1. Dire Couric Cites Great Depression, Kids Will Be 'Lost Generation'
Katie Couric sees America through a very dark prism. On Monday, she launched a new "Children of the Recession" series, in collaboration with USA Today, with an op-ed in "the nation's newspaper" in which she speculated today's kids may become the "Recession Generation" since "in some ways, I think they already are," or the "innocent victims could become the Lost Generation." Then, on Monday's CBS Evening News, she portrayed America as in such a bad way that it reminded her of the Great Depression, asserting the impact of the recession "may be" to children "what the depression was to an earlier generation." In a story on the "Safe Families for Children" program that helps overwhelmed families hand their kids temporarily to other families, Couric raised the most ominous comparison: "Volunteer families stepping in during tough times is reminiscent of the Great Depression when parents in dire straits sent their children to live with relatives or other people in the community." In the USA today op-ed Couric denigrated the kind of news she's presented as dealing with "things and places that are cold, vague, incomprehensible" (quite an endorsement for her newscast!), before pivoting to how the real news is an anecdote-based recounting of the plight of a few kids.
2. Matthews Likens Cheney to Stalker Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction
Chris Matthews, on the syndicated The Chris Matthews Show over the weekend, likened Dick Cheney's recent media appearances, to defend the Bush administration and to criticize Obama on national security policy, to Glenn Close's stalker character from the 1987 film Fatal Attraction. Before playing a clip of the movie Matthews made the cinematic comparison: "Well some say Cheney's refusal to move on reminds them of Groundhog Day but you could also say it's like that more frighteningly relentless Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.' Like Cheney she was not gonna be ignored." After playing the clip in which the Close character utters the famous quote, "I'm not be ignored, Dan."
3. CNN's Whitfield: Have Catholics 'Evolved' on the Moral Issues?
Minutes after she praised President Obama on Sunday for his "courageous" decision to accept the invitation to speak at Notre Dame, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield played the role of liberal advocate for the President's commencement address, grilling one Catholic guest who questioned the university's decision, while going easy on her other guest who was happy to see Obama speak there. Just as MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell had done on May 14, Whitfield equivocated between the issues of abortion and the death penalty, along with war, in her question to Raymond Arroyo of the Catholic television network EWTN: "So does the death penalty fall into that and also wars...does that fall into that as well?" Later, when Arroyo brought up how the Catholic teaching on abortion wouldn't change, even if most of the Notre Dame graduates agreed with the decision to bring the President to campus, the CNN anchor replied: "Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things....Perhaps, it means that there's a greater understanding in some of the areas that you say...once upon a time there wasn't."
4. Cuomo Debates Priest Over 'Angels & Demons' - But Only Online
After promoting the controversial, religion-baiting film Angels & Demons for a combined 19 minutes last week on Good Morning America, ABC finally featured a Catholic priest to object to the movie. Unfortunately, the interview was relegated only to the network's Web site, not the ABC morning show. (Considering the four days of fawning coverage to the film's stars last week, this hardly seems fair.) Father Edward Beck appeared on the Internet-based "Focus on Faith" to talk to Chris Cuomo and point out the inaccuracies. Beck critiqued the filmmakers behind Angels & Demons, which falsely features the Catholic Church participating in a brutal massacre of a secret society, asserting that they should be more responsible for "doing their homework, even with a work of fiction." Cuomo bizarrely responded by claiming Beck needed to consider "the atheistic [position], which is, 'It's all fiction.' So, the church doesn't have any right to hold its own truth when it is a fiction in and of itself." He reiterated the disbelievers take, stating, "Anything you say you believe in is based on a fiction, because God is a fiction. So, what's wrong with having a fiction about fiction?"
Will Be 'Lost Generation'
Katie Couric sees America through a very dark prism. On Monday, she launched a new "Children of the Recession" series, in collaboration with USA Today, with an op-ed in "the nation's newspaper" in which she speculated today's kids may become the "Recession Generation" since "in some ways, I think they already are," or the "innocent victims could become the Lost Generation."
Then, on Monday's CBS Evening News, she portrayed America as in such a bad way that it reminded her of the Great Depression, asserting the impact of the recession "may be" to children "what the depression was to an earlier generation." In a story on the "Safe Families for Children" program that helps overwhelmed families hand their kids temporarily to other families, Couric raised the most ominous comparison: "Volunteer families stepping in during tough times is reminiscent of the Great Depression when parents in dire straits sent their children to live with relatives or other people in the community."
