« Full text of Melody Townsel's letter | Main | Were the stabbings of two Filipinos in Tiananmen Square related to anti-Japanese protests or a twist of fate? »

April 20, 2005



Ayayay, I agree. 110% and I didn't mistype the numbers. I hope that newspaper content will go back to normal now that a new pope has been elected. For weeks, the news had nothing but the pope who died and then the pope to be elected. gosh, as though everything else has become less important.


I got indigestion from the excessive coverage, too, but why do you think was the Pope's death and the conclave such a subject of interest for the media (and the public at large)? I have two theories: 1) The Vatican has spin doctors, too, John Paul II being the pre-eminent one when he was still alive. Today's Vatican spokesman is Joaquin Navarro-Valls, a former bullfighter. He is said to be behind the tight media ops surrounding the funeral. 2) The secular world's curiosity about the symbolic. The world's affairs are pretty straightforward: people are killed, elected, buy, consume, have sex. The Pope, however, stands for something (something disagreeable to agnostics like myself--but that's another story). Priests and cardinals wear odd, opulent outfits and chant in a dead language. It's all quaint, mysterious and in many ways, useless. It's like the fascination for royalty.


Hello Carla — yes, good comments, especially the second. There is also the competition between the news media (“CNN is wall-to-wall pope, so we had better follow suit”) and their love of an “event”. But in the end I think your second reason is the best: it is all pretty weird and everyone loves a man in a pink robe.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad