Excerpt: "The Vatican has reprimanded the largest group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying they have focused too heavily on issues of social justice, while failing to speak out enough on 'issues of crucial importance,' such as abortion and same-sex marriage."
The loss of the traditional appearance and behavior of some American nuns vs. their European counterparts (pictured here) has brought censure by the Vatican. (photo: Getty Images)
Interview: Nuns Face Vatican Rebuke for "Radical Feminism"
30 April 12
�
�
he Vatican has reprimanded the largest group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying they have focused too heavily on issues of social justice, while failing to speak out enough on "issues of crucial importance," such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In a report issued last week, church leaders accused the nuns of promoting "radical feminist" ideas and challenging key teachings on homosexuality and male-only priesthood. An archbishop and two bishops - all of them male - have been appointed to oversee the nuns. "To me, it's quite puzzling that our work with the poor, which Jesus told us to do in the gospels, would be the source of such a criticism," says Sister Simone Campbell, head of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, which was harshly criticized in last week's report. The rebuke comes as the so-called "war on women" has become a key issue in the 2012 presidential race. Some Catholic nuns have opposed the bishops by supporting Obama's healthcare reform law and contraceptive mandate. Campbell says she believes the Vatican targeted her group because of their support for healthcare reform. "They like it when we just do service, but don't have thoughts, don't have questions, don't have criticism," Campbell says. "That is a real challenge in a political society, when we have to do a deep, nuanced analysis in order to know the way forward for this, for the common good."
JUAN GONZ�LEZ: The Vatican has reprimanded the largest group of Catholic nuns in the United States, accusing them of promoting "radical feminist themes" and challenging church teachings on homosexuality and male-only priesthood. In a report issued last week, the Vatican criticized the nuns for focusing too heavily on "promoting issues of social justice," while failing to speak out enough about, quote, "issues of crucial importance to the life of the church and society," such as abortion and same-sex marriage. An archbishop and two bishops have been appointed to oversee the nuns and ensure their obedience to church doctrine.
This is not the first time a U.S. nun has been targeted for social justice activities. Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona, was excommunicated for permitting an abortion to be performed in order to save a woman's life in 2009. She was later reinstated. Critics have drawn a contrast between the church's harsh treatment of nuns and past attempts to cover up the widespread sexual abuse of children by male clergy members.
AMY GOODMAN: Some believe the nuns were targeted because they supported President Obama's healthcare overhaul two years ago, while U.S. bishops opposed the law. Healthcare and the so-called "war on women" have become key issues in the 2012 presidential race. The Catholic Church has strongly opposed Obama's rule requiring health insurance coverage for contraception, accusing Obama of infringing on religious liberty, despite an exemption for religious institutions. But some nuns have supported the rule.
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents most Catholic nuns in the United States, declined to join us on the program, but they did release a statement last week saying they were "stunned" by the Vatican's report. On Wednesday, they issued a second statement saying their national board would meet to discuss implementation of the Vatican's plan in, quote, "an atmosphere of prayer, contemplation and dialogue."
We're joined from Washington, D.C., by Sister Simone Campbell, head of the Catholic social justice group NETWORK, which was also heavily criticized in last week's report.
Sister Simone Campbell, welcome to Democracy Now! What did the Vatican say, and what is your response?
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: Well, the Vatican said that they found our intensive work with people who live in poverty, our speaking out for the poor, to be insufficient for their lights. They were concerned that we, as celibate women, were not focusing enough on some of the issues around abortion or gay marriage. To me, it's quite puzzling that our work with the poor, which Jesus told us to do in the gospels, would be the source of such a criticism. I actually find it quite a badge of honor to be thought to be working so much for those who live at the margins of our society. That's what we're about. That's who we are.
JUAN GONZ�LEZ: Do you see this as somewhat of a shift in church policy? Obviously, Pope John Paul, who was - who had very conservative views on a number of issues, similar to the current pope, also urged constant attention to social justice issues by the members of the church.