CBSNews.com page for the Children of the Recession series: www.cbsnews.com [1]
[This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Monday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [2] ]
In the May 18 USA today op-ed, "The recession's tiniest victims need help, too," Couric denigrated the kind of news she's presented as dealing with "things and places that are cold, vague, incomprehensible" (quite an endorsement for her newscast!), before pivoting to how the real news is an anecdote-based recounting of the plight of a few kids:
A police officer in Chicago noticed a small child with swollen feet. The family had been riding trains and walking all day because they had nowhere else to go. He took the mother and her two girls to a shelter....
For months, journalists have reported on the housing crisis, the collapse of financial institutions, the stock market's freefall, the stimulus package, the AIG bonuses and the economy's hemorrhaging of jobs. Things and places that are cold, vague, incomprehensible.
But the real gut-wrenching stories of the economic downturn reach well beyond the offices of Wall Street or the corridors of power in Washington. You see, the collateral damage of this recession is felt by our smallest, and weakest, citizens our children. It's felt by a 5-year-old girl with swollen, bloody feet....
Couric soon wondered:
So how will the children living through this struggle be defined? Every generation gets a label. I'm a Baby Boomer. My parents come from the Silent Generation, and my youngest daughter, Carrie, is a Gen Z kid who is anything but silent. Those definitions usually are derived from the environment that shapes us as we come of age.
I wonder what today's children will be called if this recession has a lasting impact on their lives. Will they be the Recession Generation? In some ways, I think they already are.
In Phoenix, Children's Hospital reports a 40% increase in child abuse and neglect cases this year. In Cleveland, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital has seen more middle-class families turning to the emergency room for basic health care because their children are uninsured.
Such stories of despair are repeated in cities from coast to coast....
An ancient Chinese proverb says, "One generation plants trees, the next gets shade." The character-defining lessons these children are learning, with the right guidance, can mold them into strong and sensible adults and even, perhaps, recalibrate their values in a culture that seems to have gone off-course. The Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw has called it, lived through the Great Depression and developed a foundation of family and core values that still support this nation today.
There are signs, we're told, that perhaps the worst is behind us, that our economy is on the mend. I hope that's the case. But a bull market or a bounce in our 401(k)s won't heal Isabel's [5-year-old] sore feet or give children the health care and education they need. That has to come from caring people who realize that if we don't start planting trees now, these innocent victims could become the Lost Generation desperately in need of some shade.
END of Excerpt
Couric's op-ed: blogs.usatoday.com [3]
Close in Fatal Attraction
Chris Matthews, on the syndicated The Chris Matthews Show over the weekend, likened Dick Cheney's recent media appearances, to defend the Bush administration and to criticize Obama on national security policy, to Glenn Close's stalker character from the 1987 film Fatal Attraction. Before playing a clip of the movie Matthews made the cinematic comparison: "Well some say Cheney's refusal to move on reminds them of Groundhog Day but you could also say it's like that more frighteningly relentless Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.' Like Cheney she was not gonna be ignored." After playing the clip in which the Close character utters the famous quote, "I'm not
gonna be ignored, Dan." Matthews then threw it to Newsweek's Howard Fineman:
MATTHEWS: Howard what do you think? Cheney? Fatal Attraction? What do make? Will not be ignored, this guy.
HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Ha, ha. Yeah, yeah I don't think he's going to boil the rabbit. Let's put it that way.
MATTHEWS: Or come out of that bathtub like that other scene in that movie! Everybody is gonna go see Fatal Attraction again.
[This item, by the MRC's Geoffrey Dickens, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [4] ]
The following is the full exchange as it was aired on the May 17 edition of The Chris Matthews Show:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Before we break a lighter note. One thing is clear about Dick Cheney. He's redefining what it means to be a former vice president. When Cheney left office the world was his oyster. He could have gone the corporate route like Al Gore. He could have played golf like Dan Quayle or he could have held court, out in that GOP stronghold of McLean, Virginia hosting Republican soirees like Perle Mesta used to do for the Democrats back in the '50s and '60s. On his way out Cheney gave no clue that he had a brand new view of life after the vice presidency. That he was not taking his 19 percent approval rating and going home. Now he keeps making it very clear he ain't getting off the stage.
DICK CHENEY ON FACE THE NATION: If I don't speak out then where do we find ourselves Bob? Then, then the critics have free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to, to tell the truth.
