Just read an article on FoxNews.com. Kinda cool story, really. But what got me was the headline Fox decided to put on the story. "'Passion of the Christ' star Jim Caviezel says playing Jesus sunk his career." That's the headline. Of course, if you read the story, Caviezel never says that at all. Sure, he comments how Mel Gibson told him he'd "never work in this town again" for playing the role. And Caviezel admits that he did indeed suffer some within the industry for his portrayal of Jesus, saying it "limited" his career, but nowhere does he say it "sunk" his career. In fact, in the story, he is witnessing about his faith at a church in Florida and he even goes on to say that he has no regrets in playing the role.
But the problem is that the headline Fox wrote leads the reader to believe that not only is Caviezel washed up, but that he's somehow bitter about it. Read it again, and you'll see that without reading the story, you develop a certain opinion about the piece.
And therein lies the problem with today's media. Even an outfit like Fox, which I believe trends to be as unbiased as any of the major networks, still has an agenda to push. They know that most of the public won't bother to read the story, and that those people will leave with the feeling that Caviezel is sorry he ever played the role. And that they will eventually perpetuate that thought to others. Can't you hear it? "Well, didn't you hear that that guy who played Jesus said he wished he'd never done it?"
What if they'd used his actually quote in the headline: "'Christ' star Caviezel says playing Jesus limited his career." Does that leave you with a different opinion? Or how about this: "'Passion' star Jim Caviezel says he has no regrets about playing Jesus." How does that make you feel?
Moral of the story: Always be careful what you read, chilluns!