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: I think it evidences some divisions within the leadership of the church, because also this pope, Pope Benedict XVI, has this fabulous encyclical - that's a letter to the church - called "Charity in Truth," where he talks about all of the basic principles of social justice. And it's very interesting. He says there in that encyclical that while you might have individual sense of justice - and he links the life issues there - there's also the demand for engagement in social justice, which is the communitarian approach. He calls for both. And so, I'm totally puzzled that the Vatican, when we're working on one piece of it - because you can't do everything - why the Vatican would then criticize us for doing the communitarian justice piece that the Pope was calling for.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to a clip of Father Roy Bourgeois. He organized the annual protest against the U.S. Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, for many years. He has come under criticism from the Vatican for ordaining women. This is a comment he made in which he compares the Vatican's silence on priest sexual abuse to its outcry over the ordination of women.
FATHER ROY BOURGEOIS: Less than three months after I attended the ordination of a woman in Lexington, Kentucky, less than three months, I received a letter from the Vatican demanding that I recant within 30 days or I will be excommunicated. The severity, the swiftness of the Vatican's letter, I think it calls into question, you know, just what's going on here. What really is the problem? I do believe that I did not commit a crime. I am following my conscience. Women - you know, it's amazing, the thousands of priests and the many bishops were aware of these crimes of their priests, they remained silent. These priests committing the crimes and the bishops who remained silent have not been excommunicated. Yet, the many women who have been ordained to the priesthood and the priests and bishops who support their ordination are excommunicated. I do believe that there is a problem here. This is also a grave injustice.
AMY GOODMAN: Father Roy Bourgeois went on to explain why he thinks women priests are so important to have in the church.
FATHER ROY BOURGEOIS: Any institution, organization that's controlled where the power is in the hands of any particular group, whether they be men or women, is not healthy. Our church, the Catholic Church, is going through a real crisis. There are thousands of churches that are being shut down because there is a lack of priests. The sexual abuse crisis has really rocked the church to its roots. I am convinced, of course, that if we had women priests and women bishops, that sexual abuse and the silence during those years would not have been possible. Women simply would not have been silent. I'm also convinced, if we had women priests and women bishops, there would not be such silence about this war in Iraq. I'm convinced, too, that there would be, if we had women priests and women bishops, they would have called for the closing of this School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. We need women priests in our church for it to be healthy, for it to be complete.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Father Roy Bourgeois. Sister Simone Campbell, your response?
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: I think Father Roy has some really good points. In terms of women in the church, especially Catholic sisters, we were encouraged in the 1950s by Pope Pius XII, and then in our renewal program in the 1960s, to get educated, to get advanced degrees and to enter into engaging the world. We have done that. And I think that's part of what some of the challenge is, is that many of our hierarchy who have grown up in an all-male clergy don't really know how to engage women who are thoughtful, prayerful, questioning and willing to stand up for beliefs, even if it's not popular. I think they're not used to dealing with that level of candor.
And I also believe that a lot of the tension that's currently being experienced within the Catholic Church is a tension around culture, because if you'll notice, none of the criticism - while it's the doctrine of the faith that's criticizing us, they're not criticizing the core teachings of Jesus. I mean, we follow the gospel. What they are criticizing, though, is the engagement in culture. We come from a democratic culture. My community lives in a democratic culture. We elect our leadership. We nurture each other. We're communitarian. We discern together. We follow the rule of Saint Benedict from the 500 A.D., where Benedict says, "When you're making a decision, listen to every member of the community, and the truth will emerge." This is compared to, really, a culture of monarchy, where the Vatican comes out of the European experience, where the monarch is always right, where dissidence or questioning - questioning is seen as dissidence, and where there is not room for a plurality of thought. The United States has an amazing pluralism that is really our gift, because it creates such diversity, like biodiversity. It creates a vibrant society. And I think that vibrant society really is running headlong into the culture of monarchy at this point.
JUAN GONZ�LEZ: And Sister Simone Campbell, the issue that Father Roy Bourgeois also raised about the sexual abuse scandal in the church. Do you believe that if there has been - had been more women in leadership roles throughout the church worldwide, that there would have been over the past half-century somewhat of a different response by the elders of the church to this whole issue of sexual abuse, which really has created - it's unbelievable, the extent of it, from country after country?