MATTHEWS: Well some say Cheney's refusal to move on reminds them of Groundhog Day but you could also say it's like that more frighteningly relentless Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. Like Cheney she was not gonna be ignored.
(Begin clip from Fatal Attraction)
MICHAEL DOUGLAS AS DAN GALLAGHER: I don't know what you're up to but I'm gonna tell you it's gonna stop right now.
GLENN CLOSE AS ALEX FORREST: No it's not gonna stop. It's gonna go on and on until you face up to your responsibilities.
GALLAGHER: What responsibilities?!
FORREST: I just want to be a part of your life.
GALLAGHER: Oh this is the way you do it, huh?! Show up at my apartment?!
FORREST: Well what am I supposed to do. You won't answer my calls, you change your number. I'm, I'm not gonna be ignored, Dan.
GALLAGHER: You don't get it, you just, you don't get it.
(End clip)
MATTHEWS: Howard what do you think? Cheney? Fatal Attraction? What do make? Will not be ignored, this guy.
HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Ha, ha. Yeah, yeah I don't think he's going to boil the rabbit. Let's put it that way.
MATTHEWS: Or come out of that bathtub like that other scene in that movie! Everybody is gonna go see Fatal Attraction again.
For a synopsis of the movie: www.imdb.com [5]
on the Moral Issues?
Later, when Arroyo brought up how the Catholic teaching on abortion wouldn't change, even if most of the Notre Dame graduates agreed with the decision to bring the President to campus, the CNN anchor replied: "Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things....Perhaps, it means that there's a greater understanding in some of the areas that you say...once upon a time there wasn't."
[This item, by the MRC's Matthew Balan, was posted Monday evening, with video, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [6] ]
For more on Whitfield's "courageous" praise of President Obama, see the May 18 CyberAlert item, "CNN's Whitfield Hails as 'Courageous' Obama's Notre Dame Speech," at: www.mrc.org [7]
For more on Norah O'Donnell equivocation between abortion and the death penalty in her segment with the Cardinal Newman Society's Patrick Reilly, see the May 15 CyberAlert item, "MSNBC's O'Donnell Grills Opponent of Obama's Notre Dame Address," at: www.mrc.org [8]
Twenty-one minutes into the 2 pm Eastern hour, as President Obama was getting ready to receive the honorary law degree at Notre Dame, Whitfield brought on Arroyo and the Reverend James Martin, a Jesuit priest with the generally-liberal Catholic publication American magazine, during two points in the lead up to Obama's address for a discussion of the whole controversy. After playing up the "rousing applause as the president walked in," the anchor asked Arroyo what his impression was so far. When the EWTN news director answered that the controversy was largely over the awarding of the honorary law degree, Whitfield shot back, "But the university - in fact, the president - Reverend Jenkins said every president that's been invited to - to deliver the commencement speech always gets an honorary degree. This would be quite the slap or an aside if they were to invite the president....and not granted an honorary degree."
Arroyo invoked the 2004 decision of the Catholic bishops in the U.S. which advised Catholic institutions to "not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles, and you shouldn't give them honors and medals because that would be seen as supporting their policies." When the CNN anchor replied with her death penalty/war question, Arroyo continued that "abortion...has been identified by both the Vatican and the bishops of the United States as a foundational issue. One can't get to poverty or climate change or immigration if that person hasn't been allowed to live."
Whitfield then turned to Rev. Martin and asked if he agreed with Arroyo's outline. The priest, who is with a religious order in the Catholic Church that is notoriously full of leftists and dissenters from Church teaching, did not stray from his liberal talking points the entire time: "I think first of all, if anyone deserves a degree in law, it's this constitutional law scholar....But also, I think the pro-life world is a lot broader than simply abortion. I don't think you can just sweep the death penalty, torture - things like that under the carpet....I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there."
Near the end of the first segment of their discussion, Whitfield brought up how 54% of Catholic supported President Obama during the last election: "Fifty-four percent of Catholics who were polled in America on Election Day actually voted for this president....Hasn't it already been made clear that many Catholics who may have been struggling with the issue, whether abortion or stem cell research - they've already gotten past that part?" Arroyo countered with the recent Gallup poll that found that "more Americans are pro-life - 51 percent - than opposed to life or supportive of abortion rights. So what we're seeing, I think, is a sea change. I almost look at this as the Obama effect. As these policies get wheeled out - as people, particularly Catholics, become more cognizant of the policy choices being made, you see a shift."
