Back in February, I switched from reading LifeNews.com to LifeSiteNews.com. I made the switch because LifeSiteNews gave more Canadian content and a little bit broader range of subject matter. However, over the months that followed, I became more and more uncomfortable with how LifeSiteNews was reporting their stories (a couple of times I wrote about this).
The main thing that made me uncomfortable was how they published e-mail addresses, particularly of bishops, with the implied intent of motivating their readers to flood these addresses with e-mails of protest. This can be a productive thing to do when you're on the right side; however, LifeSiteNews may not always be right.
Bishops answer to other bishops, in extreme cases, the Bishop of Rome. LifeSiteNews doesn't answer to anyone it seems (although they may have to answer to the courts in a recent lawsuit).
The Church is entrusted by God to the bishops, not to news agencies.
It seems LifeSiteNews is taking upon themselves to not merely make suggestions to the bishops, but tell the bishops what to do through public pressure. They are careful not to outright declare this, but it is strongly implied.
This, it seems, led to LifeSiteNews' editor-in-chief, John-Henry Westen, to be denied access to the public forums of the CCCB annual plenary assembly this October as a representative from the press. I am not clear on the reason for this decision; however, I'm sure the Canadian bishops would not take such action without due cause.
I was already uneasy about some of the reporting of LifeSiteNews, and this action by the Canadian bishops was the final incident to motivate me three weeks ago to cancel my subscription to LifeSiteNews.com and return to LifeNews.com. This is unfortunate because LifeSiteNews does have better coverage of Canadian stories, as well as coverage of the "gay rights" political agenda. However, it is better to be less informed than it is to be misinformed.