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: It's horrifying. It's horrifying. And the anguish that this has caused to the victims, to their families, but also to the whole church, to the whole body of the church, it is serious anguish. I guess - I mean, we'll never know whether or not women would have made a difference. I'm a lawyer, and I practiced family law for many years, for 18 years, in California. And I know that some of the cases that I was most vigilant about, most protective about, that, you know, I really rose up sort of like that mama lion to protect her cub, were the cases where there was abuse and when I was representing children. So I have a hunch that maybe it would have made a difference.
I think the thing is that, going forward, the piece that is missing in, I think, the institutional response is sorrow and repentance. And while there's been apologies, they seem more paper apologies than engaged in the process. When you repent, you don't just create a new structure. You have to be sad. You have to sorrow. You have to mourn. And it's those who mourn that will be comforted. The fact that my church is not able to mourn this horrible sin together, I think, is a serious problem. And women often are looked to in our society as being able to express grief more easily. Guys sort of seem to think they have to look tough, and if they show weakness, you know, it's a problem. But women know that it's the integrated full human person and that we can only break open the sin if we weep and mourn. And that's something that our church needs to do, both with regards to the censure of the women religious to the scandal of the sexual abuse, and to all the other ways that the church is a very limited human organization started by Christ. And, oh, man, it really need some help at this point.
AMY GOODMAN: Sister Simone Campbell, I want to turn quickly to a clip of you on Fox News, Bill O'Reilly's show. In this clip, you express support for President Obama's healthcare plan.
BILL O'REILLY: So you are - you believe that Jesus, if He were alive today, would be saying, "Look, the government of the United States has an obligation to ensure, at taxpayer expense to every American, to make sure that they get quality healthcare, and that's that"?
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: I think what Jesus says, over and over, both in our lives and in the scriptures, is that it's our response to make sure that the least are cared for and that it is a societal responsibility. Therefore, we must, as a nation, make sure that everyone has access to healthcare.
BILL O'REILLY: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: Simone Campbell, how much of the Vatican's criticism of your group, NETWORK, do you think has to do with your position on Obama's healthcare plan? And overall, what has been the Catholic Church's position, not just on the issue of reproductive rights, the most recent controversy, federal support for reproductive healthcare, but overall for Obama's healthcare plan?
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: Well, basically, Catholic Health Association, which is the association of all the Catholic healthcare providers in the United States, and NETWORK stood together in favor of the Senate bill, which was the one that eventually passed, the Affordable Care Act. Not perfect. It's got a long way to go, but - to be - to get everybody healthcare, but we saw it as a significant step forward.
I think this leadership is a direct contrast to what the bishops did. The bishops' office, the staff there, did an analysis of the bill, and they were afraid that there was maybe a dime that might go from federal money to fund abortion, and because of their fear, they said that they could not support the healthcare bill. The fact is that the - at least one federal court in Cincinnati - and I think there are a couple of others who have looked at the issue - has said, as a matter of law, there is no federal funding of abortion in the healthcare bill. In addition, it is also very clear that the Pregnant Women Support Act is to give women alternatives, to provide them with the economic options that they need in order to make a conscience choice. So, from our perspective, this was a significant step forward. The bishops, for reasons I don't understand, the bishops' office, continues to maintain that they worry that there might be some federal funding of abortion.
I think this a - this difference is a direct, I think - it appears to me to be directly related to why we got named. I mean, we're a political organization. We don't even have formal ties with Rome. Many of our members are Catholic sisters and priests, but we have 18,000 people across the country who are activists. And a lot of them are lay folks, a lot of them are non-Catholic. But they named us, I think, because we had a different position from the bishops on this. We took our one faith. It's not a faith fight; it's a political fight. I'm a lawyer. I read the bill. I applied my faith to the bill. But they - their staff applied it in a different way. And they seem to be saying that they like our work, they like - I mean, they like it when we just do service, but don't have thoughts, don't have questions, don't have criticism. And that is a real challenge in a political society, when we have to do a deep, nuanced analysis in order to know the way forward for this, for the common good.