For Gallup's complete results on the abortion issue, see their May 15 item, "More Americans 'Pro-Life' Than 'Pro-Choice' for First Time," at: www.gallup.com [9]
Both Whitfield and Reverend Martin seemed to ignore the poll results presented by Arroyo:
WHITFIELD: Well, Mr. Arroyo, I'm wondering, are you concerned that the view that you are conveying now really is in - is a minority view if you look at, according to the polling that the Observer newspaper on campus did - 70% of this mostly Catholic student body actually said we do embrace - we do welcome this president.
ARROYO: No doubt.
WHITFIELD: And that the heated protest that's taking place involving outside groups, that is not representative of the university campus-
ARROYO: Absolutely.
WHITFIELD: So is there not a mixed message being sent here?
ARROYO: Well, no one's saying that - that there's a groundswell of opposition on campus. The groundswell has come from outside of campus, from the Catholic bishops, from faithful people looking in. It is - Notre Dame is symbolic of Catholic identity in many ways, and by conferring this honor at this moment in history, when these issues, particularly issues of life, are moving to the consciousness again of Catholics, this is becoming sort of a rallying point. I think it's a moment-
WHITFIELD: Well, Reverend Martin, I wonder, is this groundswell representative of most practicing Catholics, in your view?
MARTIN: Well, I don't see it as a groundswell. I mean, you heard the deafening applause when we he walked in. You saw the polls of who voted for Obama in the last election. I think Catholics also realize that there are many different ways of tackling the problem of abortion. I mean, I'm pro-life, but I also think that - sort of fundamental economic policies, trying to help the poor - those kinds of things work against abortion as well, which is something that President Obama has talked about. So, you know, we can differ on tactics basically, but I - I don't think anyone is really pro-abortion. So I think what you are seeing, in terms of Notre Dame, if you do see it as an emblem of Catholic identity, is the support that he has among Catholics, who see this as more than simply a one-issue Church.
Ten minutes later, during the second segment of their discussion before the president's commencement address, the CNN anchor again asked Rev. Martin for his take. The Jesuit couldn't wait to sing the chief executive's praises: "Well, I think it's terrific that he's coming to Notre Dame, and I think it's terrific that, you know, he's going to mix it up with the graduates, as well as the faculty and the larger world on this question of abortion....I think, you know, one of the things that is getting lost is I think the Catholic Church also needs to treat people with dignity and grace themselves. And I think to welcome the president - this guy with, you know, a tremendous record - I think it's entirely appropriate, and I think if anyone has a problem with honoring him, I think they just need to look at his record."
Whitfield then brought up with Arroyo how former ambassador to the Vatican and Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon had turned down Notre Dame's highest honor due to the invitation to the president. After some confusion on the part of the CNN anchor, the EWTN director finally explained that Glendon declined the award because she thought "this event should be about the graduates themselves, not about some fake dialogue - not about some, you know, pro-life as opposed to pro-choice going at war with each other, you know, in some sort of dialogue. That's not what's happening here." She followed up by asking, "Do you like or agree with what Reverend Jenkins says, that, in part, the reason why they're honoring the president is because he was willing to engage with those who disagree with him?"
Arroyo answered, in part, "I mean, in all of these recent decisions, whether it's the conscience clause, the funding of abortion, I didn't see anybody consulting religious voices....So I don't quite know what they're talking about. But again, what we're seeing is the power of the president's personality - his rock star status being brought to bear. But if 98% of Notre Dame graduates loved and embraced this choice, it still would avoid the real question, which isn't President Obama. The question is, should this university be honoring someone who violates the very fundamental moral values of the Catholic Church?"
This answer brought out the CNN anchor's use of the "evolved" term:
WHITFIELD: Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things. Some of these things that you've outlined-
ARROYO: No, no, no, because this - no, no, this - there's no-
WHITFIELD: Perhaps, it means that there's a greater understanding in some of the areas that you say-
ARROYO: There's no-
WHITFIELD: Once upon a time there wasn't.
ARROYO: Yeah, there couldn't be because there's been no indication from the hierarchy or any official teaching that there's been 'evolution.' I don't know what 'evolution' from life means. I mean, if one throws life away, then torture, death penalty, war, everything is open game....It is one - all of these issues hang together. It is one consistent ethic of life. But one can't then say abortion can be put aside. No, no, no. It is primordial. It is - it is fundamental, and the bishops and the popes have taught this for centuries. This is nothing new."
