GetReligion readers likely are familiar with John Allen, the National Catholic Reporter’s ace Vatican reporter. His latest column analyzes the biggest Vatican stories of the last 10 years. An aside: is anyone else annoyed at all of these “best of decade” lists coming a year prior to the end of the actual decade?
Allen said he thought about compiling a list of the “biggest Vatican stories that never happened” or “most under-appreciated Vatican stories” but decided to just do some empirical analysis of what stories got the most play in print and on-line.
The top three were the sexual abuse crisis; the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI; and Benedict’s visit to the U.S. in April 2008. The second story was the biggest, particularly when it comes to broadcast coverage. Other big stories were Pope John Paul II’s visit to the Holy Land in 2000; his 25th anniversary as Pope; Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture; his decision to authorize wider celebration of the old Latin Mass; the Vatican’s critical reaction to the war in Iraq; a 2005 ruling that homosexuals should not be admitted to seminiaries; Catholic Jewish relations and Vatican reactions to The Da Vinci Code and “The Passion of the Christ.”
Allen says there are three interesting “lines of reflection” suggested by his research. One is that print and broadcast media cover the Vatican very differently. The papal transition accounted for around 10 percent of print coverage for the decade but one-third of broadcast coverage. You already probably know why, but here’s Allen’s explanation:
The explanation seems reasonably obvious: Stories with a dramatic visual and audio component are more likely to be widely followed by broadcast media, whereas stories about policy or theological disputes are more at home in the print world. The Vatican has always been adept at stagecraft, which makes it a natural for TV.
Given that contrast, it might be an interesting exercise for a Catholic college to conduct a study of differences in perception of the Vatican and/or the pope among Americans who are mostly dependent upon TV for their news (presumably, a substantial majority) and those whose outlooks are more shaped by newspapers and journals. Though it’s no more than a working hypothesis, my hunch would be that people more attuned to broadcast media may have a slightly sunnier impression of where things stand.
And Allen says that media coverage is much more favorable to the Catholic church than some Catholics believe. He says that may not be fair:
Simply adding up the total number of references to the Vatican doesn’t distinguish between positive and negative coverage, but it’s worth noting that two of the three clear winners for biggest stories of the decade were, by common reckoning, good ones for the Vatican: the global outpouring of affection for John Paul II at the time of his death, and the visit of Benedict XVI to the United States. Polls taken shortly after that trip showed the new pope winning high marks for his candor on the sex abuse issue, including the first-ever papal session with victims, and for the image of basic kindness he managed to project.
He also points out that some media outlets, such as CNN, carried Benedict’s American masses from “bell-to-bell” in what had to be a record for most Catholic liturgy ever broadcast on an American commercial network in a single week.
Another interesting tidbit is that while John Paul II received more broadcast coverage, Benedict XVI actually has received more print coverage. I find that fascinating. Here’s Allen’s explanation:
Those numbers seem to confirm a bit of conventional journalistic wisdom, which is that while John Paul II was the ideal pope for the TV age, the cerebral Benedict is often better suited to print. My friend and colleague Delia Gallagher was, I think, the first to say that Benedict XVI is a great pope for the Internet, because he’s meant to be read, and virtually every word he either speaks or publishes is now available in real time.
Here’s a final impression, which I can’t confirm statistically, but it reflects my experience: Much coverage of John Paul II during the first half of the decade was cast either in the past tense or the future, while Benedict’s is more firmly in the present.
Interesting! Allen says that much of this past, er, decade’s coverage of John Paul II was focused on his health or successor while coverage of Benedict XVI is all about the here and now. Allen calls this the “sweet spot” for media focus on ideas. Like any good end-of-year list, this one gives much food for thought and discussion.
 | Posted at 12:25 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (16) |
December 31, 2009, at 2:15 pm
If you are annoyed now, then you must have been beside yourself in 1999 when (nearly) everyone in the media was saying that the new century and new millennium were to begin on January 1, 2000.
I gave up 10 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2009, at 3:26 pm
I love John Allen’s thoughtfulness and his perspective.
But if one was feeling mischievous, it might be possible to argue that the really favorable coverage of the two Popes occured either when they died…or visited the United States.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2009, at 4:12 pm
This topic offers some more perspective than I’m used to seeing in the media and I’m grateful for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2009, at 4:27 pm
I agree with Chris; I was irked beyond words at the hype that 1999 was the last year of the 20th Century. I even know a high school math teacher who doesn’t get it! After I made a comment, a woman in my church changed her “Millennium” party for New Year’s Eve 1999 to a “Great Odometer Flip” party.
Decades are more of a folk division so, for example, every year of the form “nineteen-sixty-something” is regarded as belonging to the Sixties, including 1960 itself.
