When does the Pope make news?

I give a big thank you to those who commented to any one of my blogs during 2009. Thanks to your comments my blog entitled “The God I believe in, and the University students’”, submitted in June was the most commented on story published in timesofmalta.com and “A church of saints and sinners”, submitted in May was the third most commented on story. I am happy that my commentaries gave rise to so much discussion; however, last year’s record will be a tough act to follow.

While I am all out for comments and discussion I feel that there are subjects I should write about even if I suspect that comments would not be forthcoming; and what is more important is that my editor is of the same opinion.

The controversial and the important

My feeling is that many times the number of comments is more commiserate to the controversial nature of the topic than to its objective importance. For example, blogs on the media get hardly any reaction although the media plays such an important role in our lives. I find it hard never to comment on the media even if what is important for me is not necessarily important for others. Religious topics also attract many comments. The two subjects of my blogs which attracted so much comment were not particularly controversial but were of a religious nature. Perhaps for some (or many) anything about religion is controversial.

This week’s blog is an amalgam between religion (which draws comments) and the media (which attracts no comments). What will happen now that I mix them together?

Pope yes, Pope no

This time last year the Pope was in the news, when sections of the media considered as homophobic a speech he delivered to officials of the Vatican Curia. The speech was nothing of the sort. A big controversy followed. This year he was again in the news because during the Midnight Mass (actually the mass started at 10.00p.m.!) he was “assaulted” by women. The video of the incident on You Tube attracted tens of thousands of viewers.

On the other hand, neither his annual state-of-the-church speech to the officials of the Curia nor his message for the World Day of Peace attracted much attention, even though the theme of the latter was similar in substance to the theme of his speech last year to his main aides. On both occasions, he spoke about the relationship of humans to creation. This year the message was not deemed to be controversial and so it was not covered. Controversial perhaps it is not, but important it surely is!

Let me share with you a few sentences before I proceed to the discussion of the main point of this blog i.e. that we have developed a concept of news where the controversial is considered more news worthy than the important.

Peace and creation

The title of the Pope’s message was: If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.

“The environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people,” he wrote, “and the use we make of it entails a shared responsibility for all humanity, especially the poor and future generations. I also observed that whenever nature and human beings in particular, are seen merely as products of chance or an evolutionary determinism, our overall sense of responsibility wanes.”

It is very clear that for the Pope the distinctiveness and superior role of human being over the rest of creation is fully respected. “Hence I readily encourage efforts to promote a greater sense of ecological responsibility which, as I indicated in my Encyclical "Caritas in Veritate", would safeguard an authentic ‘human ecology’ and thus forcefully reaffirm the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.”

Pope Benedict makes a list of urgent problems that cry for an urgent solution:

“Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.”

Can anyone convince me that Peace Day message from which the above is quoted is not of great importance and that it merits more coverage than the “assault” of December 24? I have no problem with the full reportage of the latter incident; my only problem is with the scarce reporting of the former. I understand that our sense of curiosity makes it easier for us to click on You Tube to see the “assault” that to make the effort necessary to follow the Pope’s Peace Message. However, many media organisations impelled by their desire to increase profits feast on our human fragility to project the controversial more than the important.

The pollution of the spirit

On the feast of the Immaculate Conception (8 December, 2009), Pope Benedict made an original reflection on the theme of that feast which is useful to my line of argument. He referred to the danger of the material pollution of the air we breath and the neighborhood we live in but pointed his finger at another kind of pollution: the pollution of the spirit which could be as dangerous. A distorted sense of news value can lead to this kind of pollution.

Benedict XVI said there is great need of "beautiful news" as the press brings a daily serving where "evil is recounted, repeated, amplified, accustoming us to the most horrible things, making us become insensitive and, in some way, intoxicating us, because the negative is not fully disposed of and accumulates day after day."

And though the "media tends to make us feel always as 'spectators,' as if evil refers only to others, and certain things could never happen to us," in truth, "we are all 'actors' and, in evil as in good, our behaviour has an influence on others."

The American sociologist used to say the 95% of the news is about 5% of the people. Benedict XVI, in his above quoted speech, tried to look at the 95% that are not usually in the news. He gave public tribute to all those people who silently go about doing good. "They are so many, also here in Rome, and rarely do they make news," he reflected. "Men and women of every age, who have understood that it is no use to condemn, to lament, to recriminate, but it is better to respond to evil with good. This changes things, it changes persons and, in consequence, improves society."

Perhaps it would make more sense if our news and comments are directed both towards the controversial and the important, about the top 5% of society and also about the rest.