In stark contrast to the Washington Post’s analysis is David Remnick’s piece on the Pope in the New Yorker.

Remnick writes:

John Paul’s reign has been so long, and last week’s vigil so filled with the imagery of raw human suffering—his last, mute appearance at his window, the increasingly dire bulletins—that it was difficult to bring into focus the extraordinary and vital images of the first days of his papacy, days that helped to re-order the world. . . .

The story of those remarkable years carries with it the temptation of mythmaking and, perhaps, Western self-satisfaction. The Pope’s critique of materialism did not end with his opposition to Communism; it carried over to his critique of the Western world, of consumer culture, and of the decline of the Catholic Church in Europe. His papacy has lasted twenty-six years, and his legacy—as a spiritual leader, a cultural critic, a thinker, a politician, a performer in the media age, and, in his last days, a man determined to provide an example from his own visible demise—is so encompassing that no obituary will make complete sense of it.

Remnick, the great reporter-editor of our day, gets it right. As usual.

I generally like Hanna Rosin’s work a lot, so I’m doubly shocked by how flawed her analysis of Pope John Paul II: Her basic thesis is that his papacy was a failure. Huh? I’ve got a longer piece on the matter here.

If I had to bet, I’d wager this is just another case of Kinsleyism run amok. That’s fine, but Rosin’s a fine writer and reporter. She’s better than this.

I’ve come to resent the media horde that’s been staking out my church since Friday morning. I understand that they’re just doing their jobs, but I do this for a living too, and there’s a respectful, professional way to report on people. And there’s the Geraldo way. Most of the reporters inside and outside St. Matthew’s in Washington–print, broadcast, and radio–were practicing the latter.

But Fr. Bryce Sibley makes an excellent point:

As I sat up late last night watching FoxNews’ coverage of the Holy Father’s illness, it dawned on me that continuous cable coverage of this event enables people all over the world to in some virtual way to keep vigil with the Holy Father. As repetitive as the coverage can be, modern media and television coverage gives millions of Catholics around the world an opportunity during the death of a Pope that people have never had before.

It makes the intrusive media just about worth it.

No surprise how Slate covers the passing of the Pope. In a word–Counterintuitive! The headlines:

Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door

Who Will Be the Next Pope?

How They’ll Choose Him

Catholic Right vs. Catholic Left on John Paul II’s Legacy

Christopher Hitchens on His Sins

That’s how you do journalism, folks; you’ve got to hit the story from unexpected angles, even if it means looking stupid.

Amy Welborn has a very nice post on how quickly time passed under John Paul II, and how his aging was yet another example to us:

It is quite startling – shocking, even, to see those videos of John Paul II in those early days. What a difference 26 years made, and either we barely noticed, or we simply forgot. The vigor, the energy, a middle-aged man with almost a bounce in his step at times…in the intensity of recent years, those images have almost been forgotten, as our eyes have been drawn to the difficulties, the dramatically changed visage, the faltering step.

At every point, though, we’ve understood our response to the changing face and aging body as rooted in the same place that our reaction to the younger, energetic Pope was: what hath the Spirit wrought here? What are we being taught? What does God confront us with here?

The transcripts aren’t in Nexis yet from CNN’s coverage, but they’ll be a goldmine for anyone who wants to a week to sift through them. Last night someone referred to John Paul II’s “iron-fisted” rule. (Huh?) And during a packaged segment the lovely Paul Zahn began speculating over the Pope’s successor, noting that the person who might have the most influence on the election is JP II himself, since he packed the College with people likely to hold to his “conservative” positions on issue such as “abortion” and the “role of women” in the clergy.

It’s as if the producers at CNN have absolutely no idea what Catholicism is. It isn’t the Pope’s fault, for instance, that the Church is against abortion–the respect for life is a central teaching of Christ! Even the super-duper liberal Paulist types are pro-life. This is just sheer idiocy on the part of CNN. Either that or, you know, the “b” word.

CNN’s coverage wasn’t all bad, though. At 4:30 this morning, they were the only network to run the Mass at the Vatican without someone yacking over it. This was a real public service, and they did a beautiful job broadcasting it.

Also, about Anderson Cooper: Does anyone else remember The Mole? I know Coop is Jon Klein’s storyteller-in-chief, and I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but we do all remember that he’s a reality game show host, and not a journalist, right? I find that distracting, but maybe it’s just me. (I keep thinking, Why not put Jeff Probst in the chair next to him?)

Mark Steyn beats up on Andrew Sullivan (by name) and Glenn Reynolds (by inference). Don’t miss it.

I’m sitting listening to a Paula Zahn-led package about the Pope on CNN. It’s about how terrible and divisive John Paul II’s teachings on women have been. She keeps making the point that this Pope refuses to let women be priests, but she says it like it’s some crackpot idea he dreamed up on his own.

Somewhere in the distance, Roger Ailes is smiling.