AMY GOODMAN: Sister Simone Campbell -
SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: That's what we're about, is the common good.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you very much for being with us, executive director of NETWORK, a Catholic social justice group. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we're going to Minneapolis. Stay with us.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
We of the National Optimists Party are thus distinguished as the only party advocating elevated powers of cerebration.
Not sure who Taibbi means when he says "the rest of us." I and other progressives I know have been communicating until our fingers fall off to spread truth and motivate progressives/De ms to engage. I have written to Obama and other elected officials, pleading with them to fight the bullies. For two years, I have been sounding the warning bell about Repubs stealing their 3rd election and criticizing the Dem Party for their lack of defense of our Democracy as well as their poor messaging.
If Taibbi means the "media" in reference to spreading truth, again, who in the mainstream media is going to do that? Mother Jones broke through with the scathing 47% video, but within a week and one debate, that traction has all but evaporated.
As many experienced political careerists have said: campaigns are not to educate. Sorry, but if Obama and the DNC haven't figured out how to reach Americans with their positive message abotu the role government plays in our lives and if they haven't learned from Clinton's war room that they must combat the BS like they're at war, then I don't hold out much hope for the next four weeks making a difference.
The main reason for this is the Dems tendency to listen to all viewpoints vs. the Repubs ability to all promote a single viewpoint, reading off the same script (as shown so many times by Stewart and Colbert). The Dems really need to have a strategy developed by a specialist in personality types like Myers/Briggs and then stick to it in order to make the independents/pr ogressives truly think about what the Repubs are proposing.
If they're smart, they will take Romney's tendency to change his positions based on what way the wind is blowing (much as Clinton did today) and point out this man will do and say anything to become President because he believes it's his destiny and his turn, not because of what will be good for America or the world.
But I still think they have his tax returns in their back pocket and it will be the October surprise.
He let Bill Clinton give his speech at the DNC.
He let Bill Clinton defend him after his bad debate showing.
What is wrong with Obama, and what is wrong with American progressives?
He wasn't invited...curio us isn't it?
Next...
Now Twit's the man they'll hang all their hopes on for further destroying this country and this planet.
Once the ugly face of conservative ideology makes itself know again (as soon as his real agenda becomes apparent), they'll just toss him aside like rush limb-blow has done to so many buckets of chicken.
Cheney is experiencing, subject to an over whelming number of death threats as compared to a less violent, less treacherous "normal" retiring public figure. Several countries have outstanding arrest warrents for Cheney. Check your computer-there are some U.S. eastern states which have outstanding arrest warrents for Cheney-if he sets foot down in those states. And why, if we know the facts, do we wonder why the murdering Bush/Cheney and the rest of the "gang" were not invited to or asked to participate in the RNC? Another 9-11?
You would like George Lakoff, if you haven't read him - he talks about the diversity of liberals. He advised the DNCon messaging, but I see no indication they listened to him.
However, I firmly believe as you, that we must stop looking toward elected officials for fundamental, transformationa l change. It is not currently in their own self-interests, and with our current system, the only thing driving them is that - their own interests. We will not get publicly-funded elections from an Obama administration, nor any other part of the progressive agenda, unless we fight for it. It's really the progressives who dropped the ball and cannot do so any longer - it is up to us to hold our own candidates accountable.
I jumped on the bandwagon when there was no choice, because an unknown seemed better than what I was seeing in the Democratic/Repu blican debates of 2008.
I can understand taking time to get up to speed, but I don't see Obama getting up to speed, I see him pretty much putt-putting along - maybe even in reverse.
No universal health care, a lie that gives record money to the insurance industry which is most of the health care problem.
Then the financial crisis - not one corporate criminal indicted and convicted still and no sign of Obama doing that. Put the same guys in charge of the fix as the ones who brought about the crisis in the first place, and too big to fail is bigger.
Last election Obama told us if the economy did not recover he would be a one-term President, and he should have kept his word. At least we would have had Democrats debating all the last year along with the nutso Republicans that seem to have confused Americans too much.
OK, all of that would be understandable if Obama had learned, gotten up to speed and done something, but he just has not. He is still just playing the I'm not Bush card. I want more I expect more.
