They who control the topics control what people think.
The mainstream media controls what people think because they control the topics being discussed.
How to combat this?
A long-time reader sent this by email:
I don’t follow the NBA very closely, but I have never heard of this guy. Have you? I looked him up to see what his career stats are. If I read them right, he is a center who has a career average of 3.6 points per game.
Please explain of what possible interest it is to have splattered all over the MSM what kind of sex this guy likes to have and who he likes it with? Why is this news?
It is news, because the MSM controls topics and topics shape the way large swaths of the population think. The MSM wants people to accept sodomy as the new normal.
Loading ...
Very good point, Fr. Why is this such news, if not for the implicit agenda that you stated? And why so little on the Gosnell trial?
The problem is that journalism is no longer seen as just reporting the news. Journalism has become a mission “to change the world”. Unfortunately, most journalists graduate from schools and universities where the Liberal, academic elite have held sway for years. So it’s not a big leap to see journalists pushing agendas and editorializing – not reporting. An additional problem is, most of these MSM journalists, especially the ones from the “blue states” are SO out of touch with most Americans. When you disagree with them, they are actually shocked that A) people CAN actually think for themselves and that B) you would dare to disagree with them to begin with. And if you disagree with them, you are obviously some under educated, non-cultured Neanderthal who needs to be enlightened.
I find it interesting that I have not heard anyone in the media talk about the fact that Jason has an identical twin brother, Jarron, who is married and has children.
Your absolutely correct about the MSM wanting to normalize sodomy; its become quite the Crusade, cause celebre ju jour. There’s many reasons for this and its succeeding quite well.
What’s the answer to this? I honestly don’t think that in terms of turning the tide there’s any answer to this except possibly time. The Leftist Elites that own, operate and control the Government and its Media outlets have learned well the lessons of the Hegelian Dialectic, i.e., he who controls the language controls the outcome of any debate. And they’ve taken a page from Joseph Stalin who famously noted that those who vote decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.
What’s even more impressive is the fact that the Elites have figured out how to mold public opinion through the use of engineered polling data. For example, they’ll ask in a poll, “Do you oppose people killing people with firearms?” Of course 98% say yes! This is then oft repeated by Wolf Blitzer, et al as “98% of those polled favor gun control”. Taking a page from Hitler’s book, they repeat the lie over and over again such that people come to believe they favor gun control because after all…………98% of everyone else favors it.
From a personal standpoint, the only answer to this is to turn it completely off! I no longer watch any of the T.V. news but for EWTN and the Weather Channel; the rest of it is nothing more than endless propaganda and I really don’t want their voices in my head. That, and its extremely depresssing.
In the end of course, this can’t end well and its my personal belief that their constant denial of truth will lead to their ultimate destruction. Just as the Third Reich imploded, so shall they.
Here in the Netherlands, every few years a poll is held among journalists about their political preferences. Since we have a much more splintered political landscape (a dozen parties), this is much more telling than a D/R split in the US would be. In short, not only are journalists by vast majorities lefties, they prefer those left-wing parties that are the most extreme when it comes to desiring social (in contrast to economical) change.
A few publications aside, it’s not journalism that has an agenda: journalism is the agenda.
Great cartoon! Great points, Father.
Jason Collins said in Sports Illustrated:
“My parents instilled Christian values in me. They taught Sunday school, and I enjoyed lending a hand. I take the teachings of Jesus seriously, particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding.”
Really? He certainly does not believe in the divine revelation expressed in the New Testament regarding homosexual activity.
ESPN commentator Chris Broussard, a former NBA player, said this about Collins. As expected, folks are calling for Broussard to be fired:
“Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”
Ironically, Father Z, the acronym you’re using for mainstream media (MSM) also is used for “Men having Sex with Men.” As you rightly observe, both groups’ interests are intertwined. If you “‘want to be like everyone else,” why don’t you just play basketball (badly) without publicly announcing your sexual deviations? Yes, it’s part of the campaign to make sodomy normal, and then go even further.
And as an aside, the same preference structure, with some marginal changes, applies to judges over here. The different mechanism for naming them may have some impact in the US, but beware of the problem becoming equally bad in that field.
And of course, the Media just LOVES to report when a somewhat nebulous “Christian group” happens to support their agenda:
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/christian-group-calls-espn-writers-suspension-jason-collins-213013743.html
Read the story and you’ll see this “Christian group” is also protesting a Catholic church in NY.
