Reuters’ international coverage is no better than their US coverage of Pope Benedict XVI. Look at this headline: “Arch-Conservative German Ratzinger Elected Pope.” What is that first adjective doing in there? What makes him arch-conservative? Isn’t that an arbitrary judgment? Is it anything more than a pejorative? The opening sentences is hysterical in its political correctness: “Arch-conservative German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope on Tuesday in a surprise choice that delighted traditionalist Roman Catholics but stunned moderates hoping for a more liberal papacy.” Notice that “traditionalists” are “arch-conservative,” but those want a “liberal” pope are “moderate.” In what way is that “moderate”? Why don’t they just say that “liberals” wanted a “liberal” pope? Ah, because being a liberal is a bad thing, while being a moderate is good. Everything in moderation, says the old cliche.
Many Vatican experts ... had predicted he would have to yield to a more conciliatory compromise figure during the conclave, although John Paul had appointed all but two of the cardinal electors and one of those two was Ratzinger himself.
Yield? They make it seem as if he were the one in control. It was the whole college that was voting, not Ratzinger manipulating them. But then that myth gives them comfort that perhaps the college of cardinals was fooled, just like Democrats want to pretend that George W. Bush didn’t really get support from a majority of Americans, but that their voters were tricked into not voting or were “disenfranchised.”