. Was her article supposed to be reporting a crime, or a documentary on the Vatican? Her commentary part of the article left me frustrated, and disgusted, more than reporting facts of what happened.

If she opened the door to supposed "facts" about the Vatican, why didn't she report facts about how many Catholic priests, nuns, and bishops have lost their lives over only wanting to pray and help others? Why didn't she report how many popes have had their lives put on the line for our Catholic community?

Why does she think it is OK to comment about the legislative power at the Vatican? Does she report every time there is a crime committed in England about their legislative powers or even explain the legislative powers in our government every time someone cheats our government?

There was another article in the Tribune, the headline of which reads, "Judge orders filmmaker jailed." So did this writer write about the judge's background? No. Did this writer explain what the judge's past records were? No. The article talked about the person who committed the crime.

If Nicole Winfield was wanting to write a commentary she should have given the headline as such, but to have readers assume the article was going to give facts about what this butler had done and his background was, as far as I'm concerned, false headlines. As far as I'm concerned Nicole crossed the line by trying to throw her opinion onto this bad situation. To manipulate her opinion about the Vatican into this article, which was supposed to be about the crime committed, was totally uncalled for.

Remember the saying, "Just give me the facts." Yes, report the crime, as a crime against the pope, and if the reporters want to write a commentary about their personal view, write a "commentary." Where has proper reporting gone? Is this what reporters are learning in school now?

Cecelia Jones,
Madera

 

comments powered by Disqus