Why do people bother to ‘come out’?
1. To force others into acceptance/tolerance, meaning, “Praise me or else!”
2. To provide for themselves the legal benefits of being a protected class.
3. To tell others like them that they are available. Kind of like a personals ad.
Can you imagine how weird it would be if a married couple announced their (completely normal, orthodox, open to children) sexual preferences to the world? I believe the real motivation is #2.
When I work out at the gym in the morning, I can watch both Fox News and CNN on adjacent monitors. Yesterday, I noticed that the NBA player out of the closet was a big story on CNN, while never mentioned on Fox. Fox was covering the Benghazi whistleblowers, while Benghazi was never mentioned on CNN. I can see why my progressive friends who refuse to watch Fox News never have any idea about some of what I consider important news stories.
Eben, they are already on that path and there are even some among their own that know they are fast becoming irrelevant. The explosion of the Internet spelled their doom. Social media is proving to be a much faster (& possible more reliable) source of news and as far as analysis is concerned, they now have to compete with countless outlets for analysis, like this blog. They are getting desperate for attention & hence will spin anything into a major story.
Sounds like “Tomorrow Never Dies” doesn’t it?
I think the sad part for Collins is that what was once for him an internal struggle is now something that he celebrates, thanks to the growing acceptance in the culture. It makes it rewarding to give in and give up the struggle. Whatever his motivations may have been for coming out, I can’t help but think it will end up being a good career move for fame and fortune after his NBA career is over (and at 13 seasons it probably will be soon). The world loves its own. John 15:19
And now as Mother’s Day approaches this month, he says “I can’t wait to start a family of my own”, thus stating his intention of denying some “lucky” child a mother. And the world celebrates him as a hero.
Re: Chris Broussard’s comments
Here’s the headline on deadspin.
“Why ESPN’s Chris Broussard Came Out As A Bigot – Deadspin”
*sigh*
There are consequences to gay sex that don’t lend themselves to celebration. The Health Risks of Gay Sex pretty much says it all….
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Does this Collins guy have any idea? Is anybody willing to tell him?
Priests have more from the pulpit than the MSM. Unfortunately, this power is rarely used.
The priests from AudioSancto have had significant influence on their listeners.
onosurf,
Did not know about AudioSancto. Thanks!
I can’t help but wonder if this is simply an attention ploy to make money at the end of a less than illustrious career.
Seems like it to me. Plus, why the fanfare media hullabaloo if it was merely a need to be honest with one’s self? Or, why make some grandstanding announcement and not tell your fiancee of eight years? Poor girl should have known better (who is engaged for 8 years?) but still.
For some inscrutable reason, yes, most of the journalists in this country are just propagandists. Why someone would want to propagandize for sodomy is beyond me, as the link provided by DisturbedMary accurately describes what an objectively dangerous and disgusting thing it is. However, when people are overtaken with their passions, their egos and any way they slake their lusts must be protected at all costs.
I read a funny and perfect Twitter post yesterday about his public coming-out being brave: His coming out is about as brave as is a man wearing hot-pink shorts in San Francisco.
An online article that said this announcement was done as a two-way street (my words, pun not intended) to secure endorsements: First, because being gay is fashionable, and second, because if he doesn’t get endorsements, he’ll claim homophobia. I don’t know anything about this guy (don’t follow sports), but he’s not one of the big sports names that I’ve seen come across headlines, so that could well be a valid point.
And y’all heard about our president calling Collins to congratulate him, right? Google it.
To further illustrate what a joke all this is: Collins would have been out of a job next season because he’s a bad player, and old. Now, his team is held hostage because if he’s cut, let the lawsuits happen! David Stern got what he wanted, a media circus where he can cover-up the past couple of years of terrible decisions on his part (exhibit A, voiding the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers), instead his lackeys in the media will all praise his “courage” in supporting Collins. This has nothing to do with “gay rights” or acceptance, but it’s all about David Stern and his legacy.
…from a Boston columnist: Jason Collins isn’t courageous; just trendy
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_fitzgerald/2013/04/fitzgerald_jason_collins_isn_t_courageous_just_trendy
Larry,
No problem! I know 4-5 priests on there. Most are FSSP, the rest are independent. They teach church teachings. For example…I don’t think you could talk about contraception being a mortal sin and be a diocesan priest…at least not in SoCal.