WHITFIELD: So then as senator, he said I am not voting for war. Why would that not supercede, or at least have some equal footing with his position on a woman's right to choose?
ARROYO: A great question - because war, under some circumstances, can be just. War - obviously, in World War II, when we were liberating people in death camps - that was a just war, okay? But abortion, in all instances, is always intrinsically evil in the minds - in the mind of the Church. So one can't play this shell game. You know, as I said earlier, this isn't a game of 'go fish' and find one teaching you agree with - oh, I agree with immigration, but I'm not going to let people exercise their conscience in hospitals-
- But Only Online
After promoting the controversial, religion-baiting film Angels & Demons for a combined 19 minutes last week on Good Morning America, ABC finally featured a Catholic priest to object to the movie. Unfortunately, the interview was relegated only to the network's Web site, not the ABC morning show. (Considering the four days of fawning coverage to the film's stars last week, this hardly seems fair.) Father Edward Beck appeared on the Internet-based "Focus on Faith" to talk to Chris Cuomo and point out the inaccuracies. See Focus on Faith: abcnews.go.com [10]
Beck critiqued the filmmakers behind Angels & Demons, which falsely features the Catholic Church participating in a brutal massacre of a secret society, asserting that they should be more responsible for "doing their homework, even with a work of fiction." Cuomo bizarrely responded by claiming Beck needed to consider "the atheistic [position], which is, 'It's all fiction.' So, the church doesn't have any right to hold its own truth when it is a fiction in and of itself." He reiterated the disbelievers take, stating, "Anything you say you believe in is based on a fiction, because God is a fiction. So, what's wrong with having a fiction about fiction?"
Beck quickly retorted: "No. Whether or not the church kills people is not fiction. Either they do or they don't." Beck went on to note other offensive elements of the movie, such as the fact that the deceased Pope in the movie turns out to have fathered a child through artificial insemination. The New York-based priest complained, "Now, I mean, how unrealistic do we really want to make this?" Appearing to miss the point, Cuomo replied, "You taking yourself too seriously in the organized church?" (It should be pointed out that some of the tone was light-hearted as Cuomo and Beck are apparently friends.)
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [11] ]
Cuomo did acknowledge the argument that Christians have against Angels & Demons, allowing, "Well, here you have a little better case than you did with than the last movie. 'Cause, here you have the Illuminati. He [author Dan Brown] does have them as a inherently murderous faction of people bent on world domination." (In the movie, the Catholic Church is portrayed as having previously attempted to wipe out the secret society.) Of course, Cuomo then went on to assert that "The Da Vinci Code," a film that essentially denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, was less offensive.
In an interesting aside, Cuomo did attack liberal documentarian Michael Moore while discussing the half truths of the film. He compared: "I mean, a lot of people believe that this is what Michael Moore does, that he takes on a legitimate issue like health care, but then picks just one little convenient part and then skews it all to his favor and then presents it as his truth." (On June 12, 2007, Cuomo interviewed Moore about his movie "Sicko" and explained, "Look, I like the stunt. I think it raises the provocative question. But that's not journalism. This film is not journalism." See a June 13, 2007 CyberAlert posting for more: www.mrc.org [12] )
In theory, Cuomo should be applauded for featuring a dissenting voice on a controversial topic. It is very disappointing, however, that ABC chose to feature that view only on its website, an outlet that will reach far fewer people than the four days and almost 20 minutes of softball coverage devoted to the subject on Good Morning America. See a May 15 NewsBusters posting for more: newsbusters.org [13]
A transcript of the internet-based "Focus on Faith," which appeared on the website on the week of May 15, follows:
CHRIS CUOMO: There it is. A clip from Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons." Actually wrote it before "The Da Vinci Code," but it's coming out after it. Lots of controversy, because you could be of two minds on this: One, that it's such an interesting look at the inner world of religion that they try to keep hidden from you. Or it's complete fiction and really is doing jeopardy- jeopardizing the faith. What do you think? We're here on "Focus on Faith" to talk just about that. I'm Chris Cuomo. Father Edward Beck. Now, I know that you're a huge fan of these movies and take them as truth. So, this must be a little difficult for you. So, what do you think is going to happen this time with the movie?
