EDITORIAL – Twisting the word of the pope on Paris

A well-respected international news network appears to have gone overboard in its reporting of the Paris terror attacks last Friday. It has deliberately tried to "over-sensationalize" an already sensational reaction by Pope Francis to the attacks. What the pope said about the attacks was that they appear to be a part of "a piecemeal third world war." But when this network repeats this development in its reporting, more often than not it drops the word "piecemeal."

Now, we do not have to lecture anyone what piecemeal is. Everybody knows what it means. And everybody knows that when you add or take away the word piecemeal from a phrase like "third world war," you change the meaning of the phrase completely. So what is this network doing? Is it trying to make the pope's statement more sensational and provocative than it already is? Or is it trying to stoke the flames of conflict even further.

This is not the first time this network has gone overboard in its reporting. When superstorm Patricia was heading to Mexico not very long ago, it was the only network that devoted a round-the-clock watch on its development, apparently bolstered by its own description of the storm as the strongest ever to hit land on record. But wasn't that record given to Haiyan (Yolanda) which hit the Philippines in 2013?

In fact, it sent some of its international correspondents to the Philippines ahead of the storm because Haiyan was universally acknowledge as the greatest storm ever to hit land on record. And yet when Patricia bore down on Mexico, it gave that storm the same description. No problem if that were true, or if some attempt was made to bring context to that kind of reporting. But no mention was made of Haiyan ever, even if only to say that its record was being surpassed.

Needless to say, Patricia did not become what this network bruited it to be. And the fact that no other network gave it as much coverage only shows the kind of sensationalism that went into its coverage. So what gives? Has the network lowered its standards on reporting? Or are we seeing the giant networks going the way of the smaller outfits who have to make do with their own resourcefulness if they are to survive in such a competitive world.

But the problem with resourcefulness is that it can get out of hand. And when it does, it often will not sit well with its audience, especially if an audience is a very discerning one. Another well-respected American network has recently been in the news itself after it got accused of undue badgering and unfair questioning by US presidential candidates during a debate it was sponsoring.

American media is known for engaging themselves in politics, of openly endorsing candidates. Now it appears to be moving into other things as well. The network that started off this article is known to have shown distinct biases when discussing gender-sensitive and racial issues. That is not the role most other media have been made to understand gives them their sacredness. Maybe things are really changing. Maybe this is the way mainstream media is abdicating to social media.