If only they would.
As for the fear mongering: Many of the fears about a Romney rule are entirely justified. Their economic ideas are proven wrong, their anti-women agenda is horrific, they want to let neo-con war criminals add to their global crimes and stack the Supreme court with right wing ideologues, roll back environmental legislation, including CAFE standards - the list is endless.
Plus their figureheads are an extreme ideologue and an extreme lier. You better be afraid.
One thing he said. He has a sign on his desk that says if the fact don't fit the ideology, you need to change the ideology. That should be required for every politician's desk.
Of course, then you'd have those politicians who believe their opinions to be facts, even though they can't prove them.
I agree whole-heartedly . I wish we could get away from the idea of political advertising as protected free speech. It doesn't shed any light on the decisions we need to make as citizens.
Someone told me recently that in France, there are hundreds of candidates for the highest office (President or Prime Minister?) who get media time to present their ideas. Then the voters choose which ones are the best to consider for a final vote. I'm not sure how it is done, but I wonder if it might provide an alternative to the way advertising money narrows done the slate of candidates in this country. He seemed to think that in France, it was all about the candidates' ideas and qualifications, not how they get packaged by advertising firms.
You CHOOSE to stay glued to the screen, so they CHOOSE to keep feeding you the Kool Aid.
They will only stop when you stop.
I personally don't depend on TV programing for my info. Never the less, every survey says the over whelming majority of people get the majority of their info from the tube. I agree with your basic premise that people should expand their sources for info. For instance, participating in stimulating exchanges of thought, especially because it exposes you to ideas you may not agree with, like this blog. Keep it up!
Matt,isn't that hype too. The big todo about Obama's debate performance that night has been spun out via the media precisely because it hit at something important unconsciously.
I'm not voting AGAINST ROMNEY more than FOR OBAMA, but the debate made them look roughly equivalent, and I am fully partisan for a Democrat. Obama again did not look like a Democrat.
I know that Romney played the 'move to the center' card - like Bush, denying policies that he will pick up post-election, and no mentions of specifics because he is going to come in with Republican interests like Cheney with energy and "decide" how the future is going to look. Or we get Obama and its more of the last 4 years. Nothing good here.
Through having too many too big to fail giant corporations we now have a too big to influence government where only those on the level of hundreds of millions of dollars has any say about anything.
Obama has no way to explain his agenda or , and neither does Romney, they both are just there to speak to some vaguely defined marginal majority of media watchers that are what makes up political reality for the people.
There is nothing but hype anymore!
I am pretty unhappy that we have really no choice this election cycle, not even that, we cannot know what we have because both candidates are really jerking the American people around.
Obama talks his talk, but he did not make a stand over the Bush tax cut issue and deep inside my not really believe letting taxes go us will help anything.
How are you going to feel if Obama is re-elected and then blames the Republicans again for keeping the Bush tax cuts in place while the deficit continues to rise?
They say it's hard to prove a negative, that is, the recession would have been worse if Obama had not been in office. I believe that because I do think the stimulus worked, but there is no money or support for another one, and the first one was not targeted right anyway.
All these guys are puppets, not just Romney. Obama is just as much pro-military industrial complex as Romney.
Are you happy about that?
I don't think the facts support this assessment. if anything, we've more clearly broken into 2 economies: one at the top that's well into recovery, and one at the bottom that's still in a depression.
besides, we may have been on a sinking ship 4 years ago, but remember the titanic, it nosed down until its keel broke, then settled down level in the water (and some people thought it was going to be ok), but it started to flood, and quickly went down.
as a country, we're right about the part where the keel has broken (is breaking).
with either hello mitty or bo, we're going down and the lifeboats have already left, filled with the rich.
fear, hype, fact? we'll just have to wait and see.
No, in fact there is no such thing as unbiased news.
I'll settle for honest news and competent reporting. I think PBS does a pretty good job on must stuff, Democracy Now! on anything except the Middle East.
The capitalist everything is money vision of the world makes it impossible to get disinterested news let alone unbiased news. Most of the books we see are marketing material in some way. Titles are there to sell books that do not live up to the titles because the publishing company knows if they leave things open you will buy another book.