FATHER EDWARD BECK (ABC News religion contributor): Well, I don't mind the movies. I went to see "The Da Vinci Code." I read the book. I read "Angels & Demons." I'll buy my popcorn and go see "Angels & Demons." What bothers me is that people take this as factual. And the representation of the church as what the church is. People who are not versed in ecclesiology, who don't know anything about the history of church and, unfortunately, this is what they get presented with because pop culture is what people are exposed to. And they don't do their homework. And I think filmmakers have to be a bit more responsible about doing their homework, even with a work of fiction if you're going to put non-fiction stuff in it.
CUOMO: Now, there's all these different layers of opposition to that view. The first is, the atheistic one, which is, 'It's all fiction.' So, the church doesn't have any right to hold its own truth when it is a fiction in and of itself. You have to address that.
BECK: What is fiction?
CUOMO: That- all of it. Anything you say you believe in is based on a fiction, because God is a fiction. So, what's wrong with having a fiction about fiction?
BECK: No. Whether or not the church kills people is not fiction. Either they do or they don't.
CUOMO: But, the belief systems and where it all comes from and the development of it. That's where a lot of the criticism of the Dan Brown films as well.
BECK: But, what they do is they take kernels of historical truth and they totally distort them. Let me give you an example: The Illuminati figures large in this novel.
CUOMO: Yes.
BECK: They have Copernicus, Galileo, Bernini, right, Bernini the artist, as part of the Illuminati. Well, the Illuminati was founded in 1776 in Bavaria. Those people lived 100, 200 years before the Illuminati even came into existence. So, just do your homework and say, the group wasn't even around. How could you put these people as part of it?
CUOMO: Or was it?
BECK: Well, some people say, well, it existed in another form.
CUOMO: Yeah.
BECK: So, Dan Brown just traces it back. And then the Pope in this movie- the Pope in "Angels & Demons" has a child through artificial insemination.
CUOMO: Yeah.
BECK: Now, I mean, how unrealistic do we really want to make this?
CUOMO: You taking yourself too seriously in the organized church?
BECK: No. But, what I think happens is people do. People take it seriously. I don't mind the movie, I'm going to go and enjoy it.
CUOMO: Oh, you mind it. You mind it. Don't try and be all even minded on this. You mind it. It bothers you. Every time I bring it up, you get red. [Laughs.] You get-
BECK [Laughing]: That's not true. What I mind is that people don't do their homework and they present stuff as fact that simply isn't.
CUOMO: But, that happens all the time with major institutions, that somebody decides to either try through parody or through half truth- I mean, a lot of people believe that this is what Michael Moore does, that he takes on a legitimate issue like health care, but then picks just one little convenient part and then skews it all to his favor and then presents it as his truth.
BECK: Right. But then it's the institution's responsibility to try and set the truth straight if people are getting bad information, right?
CUOMO: Sure.
BECK: So, that's why we talk about it. That's why William Donohue, whatever you think of him, writes his books to counter that. Because if you just let it stand there, and there's not counter to it, people say, well, I guess it's true.
CUOMO: Well, here you have a little better case than you did with than the last movie. 'Cause, here you have the Illuminati. He does have them as a inherently murderous faction of people bent on world domination.
BECK: And the fact that they're still existing when there's no truth to that.
CUOMO: Right. So, you have a little bit better ground. With "The Da Vinci Code," it was more about all the symbology and the lore that goes along with Christianity, and, specifically, about Jesus and whether it made sense for him not to be married and who was Mary Magdalene? There was more factual interpretation at play there.
BECK: There are interesting questions to raise. What I don't like is when the church is portrayed as sinister and murderous, because it almost makes it seem like this force for good in the world is actually a force for evil and that this institution will actually break all the commandments that it tries to tell people it should keep. And I think, in a conscious way to do that and to set it up that way is just misleading.
CUOMO: You're going to see the movie though?
BECK: I'm going to see the movie.
CUOMO: You're going to give them that $10.50. Probably make me take you and I'll give them the $10.50.
BECK: Well, we can go see it together and argue about it afterwards. But, I don't think I'm going to like all of it. Maybe as a suspense movie, but it's going to irk me when suddenly the factual inaccuracies pop in there.
CUOMO: I know. Get ready to be irked would be my sense.
- Brent Baker
[14]
questions and comments about
CyberAlert
subscription
You can also learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to: http://www.mrc.org/cybersub.asp#webnews [15]