However it’s diced, Happy New Year!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2009, at 7:29 pm
The reasons for that are obvious enough. First, John Paul II had been in clearly declining health for several years prior to his passing, while Benedict apparently remains in relatively good health, his own advanced age notwithstanding.
Second, while both men have led vibrant and profound intellectual lives, it would seem that Benedict’s work in this area is more comprehensible to a popular audience. IMHO, the role of John Paul II as “rock star” was very distinct from his career as philosopher and theologian although there is no doubt that he was also the latter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 31, 2009, at 8:08 pm
The term “actual decade” is a curious one. The set of years from 2000-2009 is just as arbitrary as the set from 2001-2010. If there was any difference between those two different sets of year (or the set 1900-1999 and 1901-2000), then it might bother me.
As for the substance of your post, it is always appreciated when GetReligion points me to a thought-provoking article. Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2010, at 3:20 am
Any period of ten years is “a decade”. The period that began on Jan 1, 2000 and ended this past midnight lasted ten years, and is thus an example of a decade.
No, it does not annoy me that people write “best of decade” lists and such about this particular decade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2010, at 10:10 am
Here is a good article about the decade question. As for this post, nothing really to add.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2010, at 11:28 am
Well a millenium is a millenium and it can only begin in the years 1, 1001, 2001 - but a decade might be defined either as the first decade of the 21st century, which then would be 2001-2010 or as the Eighties, Nineties and “Zeroties”, the latter lasting from 2000-2009.
But such Top Ten of whatever is always annoying, no matter the occasion as the ranking within this list is seldomly meaningful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2010, at 5:39 pm
More annoying than the lists is the pedantic complaining about whether it is the end of the decade or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2010, at 7:22 pm
“anyone else annoyed at all of these “best of decade” lists coming a year prior to the end of the actual decade?”
To understand a decade one must understand how our basic numeric system works.
So lets take a look at a ruler (12 inches). More specific the first 10 inches. The first inch starts at the end of the ruler and ends at the number one. The second inch starts at the number one and ends at number two. etcetera. The tenth inch starts at the number nine and ends at the number ten.
Using the same numeric system, the first year of the decade begins at Jan 1, 2000 and ends Dec 31, 2000(Jan 1, 2001).The tenth year starts Jan 1, 2009 and ends Dec 31, 2009(Jan 1, 2010).
So unless you are using a numeric system other than what is commonly used the end of the decade is Dec 31, 2009.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 1, 2010, at 9:59 pm
The secular media usually works to get an emotional link between the story and the reader or viewer. The Church is most often portrayed as the stodgy institution that resists change, change that is recommended by the new and youthful people with modern and progressive ideas.
Also, I am reminded of the day that JPII visited Mexico City (the 2nd time) and drew a crowd estimated at 6,000,000 people. Not one mainstream media outlet mentioned it.
That’s bias!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 2, 2010, at 3:57 am
Don K,
your circumstantial ruler example (an analogy that doesn’t really explain anything - rulers do not number the inches: (1st inch, 2nd inch, …), they measure them (how long is this? - three inches) fails to address the real issue: when does a decade begin. Others have answered that before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 2, 2010, at 4:01 am
Thinking about it, this fails to account for neutral converage.
If the Pope goes to the U.S. and the media covers every step he takes, this is not as such positive coverage. It is just reporting. The same goes for the papal transition.
My estimate would be that most coverage is just neutral, follwed by negative and very little positive. But then again, those engaging in the last socially acceptable form of bigotry of course regard anything beyond bashing the church “positive coverage” and cry “bias!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 2, 2010, at 12:06 pm
The answer is yes, but no one listened to me about the millennium in the year 2000, so I don’t expect them to listen now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
January 2, 2010, at 7:45 pm
If it is true that Pope Benedict has received more print coverage than Pope John Paul II did, the conventional wisdom “that while John Paul II was the ideal pope for the TV age, the cerebral Benedict is often better suited to print” would not explain it. It is true that Joseph Ratzinger was a prolific author (and one of genius, in my opinion). But Pope John Paul II’s pontificate put out written material at a pace at least as fast as, and probably faster than, Pope Benedict’s pontificate and much of it was probably to some significant degree the work of Joseph Ratzinger. Pope John Paul II was no intellectual slouch either. Before becoming Pope he was a well regarded university professor, although he is not nearly as readable as Joseph Ratzinger.
Also, the press does a lousy job of reporting the major writings that the Vatican publishes. If one were to read only the the New York Times, one would have only the vaguest notion of the ideas that are contained in the great encyclical letters of the last 30 years such as “Saved in Hope,” “Faith and Reason,” “The Splendor of Truth” and “The Gospel of Life.”
If it is true that Pope Benedict has received more print coverage, my guess as to the reason for it would be that Pope Benedict is more of a lightening rod. His style is not to be shy about expressing his views and when convinced something is true he will not side step it merely to avoid provoking a response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0