The problem with the Guardian article re WT-UN

by comment 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  comment

  In case you missed it:

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,565005,00.html

  On balance, it's good reporting of this issue, which certainly needs wide publicity.

  But it does include some factual errors, and some specific turns of phrase that may put Witnesses off. And that's often a problem with newspaper articles about Jehovah's Witnesses when you're trying to bring problems with the organization to the attention of Witnesses.

  In general, loyal Witnesses will read articles in newspapers, which is a plus. They wouldn't read the same thing off some personal Internet site or in a book or in a letter.

  But when there are errors in an article, Witnesses will spot these and red flags will go up: "Ah, this writer doesn't really know what he's talking about. Therefore, the whole article is discredited."

  It's an easy mental tactic to follow. I know. I used it myself when I was a loyal Witness.

  Try reading the article with your "Witness radar" on.

  "Sect? We're not a sect!"

  "It's not the scarlet beast, it's the scarlet-COLORED wild beast!"

  "Disaffected members? Oh, see, this is just apostate lies!"

  "God didn't 'reveal anything' about blood components being acceptable if there was later repentance. This writer's all mixed up!"

  And so on.

  Anyone else know what I'm talking about?

  It would just be great to see more articles that got all the terminology and background details right. (Again, not to detract from the overall value of this article.)

  comment
• 

  LDH

  Dead ahead, Comment.

  when I read the title, I was happy because I thought I could forward the link to my folks. Upon reading the article, it looked more like a disgruntled ex-JW writing than a non-biased reporter.

  I was sad that I won't be able to use this article, either.

  Lisa
• 

  Simon

  I thought it was a great article. I know a lot of witnesses who would never dream of visiting an 'apostate' site or any literature etc... but any article in the newspaper about them would be read - they couldn't resist.

  It maybe the first thing that gets them thinking. I think it is an excellent article.
• 

  Trilobite

  Lisa,

  There were a couple of minor mistakes. However, the article was very good overall. It was accurate where it counts. And don't forget that many non JWs will read it. The main thing is that now the UN connection has been published in the press. If the UN actually investigates then there may eventually be some sort of press release.

  I agree that many JWs will discount it, they always do. But that mindset is what the WTS wants. If you don't send it to your relatives because it "sounds like a disgruntled" former member then the WTS has scored another point.

  Sometimes we can become overly sensitive to WTS sensibilities. This is a war of attrition; no single thing will do the trick but _anything_ that gets dubs thinking is a step in the right direction. If people write it off as apostate propaganda then so what?

  Don't shrink back (ahem...)

  T.
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello comment,

  thanks for your post and your opinion

  on the Guardian's article. In mho,I do agree with Simon's

  comment :

  "I thought it was a great article. I know a lot of witnesses who would never dream of visiting an 'apostate' site or any literature etc... but any article in the newspaper about them would be read - they couldn't resist.
  It maybe the first thing that gets them thinking. I think it is an excellent article.

  - Simon"

  You see, although the article presents some " technical/wordings"

  mistakes - for a JW - you must admit that the value of the publicity

  given by - an impartial media , of the British Press , cannot be

  underestimated. Reading such topic - U.N./NGO'S and WTBS -

  from a FORUM, labelled " ...apostate " is one thing, reading, even

  the same information, on a major British newspaper IS a REALLY

  different matter.

  Thanks again for your comments. Btw , it for this reason that I

  did post all the links and the article on the main "UN/NGO's/WTBS"

  thread. Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

  " One who has an accurate knowledge
  of God's Word will have no problem
  in refuting false religious ideas".
• 

  belbab

  I thought the article a good article written by a news reporter. The fact that it contains minor mistakes in our eyes, makes it more authenitic. Consider articles written by reporters about any JW convention etc. I have never seen an article yet that was 100% accurate in information and vocabulary. A good reporter uses his own vocabulary, and not the jargon of any group that the average reader would not grasp.

  If an ex-dub had written this article, he would not make the same mistakes as an outsider reporter.

  This article starts the ball rolling with the info in the press circles, and can be forwarded to anyone, with the appropriate introduction to it. For example, Dear So and So, have you seen this article in the paper at this link, is this on the level or is it a hoax. What are your thoughts on it? etc. etc.

  belbab, droppin WT mindset and taking what's out there and using it.
• 

  Seeker

  Actually, I think the writer of this article *is* an exJW. Didn't we hear in the past that this religion column in the Guardian was written by an exJW? I think that is the case.
• 

  Kent

  Personally I think the article was great. Honestly, you can't expect a journalist to write in "theocratic" language. This will always be the problem, and you better get used to it. I have personally stressed these things in personal interviews with journalists myself - I am a journalist. But never the less, they change my words to "correct" Norwegian.

  That is something we will have to live with.

  Instead of finding errors, we should be grateful the paper picked up and printed the story!

  Yakki Da

  Kent

  I need more BOE letters, KMs and other material. Those who can send it to me - please do! The new section will be interesting!!

  Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
  http://watchtower.observer.org
• 

  outnfree

  Okay, the link is not working for me and when I reported it broken. (I also tried typing it manually into my browser). I can search the Guardian site, but I get no hits with JW's, WT, or UN.

  Would a Britisher please tell me the headline and the date the story ran so I can refine my search?

  Thanks.

  outnfree

  Par dessus toutes choses, soyez bons. La bonte est ce qui ressemble le plus a Dieu et ce qui desarme le plus les hommes -- Lacordaire
• 

  comment

  I'm not sure everyone grasped my point.

  I wasn't saying the article wasn't basically a good article.

  It's just that it could be EVEN BETTER if there was nothing in there, at least doctrinally, that would make Witnesses discount it.

  For instance, the journalist may use the term "sect" or "cult." That's one thing. But don't say something like "non-Witnesses are condemned to burn in hell." For Witnesses, those kinds of points are a BIG DEAL. And if you remember back to when you were a Witness, you'll remember that they were a BIG DEAL to you too.

  That's all.

  comment