It is no secret to any of the readers of this blog that I have had significant differences with the folks who run the website Atoday.com. As a column writer I found the editor to have nothing of value to say and was pretty poor at making decisions. Their news is significantly biased and often poorly reported. Something that I think should not be allowed by any consumers of news. The people have to stand up against biased and distorted news not just in the main stream press but within our own church organizations. It should not be too hard to work at being objective, the news is not the place for commentary, opinions or speculation.
Consider this from the Atoday newsletter mailing from Atoday.com:
On the website they are a little more accurate and entitle the news article:
At least on the news article the title hints at the actual reason the man was jailed...violating a court order.
All this leads me to ask the question: Who is in charge of the news at Atoday and what procedures do they use to monitor their quality. Are they trying to be objective?
In the above article we read this:
" Seventh-day Adventists are generally not aware that there are a number of small denominations that use a version of the same name. This is much more common to Baptists, for example. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different denominations with some variation of “Baptist” in their name."
What part of the news is that from? Does it have any significance to the court's decision? It is not as if Adventists arrested the man!
The article also states:
"The GC did not take any specific action to have McGill jailed, but it could ask the judge to have him freed. McGill was jailed because of contempt of court due to his refusal to follow a court order. The court order came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the GC to enforce its trademark and after a Federal judge examined the facts in the case."
Yes they could ask whatever they like but that does not mean the court will or wants to hear from them or they have any standing to request anything. But this leads to the assumption that the arrest is done because of the Adventists rather then because of contempt of court by the man who refuses to follow the court order. This is simply bad and biased reporting.
If Adventist Today wants to make a difference in the Adventist church they can't do this kind of poor reporting and editing. Of course this leaves them open the rejection as simply biased by Traditional Adventists which makes the site pretty useless as a voice for change.
But don't hold your breath as those who work behind the scenes in anonymity have little call for accountability.