Ironically the capitalist money economy has made competition less instead of more.
Since the GOP acts like they're in a parliamentary system maybe we should just slide over. Our friends to the north have done pretty well with theirs.
But, no matter. It's hard to disagree with your points -- you are getting boring, you know. You and Krugman ....
That is the point. I agree. Hence, the low voter turnout.
In a couple of days research, we pretty much know who we will and won't vote for. TV and the rest become superfluous after that. So why bother with keeping up with the horse-races the media has reduced election season to? Even the televised farces, so-called "debates," sink into irrelevance.
"The Nation"--on a weekly basis--makes the same point; as did Hellinger and Judd in their early 90's classic, _The Democratic Facade_.
Moving on.
Think about it: the longer the election season lasts, the more it plays into the hands of the big media, big corporate interests, their lobbyists and patsies who can afford to pay the costs of truth-twisting, oblige the attacked to respond in kind and in cost, and the less it concerns those of us who are just trying to keep the lights on and food on the table.
The US electoral season begins just after inauguration day, especially when you have a congress so dedicated to unseating and disgracing the incumbent. -And it really doesn't work does it (every incumbent since Nixon has had two terms except for Carter and Bush senior)?
But there seems to be no will to change this from any perspective.
One other stinking but obvious side effect that the jockeying for power and the loudest voice (but which is never recognized as such), is that the seemingly requisite fluff, tinsel and jingoism of electionism (my term) prevents the elected "Law makers" from thoroughly examining each issue presented to them in depth and really doing the jobs you sent them to D.C. to do, so intent are they on covering their carefully orchestrated and choreographed rear ends.
What to do about it -I haven't a clue, given the entrenched attitudes of all involved!
You might start by RECOGNIZING the problem instead of numbly perpetrating it!
Wealthy politicians - like Romney - would tour the country for a year, to "discuss the issues with Americans." Like Reagan, the wealthy and influential politicians would find hundreds of opportunities to grab the public's attention. They would be asked, "Are you running for President?" Response: "Not yet."
Meanwhile, the Rush Limbaugh-types would continue to stir up trouble. Limbaugh started his attacks on President-elect Obama a few days after the 2008 election!
Obama wasn't even in the White House.
So it's possible that the national campaigns will ALWAYS be in motion. We may never see any significant pauses. Already, the political parties are planning for the 2016 elections.
Billions and billions of dollars wasted for selfish self-interests, where the money could be used to better society, create safe environments for children, the abused and downtrodden. But this Samaritan approach doesn't benefit the Koch's, Wall Street and the other high-powered and monied crooks among us.
But democracy is great, isn't it?
It's the audience's choice to view this crap and purchase the products that pay for it. You don't really have to watch TV to get the news; and in fact, TV is the least efficient way there is to get news. The same goes for entertainment. The problem is that many people have gotten too lazy to read and some are too lazy to think.
A professor if mine, many years ago, claimed that Life Magazine was for people who can't read and Time Magazine was for people who can't think. Modern American TV is for people who can do neither.
I never heard of "citizenship skills" in my previous 16 or 17 years of school. This was not taught in high school. Very little critical thinking was taught in my schools. Very little support for curiosity or creativity. I think a lot of this may go back to the "dumbing down" of students. The "don't rock the boat, status quo, be seen and not heard" priorities of many schools. Can't say "all" because I don't know.
In the process of the classes I took for my human relations minor, I believe I developed a "b.s. detector." How do we go about developing b.s. detectors in kids, without turning them into cynics?
The way I figure it, if my priority is to get to the truth, and the person I'm dealing with has the same priority, we'll eventually get to it.
It's those with the "my way or highway" attitude that I find hardest to deal with. Rush Limaugh comes immediately to mind.
I don't have a tv, so it's either public radio, or RSN.
Yes, Matt, Yes!
2. This is the result of capitalism in its purest (Ryan) form.....corpor atios own the media. Corporations want profit without responsibility. Fear, trauma, panic are the things that get the most viewing and thus the most advertisig, i.e. profit. I believe the media is actually running this country, not the president, congressmen, et. al.