- Status
D
Dale_M
Guest
These are the two NYT pieces which Archbishop Dolan objected to:
nytimes.com/2010/10/15/theater/15theater.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=the%20divine%20sister&st=cse
nytimes.com/2010/10/15/arts/artsspecial/15galleries-03.html?scp=1&sq=act-up&st=cse
I dunno… I think there are good examples of NYT hostility to the Catholic Church, but perhaps these aren’t them. Archbishop Dolan ends his article with this observation:
I don’t think anyone should “get over” the needless bias at the NYT when it comes to reporting on Catholic issues. But I wonder if perhaps the archbishop was eager to write a piece denouncing its record, and simply picked those two instances as an excuse to say what he was already thinking.
BTW: the archbishop favorably mentions the exhibit on the history of Catholic sisters in the US, currently on display at the Ellis Island museum. Will be be at that location September 24, 2010 - January 22, 2011.
Here is a national website for this traveling exhibit.
womenandspirit.org/
nytimes.com/2010/10/15/theater/15theater.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=the%20divine%20sister&st=cse
nytimes.com/2010/10/15/arts/artsspecial/15galleries-03.html?scp=1&sq=act-up&st=cse
I dunno… I think there are good examples of NYT hostility to the Catholic Church, but perhaps these aren’t them. Archbishop Dolan ends his article with this observation:
blog.archny.org/?p=860
I don’t think anyone should “get over” the needless bias at the NYT when it comes to reporting on Catholic issues. But I wonder if perhaps the archbishop was eager to write a piece denouncing its record, and simply picked those two instances as an excuse to say what he was already thinking.
BTW: the archbishop favorably mentions the exhibit on the history of Catholic sisters in the US, currently on display at the Ellis Island museum. Will be be at that location September 24, 2010 - January 22, 2011.
Here is a national website for this traveling exhibit.
womenandspirit.org/
R
Roy5
Guest
I’ve read the NYTimes faithfully for many decades, ever since college. I do not find it anti-Catholic. To begin with, many people attack it because of a particular signed article by a particular reporter or columnist. The NYTimes carries all sorts of articles on all kinds of subjects - a true library for those interested in news and opinion. It is the journal of record and the best daily newspaper in the USA, although *USA Today *is to be complimented, also.
*The Times* comes under criticism often for uncovering something that some vested interest doesn't want uncovered. It's noted and despised because of that. Yes, it gave wide coverage to the sex scandal in the church, but that was a grave situation and needed exposure. Which was more anti-Catholic: *The Times *which helped uncover the scandal or those in the hierarchy who deliberately sought to hide it? And then the Vatican invites Archbishop Law to assume a new position in Rome! Is one to be labeled an anti-Catholic who points such abuses out? The church should thank them for their diligence.
M
manualman
Guest
Pointing out problems, reporting abuse and even citing opinion on causes is fair game.
PRESUMING malfeasance is the line between real and yellow journalism. NYT crosses it often in opinion pieces and editorials.
PRESUMING malfeasance is the line between real and yellow journalism. NYT crosses it often in opinion pieces and editorials.
J
jenkiedad
Guest
Roy, I respectfully disagree. I contend that the NY Times has lost its way and has steadily drifted toward a leftward bias, including a bias against Christians, and particularly Catholics. If hasn’t gone this direction, then why is there a web site devoted to documenting their liberal political agenda?
mrc.org/timeswatch/
Or perhaps you can point out a similar web site that documents its bias in the other direction?
M
manualman
Guest
BTW, is anybody surprised Dolan didn’t get a red hat in the recent anouncement? Isn’t the bishop of New York almost always a Cardinal? Not any sort of message in there, is there?
D
Dale_M
Guest
Ordinarily, I would not jump on the bandwagon of “the New York Times is biased.” However, this past spring when a series of relevations regarding sex abuse by priests were made, the Times clearly passed judgment on the Pope and the Church.
Here is one thread where one article from that period was discussed:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=450869&highlight=times
D
Dale_M
Guest
Archbishop Dolan has been in New York only for 1.5 years. Archbishop Wuerl (who was picked), on the other hand, has been in DC (which I believe is also a prime spot for being selected as cardinal) for over four years. I suspect that Abp. Dolan wasn’t considered to be established enough yet to be selected as cardinal, but that he will make it the next go around.
U
unafraid
Guest
Anyone who does not recognize the obvious “'we’ve got you now” type of guttoral, malevolently biased reportage promulgated by the NY Times, must be a sadly indoctrinated member of the psychsocial selective criticism school of reason which deems certain ideologies, ethnicities and religions as being sacrosanct, while allowing for the antipathetic targeting of others, with malice and direct intent to injure.
