What made Scott Pelley cry?

This: my vote for the best Christmas story this year.  God bless Steve Hartman.  And Scott Pelley, too.  (A grateful diaconal bow to Aggie Catholics, btw, for finding this!)

"I think I would have been happier had the CDF handled the nuns the way ..."

Vatican challenges “interpretation” of cardinal’s remarks ..."
"Blaming "Islamics" for this is like blaming the Pope for the Holocaust Denial of Hutton ..."

One killed, 44 injured in Catholic ..."
"It smacks to me of hyper-sensitivity, a veiled spiritual and intellectual pride, with regards to ..."

Pope Francis: “A Christian who complains, ..."
"Oh, no, we never change our mind, and we always agree, even on points of ..."

Vatican challenges “interpretation” of cardinal’s remarks ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

5 responses to “What made Scott Pelley cry?”

  1. Nice story. I still don’t trust the MSM though, lets see if they, once again, blackout the 300,000+ walk for life next month.

  2. If anyone might consider covering the March for Life in some way, shape or form, I could see Scott Pelley pushing for it…

    …and most importantly, it appears that since he took as the anchor, CBS News has remembered one of the principal words in its title: News. (Plus, in a move that made me smile, the return of classic CBS News theme music…going back – I believe – to when Deacon Greg was in his early years there.)

  3. “If anyone might consider covering the March for Life in some way, shape or form, I could see Scott Pelley pushing for it…”

    what gives you reason to believe that? Pelley is as liberal as they come.

    Read Bernard Goldberg’s books. CBS is very biased.

  4. CBS may be very biased…but not everyone who works there necessarily is. Remember, the author of the blog you are reading used to work there.

    And I didn’t say the coverage would promote the Church’s view. All I said is that Scott Pelley might push for covering the Walk…because, after all, there is some news to generated from it. Most media just treat it as a yearly protest walk, so they don’t see it as news.

    You could cover the walk not by just showing people walking, interviewing the participants, or showing the Nellie Grey-led speeches from the podium. Leave that to EWTN. There are plenty of angles with which to cover the march – such as, what do those who protest do when they go home? Do they pray the rosary once a month near an abortion clinic, or do they work with and counsel those considering an abortion/have had an abortion? Or is the March a one-day-a-year thing for them?

    That’s the angle I can see a journalist like Pelley coming from. (BTW: It’s not something I could say about his predecessor.) Liberals can cover the march, too – maybe not the way some might want, but they can. They just have to try – and that’s perhaps the biggest issue surrounding the lack of coverage for the March for Life. The media doesn’t even TRY to cover it. Instead, they dismiss it as a bunch of right wing nuts doing their annual protest. And that’s what’s wrong with journalism in this country.

  5. Daniel, Mr. Goldberg is also as biased as they come, but since you agree with his specific biases that’s OK by you. There are very few neutral journalists, one way or the other, but some do try for objective reporting, if not always choice of subject matter. These days, when the biggest criteria for anchors is hollywood looks and a “chirpy” personality, I’d settle for basic competence and the ability to understand words at a level above 8th grade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.