Not only was the original BBC report thoroughly twisted. (Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church would have recognised that.) Most of Grant’s gripes and responses about the Church were premised on pure prejudices, as were those of many who supported him.

This was the first time I had read a (non-technical) blog, and it was the first time that I had taken part in a discussion. (It’s quite addictive – I have to admit ) My conclusion was this: If that particular blog and discussion are representative of Thought Leader, then Thought Leader is not a blog site for thinkers.

I said the way she wrote the blog was done like some of the girls used to skinner at my school. Being Catholic, and having only ever gone to a Catholic school, it’s the only “school” analogy I have and choose to make.

It was aimed at the MANNER in which she wrote, not the doctrine (even though I have lots of complaints about the doctrine too, based on MY opinion, which is based on MY experiences with said Catholic doctrine and which I chose to drop years ago as I found it to be defunct).

I take your point and largely agree but I ask you then if all sources carry some degree of bias, as they surely must do, what pray tell do you suggest I use? What is the location of the great, unbiased research source? I don’t know one so I guess you must apply a filter to multiple sources to erase the noise and see what you are left with.

In this case I read the articles on CNN and BBC and watched the actual TV coverage of the story as well before writing the piece. I then read and commented on the original transcript on which the reports were based and I read rebukes of the articles on 2 Catholic websites and one religious website. I critically analysed the content (something they did teach us in Engineering) and I maintain my position.

Where, pray tell, should I have extended the research net to ensure no bias short of flying to Rome itself? And if all sources are inherently biased, as you claim, why is my article the only one expected to be 100% bias free? Why should I report with no opinion and who on earth would read an opinion blog with no opinion delivered? I have bias. You have bias. Noam Chomsky has bias. Everyone has bias. As long as that bias is not so strong that you resort to fabricating facts or making claims you can’t substantiate with respected sources, in everyday conversation that bias is called opinion – some are for and others against, all with good reasons. We only call it bias when we wish to give it negative spin. Not so?

As for my purported double standards, would you not agree that the same publication might have greater or lesser degrees of bias when dealing with different topics? CNN can hardly be expected to be unbiased when reporting on America in Iraq but I would probably believe their reports on a Tornado in the Midwest. I would be reluctant to believe everything in the BBC reports on UK involvement in Afghanistan and I am certain they currently have a strong anti-Russian stance after the Litvinenko killing but might be less questioning of their reports on the French poll results or dare I say it, an interview with an Archbishop, especially since other news giants posted very similar stories.

In addition, you mention I should mention my own biases. I went as far as stating that I am not a Catholic, that I believed the overall content of the message was noble yet the implications were not (something people repeatedly glossed over in their own bias) and that due to the content of the blog, I was at risk of insulting religious readers. More than this I can’t do. Suggestions welcome.

For the record (and apologies because I am aware this is not on your topic), the only other link provided that you could possibly be referring to was to a blog. That blog had an opposing opinion and a link to the official translation of the interview with Girotti. That official translation starts off with:

Genetic manipulation, environmental pollution, social inequality, unsustainable social
injustice: these are the new forms of sin appearing on the horizon of humanity, like a
corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization.

If anything, the article above goes on to support the facts of the BBC version and not discredit it in my opinion. The big difference…the BBC saw fit to extract the “sins” discussed generally and to bullet-point them in a list and publish it in a light-hearted piece instead of giving it the reverent tone Catholics obviously thought it was due.

Again, if you take issue with my research, please point out the specific issues so that I may defend them. That is the strength of Blogging vs. traditional journalism – the blogger is open to immediate, direct and public criticism, the traditional journalist in all other media is not. This, I think, is one of the reasons that bloggers tend to point out that they are not journalists. Perhaps more accurately they could state that they are not traditional journalists.

So to sum this up: I read and analysed all links posted, I used respected sources, I referenced my main source, I provided comment feedback and further opinion and justification thereof when people questioned my views. I cannot do much more except apologise for my personal opinion and views which I will not do. So lets agree to disagree.

Bygones.