A media which so openly opposes all things Catholic, and in general, all things Christian, must truly be confident in their control, and in their power. They seem to be historically blind to the inevitable majority backlash. Aggressive anti-Christian media assaults, as most prominently seen in liberal rags such as the NY Times, are shortsighted, and, in fact, dangerous for themselves, as it is historical truth that an oppressed majority always regains eventual power, and if it is sufficiently provoked, and radicalized, can produce very strong reponses.
This radical agenda being so aggressively pursued by a media which seems determined to enjoin a battle for our cultural and religious identity, must be tempered by the more measured among their number. The arrogance of power and wealth should not make these people blind to the risks inherent in acting as surreptitious propagandists that consider the broader majority as a rabble. Such views must be considered irresposible.
To propose that the NY Times and their ilk have no Anti-Catholic (Christian) bias is to admit to a liberal pscychosocial brainwashing that is indeed tragic. There is no longer the vague, or the secretive; we are in the “in your face” phase a of anti-Catholicism in modern American media. It is, sadly, a precurser of dark times ahead. I pray that I am wrong.
We must all pray that those in control of modern media reconsider this belligerent position regarding the Christian majority of the United State of America.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
I have read the Times for decades and I don’t find it anti-Catholic. Not every criticism of the Church is due to prejudice or bias.
I think that the archbishop is wrong on this one.
I think that the archbishop is wrong on this one.
R
Roy5
Guest
I have a neighbor who saw me carrying the New York Times one day. He is a friend, but he was annoyed. “Do you really read that leftwing, propaganda sheet?” he asked me. I responded: “Julio, do you ever look at the Times?” “Of course not,” he replied, “I wouldn’t be caught dead reading that filthy rag!”
Code:
My own impression is that those who make such comments about the Times haven't read it. They pick up a silly bias from somebody on TV or the radio.
I wonder how many critics of the Times here on CAF actually read it? True, it carries opinions that I disagree with, but there are conservative columnists, conservative op-ed writers, and always letters taking issue with this or that opinion expressed elsewhere in the Times. Isn't that what our treasured freedom of the press is all about? Sadly, there are some who would curtail freedom of the press to make it conform to their 'correct' point of view.
I am a news junky and get five newspapers a day. On their editorial pages, two are quite liberal, two are arch-conservative, one is middle-road. The liberal Times and one of the arch-conservative papers provide the most complete news coverage. I celebrate this diversity and don't condemn it. Those on the internet certainly can find just about any opinion they agree with. I believe in reading a variety of opinions.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
A lot of people have commented on the fact that the Times regularly censors letters that offer opinions different than their own and/or call them up on a mistake of jounalistic malfeasance. And I would not call David Brooks a True Conservative. I barely call him a Good Republican.
My opinion, but I’m sure some, indeed LOTS of people, will agree with me.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I love him on EWTN and I love him when he stands up for Truth And The Faith. Good one, Dolan.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
The NY Times is a liberal paper:many disagree with it, but many love it. It prints provocative copy. That sells newspapers. Conservatives have their papers as well. Who cares what the Times prints?
B
barb_finnegan
Guest
I may add that his precedessor, Cardinal Egan, is not yet 80 years old. Seems that there can’t be more than two Cardinals in the same place. You can say the same thing about Archbishop Nichols in England; Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is still under 80 as well.
Cardinal O’Boyle in Washington, DC is well over 80. I think he’s the oldest living American Cardinal. I think Cardinal McCarrick, Wuerl’s immediate predessor, is over 80 too.
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
That’s what I had heard as well.
B
barb_finnegan
Guest
WHOOPS on Cardinal O’Boyle in Washington, DC-he’s long dead. I got his name mixed up with Cardinal BAUM…he’s still alive. I know that he is well over 80.
My bad…
S
St_Francis
Guest
Oh, I don’t know, would the NYT have published a picture from a play mocking Orthodox Jewish rabbis, or Moslem imams, or indigenous shamans?
And would the NYT have published a favorable article about an exhibit related to the Catholic involvement in the pro-life movement?
There is definitely a double standard when it comes to reporting on Catholic and Protestant news and activist or anti-Catholic news…
And would the NYT have published a favorable article about an exhibit related to the Catholic involvement in the pro-life movement?
There is definitely a double standard when it comes to reporting on Catholic and Protestant news and activist or anti-Catholic news…
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
The NYT is beyond biased towards left wing, progressiveness and secular values. That is not to say it isn’t well written or informative. It’s op-ed page is to the left what the WST is to the right.
J
johnnykins
Guest
Let’s give Cardinal O’Boyle the benefit of the doubt and believe he lives forever with Christ!WHOOPS on Cardinal O’Boyle in Washington, DC-he’s long dead. I got his name mixed up with Cardinal BAUM…he’s still alive. I know that he is well over 80.
My bad…
- Status