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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
Anti-Catholic articles or editorials?
Click to expand...
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1986
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1971
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1926
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1915
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1909
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1856
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1855
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1849
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1844
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1843
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1843
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1842
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1841
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1835
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1811
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1810
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1802
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1797
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1794

And this is just for the current year, 2010. I can provide more, but you get the point.
 
sedonaman said:
And this is just for the current year, 2010. I can provide more, but you get the point.
Click to expand...
Those are referring to their editorials, and we know they’re biased there. I wish you would have pointed out examples of editorials you yourself read rather than rely on a secondary source.

In any case, when you read those editorials, you have the choice of laughing at them or taking them dead seriously or anything in between.
 
sedonaman said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Times does not run editorial cartoons.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
…you have the choice of laughing at them or taking them dead seriously or anything in between.
Click to expand...
As we do with the New York Times. In fact, I think they are more reliable than the times because, as a Catholic, Donohue would be be in fear of risking eternal damnation for lying, but the* Times* editors, being good liberals, apparently have no such fear.
 
sedonaman said:
as a Catholic, Donohue would be be in fear of risking eternal damnation for lying
Click to expand...
:hmmm: There are Catholics who would be in fear of risking eternal damnation for adultery, but still do it. I don’t think that’s much of a deterrent.
 
sedonaman said:
So what about some juicy editorials on Islam? You got any examples of them?
Click to expand...
Or about Scientology or Wicca or Druidism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for that matter. You can research any of those on the Times’s website.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Or about Scientology or Wicca or Druidism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for that matter. You can research any of those on the Times’s website.
Click to expand...
“The Times does not run editorial cartoons” is not proof that the Times is not overly biased, which is what you are claiming. It’s up to you to provide examples of their objectivity, not mine.
 
I think in general the buck stops with the owners

So, what kind of people own the NYT? For example, what religion are the owners? Are they protestants, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Mormons what??
🤷
 
sedonaman said:
“The Times does not run editorial cartoons” is not proof that the Times is not overly biased, which is what you are claiming. It’s up to you to provide examples of their objectivity, not mine.
Click to expand...
It is proof your post was mistaken and that you are unfamiliar with the paper.
John7 said:
I think in general the buck stops with the owners

So, what kind of people own the NYT? For example, what religion are the owners? Are they protestants, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Mormons what??
🤷
Click to expand...
The Washington Times was founded by Rev. Moon’s church. What difference does all of this make?
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
The Washington Times was founded by Rev. Moon’s church. What difference does all of this make?
Click to expand...
I mean the New York Times…I think it makes some difference if say the owners of the NYT were hard-core Sunni muslims that could explain some anti-Catholic bias…no? I mean it would be wierd if the NYT were owned by Catholics and yet lots of anti-Catholic bias was coming out of it.
 
Although I find it humorous that anybody would claim the New York Times does not lea vily the left it really doesn’t matter. As long as I don’t have to pay for them to push their left-wing extremism(unlike with NPR and PBS) it’s fine with me. Like with individuals, once you find out they’re lying to you, you dont trust them anymore. For the majority of people in this country the New York Times long ago quit being the paper of record and began to be considered , rightly so ,just another shill for for the Democrat party . It is no surprise that liberals vehemently defend their alleged non-bias. Having been spoonfed liberal doctrine their whole lives what most of us consider bias they consider the truth.
 
Roy5 said:
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.
Code: 
*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.
Click to expand...
Of course the NY times is TOTALLY silent when abuses happen in synagogues and talmud schools. NY times is drivel to feed liberals…
 
John7 said:
I mean the New York Times…I think it makes some difference if say the owners of the NYT were hard-core Sunni muslims that could explain some anti-Catholic bias…no? I mean it would be wierd if the NYT were owned by Catholics and yet lots of anti-Catholic bias was coming out of it.
Click to expand...
The bit about Rev. Moon was to examine the relevancy as to ownership. Punchy Sulzberger’s family was Jewish (by tradition) but I don’t know what the publisher’s religion has to do with any bias.

The question remains – is the Times biased against Catholics? I say no.
 
Hmmm…I don’t know. Most Jews I know feel the NYT is anti-Jewish in its positions. There is a campaign in the Orthodox community to boycott the NYT. I think it is clear the NYT doesn’t like traditional religious values-period.
 
John7 said:
I think in general the buck stops with the owners

So, what kind of people own the NYT? For example, what religion are the owners? Are they protestants, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Mormons what??
🤷
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what religion they are IMO.
 
HCC said:
Hmmm…I don’t know. Most Jews I know feel the NYT is anti-Jewish in its positions. There is a campaign in the Orthodox community to boycott the NYT. I think it is clear the NYT doesn’t like traditional religious values-period.
Click to expand...
Among the Orthodox maybe. Ordinary Jews, like most other New Yorkers, read the Post and the Daily News primarily, but I have no doubt that the educated stick to the Times. What else is there at their level?
 
PetersKeys said:
Of course the NY times is TOTALLY silent when abuses happen in synagogues and talmud schools. NY times is drivel to feed liberals…
Click to expand...
👍
On March 10, the New York Times ran an article on sex abuse in the Catholic Church stating that in Austria a priest abused a boy 40 years ago. Yesterday, readers learned of a German case where a man says he was abused in 1979. But when Rabbi Baruch Lebovits was found guilty last week on eight counts of sexually abusing a Brooklyn boy, the Times failed to report it. This is not an accident — it is deliberate.
…
Click to expand...
If the Times were truly interested in eradicating sex abuse, it not only would report on cases like Rabbi Lebovits, it would not seek to protect the public school establishment. But it does. Here’s the proof. Last year, there were two bills being debated in Albany on the subject of sex abuse: one targeted only private institutions like the Catholic Church, giving the public schools a pass; the other covered both private and public. The Times endorsed the former.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top