I started with the “saints” section, since it was easiest for me to accept. I would not have been disposed to listening to the “hard” teachings since I was raised in the church of no sin. I had to ease my way into it. AS is great and the Catholic Churches teachings are liberating.
@Scarltherr Why do people bother to ‘come out’?
I think you need to distinguish between celebrities and ordinary people. And identify that what “coming out” means to “Side A” (gay lifestyle affirming) vs “Side B” (believe in chastity) Christians with SSA.
Someone who is faithful to Church teaching may “come out” for the same reason a person may tell you she’s an alcoholic – it simply makes it easier for her to explain certain prudential choices that may otherwise look anti-social or uncharitable.
Others who are faithful to Church teaching “come out” specifically to try to reach out and save members of the LBGT community whom they can reach better than others.
And “coming out” itself is not necessary a public announcement to everyone. In some cases, a person may “come out” only to his parents, or his fiancee, or his wife.
In fact, people often “come out” to people they trust while they’re trying to make sense of whether they really are gay, and if so, what that means for their life.
Here’s a question, not just to Scarltherr: if someone who felt they were gay “came out” to you, would you know how to help him or her? Would that someone even dare to ask you for advice? Could you explain to them that following the Church’s teaching doesn’t mean they have to give up love and friendship?
Or would their only source of advice come from “Dignity” and openly active homosexuals?
@the Sicilian Woman: you’re right, our president did indeed make that phone call. And his wife tweeted her congratulations as well ” this is a great step forward for our country! We’ve got your back ” These two have long been making these PC related phone calls, making themselves look relevant and caring but knowing it is nothing more than a diversion from the important work they cant manage to accomplish. And the public eats it up. What about the real work? Why do we still not know what happened in Benghazi, for example? Who was watching Ambassador Stevens’ back?As long as the MSM chooses what’s important to cover and tows the line, Americans are left in the dark.
Disturbed Mary: thank you for posting this physicians article. I wonder sometimes if all the people who support gay “marriage” know what they’re supporting, if they even think about the sexual practices that gay men resort to because they have to be imaginative. God did not create the human body for this, and the perverse, dangerous sexual practices mirror the perversity of the culture. Sex was created by God as a well functioning, pleasurable act between a man and woman, perfectly attuned to conceive children. It is easy for young people to say they support their gay friends, but show them this article and let them understand what happens in those bedrooms. Unfortunately, with the rise of pornography, many heterosexual young people are adopting these practices, bored by the “same old same old” It’s bad enough that they are pressured into premarital sex. Now young women have to fight with their boyfriends about “front door only” . I don’t mean to offend anyone here, I only want to share that this perversity is spreading, like a virus jumps from one population to another. It really is a challenge to raise healthy strong young people in this climate.
Pingback: Jason Collins - Big Pulpit
I think that the first openly homosexual athlete in a major men’s sports league could be a legitimate story. To the extent that the position of homosexuals in society is a relevant topic today (and, whichever side of the issues one is on, they are current issues, aren’t they?), how homosexual men function in a team environment is something to talk about. It provides a comparison for looking at the way the military adapts after the repeal of DADT. It’s a specialized public case of something that people everywhere have to grapple with to some extent.
There are, however, two elements that lead me to agree that this is a stupid story. One is that he’s at the end of his career. It’s not at all clear that he’ll be in the league next season, and if he is, he’ll be on his way out shortly afterwards. There’s a solid chance that he’ll never play another game in the NBA. There have already been a number of retired athletes who “came out of the closet.” So, it seems like this is a first only in a technical sense.
Secondly, the specific coverage of the story has been shallow and has barely gone past praising his courage. I’m not sure that I see the courage involved in saying that you’re gay when you’re on your way out of the NBA. What difference does it make now? I’d imagine his family and friends already knew. Other players have little reason to give it much thought at this point, and he has no reason to be concerned about what they think. And, it’s not like we live in a time where grown, successful gay men are attacked or pushed to the fringes of society (and that, we should accept, i mostly a good thing). The only real impact that I can see is that it’ll give him the opportunity for a good book deal if he wants it.
Anyone who tries to make any point about the situation that goes beyond fawning over the guy is quickly marginalized. In that environment, it’s pretty much impossible to have a good news story.
