Archbishop Dolan blasts anti-Catholicism of New York Times [CWN]

[Truth_Fully]

Bishop Dolan was on CBS news today in NY to say that he does not like the way the NY Times represents Catholicism. He was dressed in a blue button down shirt, a sweater, a windbreaker, and regular pants. While Dolan may be right in stating that the Times misrepresents Catholicism, he misrepresents it as well. He is a Bishop and here he is on the news dressed as a layman. Where’s the collar? Where’s the crucifix? This was an interview that he set up himself; it’s not as though he was unexpectedly approached for an interview. Why wouldn’t he represent himself as a Bishop of the Church by wearing the Priest’s collar? Many hold him up to be the picture of orthodoxy, but I can’t agree.

 

[cyb]

Bishop Dolan was on CBS news today in NY to say that he does not like the way the NY Times represents Catholicism. He was dressed in a blue button down shirt, a sweater, a windbreaker, and regular pants. While Dolan may be right in stating that the Times misrepresents Catholicism, he misrepresents it as well. He is a Bishop and here he is on the news dressed as a layman. Where’s the collar? Where’s the crucifix? This was an interview that he set up himself; it’s not as though he was unexpectedly approached for an interview. Why wouldn’t he represent himself as a Bishop of the Church by wearing the Priest’s collar? Many hold him up to be the picture of orthodoxy, but I can’t agree.

I just googled the CBS interview to see what you are talking about. The picture of Dolan in layman’s clothes is toward the bottom of the page. newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/10/22/exclusive-archbishop-dolan-vs-the-n-y-times/

I too am confused as to why he would appear this way. I am also baffled as to why people hold him up as such a great Bishop. He caused scandal by his endorsement of the LGBTs at St. Francis Xavier, and he will not refuse communion to public sinners. I am relieved that, for now, he cannot become Cardinal. Thank God we have Burke.

 

[estesbob]

-I don’t know which is worse -the anti-Catholic bias of the New York Times or Catholics who don’t recognize it. But then those Catholics who support the New York Times pro-abortion , pro-homosexual marriage stance probably agree with the New York Times constant attacks on the Church. The New York Times recent series trying to tie Pope Benedict to a defrocked midwestern priest guilty of homosexual rape was a perfect example of the bias Archbishop Dolan is talking about

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

-I don’t know which is worse -the anti-Catholic bias of the New York Times or Catholics who don’t recognize it.

Well, you are pre-supposing some facts. It is certainly possible that the Times is not biased.

I think that, with respect, the bishop’s position is kind of thin. Criticism is not bias. A play is only a play, too.

 

[sedonaman]

Pointing out problems, reporting abuse and even citing opinion on causes is fair game.
…

“Any affirmative action program that doesn’t take race into account is worthless.” – The New York Times referring to the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action program.
“Our affirmative action program doesn’t take race into account.” – The New York Times referring to its Affirmative Action program that hired and promoted plagiarist / faux-news reporter Jayson Blair [who is black].

“. . .any private organizations that won’t agree to allow outsiders to dictate their policies will remain ‘controversial’ until they have been breached.” – The New York Times
How would The Times like its policies to be “breached” and “dictated from the outside”?

Number of anti-Bush articles in The New York Times since 2000: 4,326
Number of articles supportive of President Bush in The New York Times since 2000: 3 (three)

“Scott Shane of The New York Times insisted in a June 18 story in The Times that the terrorist detention camp (the ‘gulag’ of our times) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had darkened America’s image in the world.” No possibility that The New York Times’ constant “poisoning of the well” played any part.

The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is one of those behind the FBI’s campaign against Dr. Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case. Without contacting Hatfill or his representatives, Kristof wrote five columns and thousands of words urging more FBI scrutiny of the scientist. He portrayed Hatfill as a despicable character with an unsavory past. But Hatfill’s attorney has been unable to get his side of the story in the paper. The Times now says it will run a Hatfill column on the matter, but only if it does not criticize Kristof by name. How’s that for fairness?

Abu Ghraib Prisoners: “We Want The Americans To Come Back”
A week after American forces handed the Abu Ghraib prison over to Iraqi authorities, prisoners are screaming for the Americans to come back. How many front page headlines will we see at The New York Times about this?

 

[estesbob]

Well, you are pre-supposing some facts. It is certainly possible that the Times is not biased.

I think that, with respect, the bishop’s position is kind of thin. Criticism is not bias. A play is only a play, too.

The only people who do not believe the New York Times is biased are people who agree with their bias.

 

[Teelynn]

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.

The New York Times is the most left of center newspaper in the Country. The problem is not so much that they criticize certain groups, it’s the fact that they put things important for Americans to know in a “blurb” on the back page. They “hide” what they don’t want out there and put anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative news on the front page. They used to be THE newspaper to go to…they are far from it now. It’s unbelievable what they’ve become. If ANYthing negative about the Church is at all newsworthy, they will dig it up and put it front and center. Their anti Catholicism stands out like a sore thumb.

Archbishop Dolan is no wallflower…he tells it like it is. He is perfect for NY.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The only people who do not believe the New York Times is biased are people who agree with their bias.

Not me. I have a daily subsription to the New York Times, and even a liberal like me knows that the NYT editorial staff is left-leaning, biased towards that side. But, that’s natural in a newspaper. All newspapers have either a leftist or rightist bias editorially. It can’t be denied.

To provide balance I suggest that, in addition to reading the Times every day, posters ought to read the Wall Street Journal. I do.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The only people who do not believe the New York Times is biased are people who agree with their bias.

