A head of state ( that's what he is ) of a country that has been found wanting as far as the protection of minors is concerned.
You think that deserves far less coverage? I'm surprised.
Less coverage if it is of the style we are doubtless all expecting.
If we are to get Sky News and BBC reporters standing in line and saying ,
"Mr Ratzinger, are you sorry about the way your organisation has failed its children?
Or
"Are you going to help stop the suffering in Africa by allowing your followers to wear condoms so helping to stop the spread of AIDS? After all your supporters in the west just ignore what you say and they use contraception anyway."
Otherwise it is just fawning coverage and an advert for the church.
.................. church attendance is declining and 6.3% of the population attended church in 2006. In this country the C of E is the main Christian church so the percentage of church goers who are catholic cannot be more than 3%.
Therefore I think it is reasonable that 3% of news time is given over to the visit.
Anyone else think the BBC's coverage is a little over the top?
Personally no. All but one event is on BBC2 (the lower profile, more niche terrestial channel). And the BBC has a duty to cover what is a massively important event for Catholics. Plus I'm sure there will be many interested non-Catholics like myself wanting to see what is involved in a Papal visit. But is needs to be done properly (see below)
All depends on how much the actual coverage covers the abuse scandals/Claudy bombing cover up etc. If the BBC do it right then it is a chance to have a debate about the Catholic Church, it's relevance, it's shortcomings, changes it needs to make, it's future etc. It doesn't have to be propaganda, and really hope it isn't - especially with all the coverage it is getting
Finally with all the coverage of the Catholic church planned, I hope BBC1 and BBC2 devote similar amounts of time to covering other faiths over the course of the year
Had this discussion with some pals this evening, and agree with your "conditional access" approach.
If the coverage is to be there (and apparently it is), then it should at least come with some round-table discussion about the events of the last few years (and more), and how the church has handled them.
Were it anyone else so "public", that level of journalistic scrutiny (and healthy cynicism) would be applied without question.
I will politely absorb the official coverage of the Papal visit in return for a "wider issue" approach by right-minded editorial staff.
Had this discussion with some pals this evening, and agree with your "conditional access" approach.
If the coverage is to be there (and apparently it is), then it should at least come with some round-table discussion about the events of the last few years (and more), and how the church has handled them.
Were it anyone else so "public", that level of journalistic scrutiny (and healthy cynicism) would be applied without question.
I will politely absorb the official coverage of the Papal visit in return for a "wider issue" approach by right-minded editorial staff.
It will be interesting to see which of the 4 main news outlets (BBCN / ITN / Sky / C4News) actually takes the lead in making those editorial decisions, Gavin? I would imagine mainstream BBC and ITV News making "passing reference to the crisis facing the Vatican", as it frequently does. But it's never really taken to task in a roundtable manner. Is Question Time currently airing or resting at the moment? As a minimum, a special QT on the papal visit and all associated issues would be a good idea.
"Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome on board British Airways. My name is Anna Botting and I will be your senior flight attendant for this journey."