What kills me is the absolutely gushingly approving tone of the supposedly objective journalists. This combined with a condescending moralistic very smugly hinting how they are morally superior” to those “hate-filled reactionary bigots” who don’t agree with them. It is indeed ironic that they have no tolerance for a holier-than-thou attitude from Christians about the faith, but in their “religion” of secularism, they engage in it shamelessly.
Even the Wall St. Journal (which I read because it is not quite as bad as some of the other newspapers in being politically correct) is very disappointing, with one of those gushing/moralistic articles by the ironically named columnist Jason Gay (really).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323982704578453174149883436.html
And to follow up on Angie Mcs’ comment, my friend’s son (a sophomore in high school) was going to be learning about anal sex in his high school sex ed class this year. They learned about oral sex last year.
She saw nothing wrong with him learning about it, being a “c”atholic. Sigh…
They didn’t teach us about that in health/sex ed back in the mid 80s. What on earth would one teach about it?!? So yes, being presented in schools does have the effect of legitimizing it in the minds of teens as an acceptable sexual practice. May God have mercy on us.
LarryW2LJ wrote,
“onosurf, Did not know about AudioSancto. Thanks!”
That was a good reminder to me that websites and books that I have mentioned on this site some time ago may be unknown to new readers! So I need to repeat them on occasion just like onosurf did.
If you want good, solid instruction on the real, true Catholic faith – including the grave sin of homosexual behavior – I highly recommend the Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon’s, S.J., correspondence courses available here; they are endorsed by Cardinal Raymond Burke: http://www.therealpresence.org/edu.htm
I like Audio Sancto, too.
This black out largely applies to fiscal issues too. The news media can’t rant against ridiculous spending or celebrate fiscal discipline because 1)it would hurt MANY Democrats since the Blue Dogs have been virtually wiped out of the Party, and 2) the writers would need to know something about the topic, which is not your run of the mill, find out how people feel topic, but requires facts.
It is really like two different countries are occurring right now. Kind of worrisome.
Because of the topic that we are discussing, I would like to share with all of you the best non-religious argument against so-called marriage between persons of the same sex. It was created by a female lawyer in Tucson, Arizona. Please spread it; there is no real counter agrument.
There is a natural argument against so-called “marriage” between two persons of the same sex.
The basis is THE PARTS DO NOT FIT.
This applies to the psychological, emotional, and spiritual aspects—three areas in which a man and a woman do fit.
The other facet is the physical dimension. The sexual-generative parts of the male and female bodies do fit, THEY ARE MEANT FOR EACH OTHER LIKE A LOCK AND A KEY, and this fit is IN ACCORD WITH NATURE. This natural fit also follows a natural purpose, namely, the generation of a human life. The sexual-generative parts of two males or of two females DO NOT FIT and do not fulfill the natural purpose of generating human life.
At the risk of being both cynical and uncharitable, I shall agree with Cathy: I believe this was a calculated ploy on the part of a quite unremarkable player to become a national celebrity. And it worked.
As the father of six under 15y this has been on my mind a lot lately. My wife and I have to be constantly vigilant to explain and help them interpret what read or hear via the MSM. Instilling a facility for thinking critically is very important here, of course that is the exact opposite of what the public schools and the MSM are doing to both our kids and our peers.
It is absolutely pervasive. Rich Lowry had a column today contrasting e.g. B. H. Obama’s speech to P.P. which completely omitted the word “abortion” – and N.A.R.A.L.’s rebranding – with the N.R.A.’s unapologetic and outspoken defense of the 2nd Amendment. They (not the N.R.A.) know that the MSM has got their back – abortion is “reproductive health care” although it’s neither, pro-life is anti-choice, etc. And of course everything the libertine left wants is a “human right” or a “civil right”, and the MSM willingly parrot it without the least qualm.
And then there are the “outliers”, “isolated incidents”, and “rogue <fill-in-the-blank)s" versus the typical and systemic: Ft. Hood and the Marathon were disgruntled loners with no ties to any ideology whereas that nut in OKC was a creature of Limbaugh, the KKK, and I forget who else. Gosnell is just a bad apple, but Tiller's killers are typical of anti-choice zealots. LiveAction.org's exposés of P.P. are "rogue journalism" by people akin to "terrorists"… on and on it goes.
We really are in uncharted waters here… at least for America. Twenty years ago I laughed at people who talked like me but I'm not laughing lately…
At the risk of being even more cynical … think there is something especially nefarious about the homosexual activists (and their allies in the press), who want to deliberately deconstruct powerful images of masculinity. Military men, Boy Scouts, and professional athletes have been “de facto” iconic images of (straight) manhood for a long time, and that is why they are so eager to homosexualize all of them.
