As a journalist who covered the entire conference, I thought some first-hand feedback on mistaken assumptions might behelpful.
>As far as media representatives finding computers and email available at
>the Fransican center is concerned: both religious and secular media were
>incensed by Bill Beaver's denying them access to computers and modems to
>file their reports to meet their professional deadlines.
Neither Bill Beaver not anyone else in the communications unit denied anyone access to computers and modems. For the first few days there was a problem getting phone lines and Internet access set up, partly due to the limited number of lines at the university communications centre where we worked and partly because the volunteers and their equipment arrived too soon before the conference began to set it all up on time. There were some organizational problems in all this, but I am not aware of any deliberate attempt to foil our work.
>Worse yet, only a
>handful of "foreign" media representatives got credentials from Abp Ames'
>Committee to report from Lambeth... including a religion reporter from the
>Public Broadcasting System in the USA.
Evidence, please? Houston Chronicle, New York Times, Dallas Morning News and L.A. Times all sent staff for part of the conference. Some news organizations just weren't interested and others were put off by the clumsy attempt to keep media from the bishops. That was a mistake, but most of us managed one way or the other. It has to be said that the U.S. General Convention in Philly was better managed in this regard.
>Why is it that all the references and corroboration that have been given
>are notoriously biased. What I have heard is that the debate was
passionate
>and spirited, but the outcome speaks for itself.
Well, Peyre, you weren't there. Ask Andrew Carey. He'll confirm that some of the remarks made in the plenary debate were inappropriate. For those of us attempting to simply cover the conference objectively, it was not what the conference decided that was disturbing it was how - almost any participant in the sub-section will confirm that it was unhelpful, to say the least. And during the plenary, the tenor of many comments ranged from misguided to mean. Whether you judge that as OK or as invalidating the result may depend on whether you hold a strong view onthe substance of the resolution. I don't, but as an observer of numerous debates in synods and parliaments, this was one of the worst from my own ethical perspective. Fight hard, by all means, but fight fair.
I'd also note that it was Archbishop Khotso Makhulu, primateof Central Africa, who called some of the discussions "frenzied ... devoid of the love of God ... words ... that were aimed to wound and score debating points." (For the full text, visit any of the major Lambeth Web sites.)
David Harris
editor
Anglican Journal
Toronto
Please sign my guestbook
and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of
WebCounter.