I agree with bias against Catholics? That’s highly doubtful and illogical. Surely there must be another reason to doubt bias on the part of the Times.

The New York Times is the most left of center newspaper in the Country.

Not even close. Did you ever read the Village Voice?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

“Any affirmative action program that doesn’t take race into account is worthless.” – The New York Times referring to the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action program.
“Our affirmative action program doesn’t take race into account.” – The New York Times referring to its Affirmative Action program that hired and promoted plagiarist / faux-news reporter Jayson Blair [who is black].

“. . .any private organizations that won’t agree to allow outsiders to dictate their policies will remain ‘controversial’ until they have been breached.” – The New York Times
How would The Times like its policies to be “breached” and “dictated from the outside”?

Number of anti-Bush articles in The New York Times since 2000: 4,326
Number of articles supportive of President Bush in The New York Times since 2000: 3 (three)

“Scott Shane of The New York Times insisted in a June 18 story in The Times that the terrorist detention camp (the ‘gulag’ of our times) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had darkened America’s image in the world.” No possibility that The New York Times’ constant “poisoning of the well” played any part.

The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is one of those behind the FBI’s campaign against Dr. Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case. Without contacting Hatfill or his representatives, Kristof wrote five columns and thousands of words urging more FBI scrutiny of the scientist. He portrayed Hatfill as a despicable character with an unsavory past. But Hatfill’s attorney has been unable to get his side of the story in the paper. The Times now says it will run a Hatfill column on the matter, but only if it does not criticize Kristof by name. How’s that for fairness?

Abu Ghraib Prisoners: “We Want The Americans To Come Back”
A week after American forces handed the Abu Ghraib prison over to Iraqi authorities, prisoners are screaming for the Americans to come back. How many front page headlines will we see at The New York Times about this?

I BET the Abu Ghraib people want Americans back.

They’d rather be humiliated by a leash-wielding woman than have (let’s say) their testicles cut off or worse.

Not that I really condone the original American Abu Ghraib abuse----but compared to what the Iraqis would do to these people, there’s no comparison.

And yeah, I VERY much doubt you’ll see this kind of news in the New York Times.

Good job with the post overall.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I agree with bias against Catholics? That’s highly doubtful and illogical. Surely there must be another reason to doubt bias on the part of the Times.

Not even close. Did you ever read the Village Voice?

You got a point there. The Village Voice has more genuine Conservative voices to at least try to balace out its left-of-center bias, like Nat Hentoff.

Again, there are no true Conservatives in the NYT. David Brooks is not really a Conservative or Good Republican.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Not me. I have a daily subsription to the New York Times, and even a liberal like me knows that the NYT editorial staff is left-leaning, biased towards that side. But, that’s natural in a newspaper. All newspapers have either a leftist or rightist bias editorially. It can’t be denied.

To provide balance I suggest that, in addition to reading the Times every day, posters ought to read the Wall Street Journal. I do.

I occassionally read the WSJ-----but I will say this:

The difference between the WSJ and the NYT is that the WSJ basically admits its right-of-center bias. The NYT and its editorial page is still stuck in the old fantasy that it is a basically “Objective” paper.

 

[estesbob]

I occassionally read the WSJ-----but I will say this:

The difference between the WSJ and the NYT is that the WSJ basically admits its right-of-center bias. The NYT and its editorial page is still stuck in the old fantasy that it is a basically “Objective” paper.

They do live up to their motto"all the news that fits our views"

 

[sedonaman]

They do live up to their motto"all the news that fits our views"

Mega

 

[sedonaman]

…even a liberal like me knows that the NYT editorial staff is left-leaning, biased towards that side. …

I wouldn’t characterize 4,326 to 3 as “left-leaning”; it’s more like lying down on its left side. Thomas Sowell has a section on the NYT in his new book, Intellectuals and Society, and what he has to say about it is not good. I understand the paper still has on display Durante’s Pulitzer Prize for journalism that he got for his story denying the forced starvation of the Ukraine by Stalin. Conservatives suggested they return it, but the Times refused.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I don’t care if the paper leans left, right or at an incline. That does not make it biased against Catholics.

The archbishop has not sustained his argument.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I occassionally read the WSJ-----but I will say this:

The difference between the WSJ and the NYT is that the WSJ basically admits its right-of-center bias. The NYT and its editorial page is still stuck in the old fantasy that it is a basically “Objective” paper.

So let them believe what they want to about themselves. The editorial section is not the only one in the paper, and it’s easy enough to recognize their left-leaning and take it into account asx you read.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I wouldn’t characterize 4,326 to 3 as “left-leaning”; it’s more like lying down on its left side. Thomas Sowell has a section on the NYT in his new book, Intellectuals and Society, and what he has to say about it is not good.

Better to read it and judge for yourself.

I understand the paper still has on display Durante’s Pulitzer Prize for journalism that he got for his story denying the forced starvation of the Ukraine by Stalin. Conservatives suggested they return it, but the Times refused.

What does that haved to do with the price of coffee in Brazil?

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t care if the paper leans left, right or at an incline. That does not make it biased against Catholics.
…

That is technically true; however, the Times is always printing anti-Catholic articles but has never run the Mohammed cartoons or anything else that can be considered disrespectful of Islam. If you do one, you have to do the other, or you are biased; fair is fair.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That is technically true; however, the Times is always printing anti-Catholic articles but has never run the Mohammed cartoons or anything else that can be considered disrespectful of Islam. If you do one, you have to do the other, or you are biased; fair is fair.

Anti-Catholic articles or editorials?