In my book, that explains the giddy fawning of the media elites in the Collins case. Nearly all of them have pointed out that this is the first major active pro athlete to “come out of the closet,” so it is quite a coup for them.
That reveals the goal: to show that there is no place safe for men *not* to be the object of homosexual lust: be it the barracks, the locker room, the Scout camp, etc — and to try to convince the culture that this is a good thing. Unfortunately, it seems to be working.
(1) With regard to those who opined that this really is not a big deal I would ask, then why haven’t any other major team-sports figures come out before this?
(2) With regard to Cincy Priest’s comment that Boy Scouts are iconic figures of straight masculinity, I was a scout from Bobcat to Explorer and then an adult scouter. I’ve seen a LOT of scouts. My impression is that Scouting is (a) a refuge for boys who aren’t jocks, or (b) it’s a place where boys whose father’s insist that they become Eagle endure years of hell. I’ve been there, and I’ve been a chaplain of three troops. Icons of straightdom NOT.
(3) What’s wrong with a gay athlete who can be honest about who he is? How many lives could this save for gay boys or teens who may have thought they had no way out of their pathetic lives, as some have caused them to think?
(4) Regarding the MSM (as in the understanding used here) frankly I have much more respect for Cooper and Lemon who are honest and out than about the closeted afternoon guy on FN. Don and Anderson seem a lot healthier to me, and probably grind their teeth much less than S.
(5) The Higgs piece has been circulating for more than ten years. It was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
(6) I don’t really think Broussard is a bigot. I think he had the right to say what he said, he’s a commentator and he certainly was no less offensive than Limbaugh is for three hours a day, five days a week.
(7) With regard to Meyer’s statement that this was a calculated ploy, so what, that’s what professional sports is all about. It stopped being about athleticism a few generations ago. If the athlete can parlay that into a post-career career, good for him, that what they ALL do, if you haven’t noticed. How many of our former Bengals have auto dealerships, furniture stores and the like? How many are shilling on T.V. for floor coverings? So it’s okay for the straight guys, but the gay guys are guilty of “calculated ploys?
(8) To Bill Foley, that sounds like a fairly primitive argument. It certainly does not account for practices that are common to same sex and opposite sex relationships and no I’m not going to draw you a picture.
(9) To Scarterr, I don’t think there was any indication that the athlete in question was asking to be praised.
To Fr. Z, I think the cartoon is funny, but incorrect — there was a BUNCH of media hullabaloo about Tebow’s evangelical christianity before he won the Heisman and again before he entered the NFL. BUT — everything they were saying was about what a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing slope-browed genetic outlier he must be to be so open and comfortable with such beliefs that are so far outside the mainstream (media’s desired) vision of “acceptable public behavior”. Which still makes the same point.
And frjim4321, regarding Bill Foley — saying an argument is primitive does not mean that it is incorrect, only that it uses simple terms, is based on things easily proven or refuted, and can be understood by the feeble as well as the elite intellect. In fact, it is actually considered a BENEFIT for an argument to be primitive, a la Occam’s Razor …
Should we be hypothesizing about the player’s motivation for ‘coming out’? If the hypotheses are incorrect, we are being unjust and spreading uncharitable speculation. If they are true, does it change whether we pray for him, others who are afflicted with this disorder, and those who support such a lifestyle?
I believe the criticisms of the MSM are warranted, but feel uneasy judging the motives of the player himself.
Although it would be a mistake to say that there was ever a “golden age” of neutrality in the media, something happened mid-20th century with journalism. It morphed from focusing on who, what, where and when to a fixation on Why? Who, what, where and when are relatively objective criteria; why is almost entirely subjective. This means that there was a inevitable shift from fact to opinion in journalism. Couple this with the left-wing bias of most establishment media outlets, and what we are experiencing today was inevitable.
I agree with those who say that turning it off is the best long-term strategy. I used to believe that being informed was important, but the bias is so apparent that it is of less value to be “informed” of what the media is doing. Related to the broader issue of secular culture, as Christians, I agree that we should disengage from consuming the culture, but need to figure out more effective ways of influencing the culture . . . this is part of the new evangelization effort. This may be the most challenging issue for the Church in the 21st century.