R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Drivel? Which is better than the NYT, the News, the Post, or Newsday? You think the tabloids have it all over the Times?
- Status
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Some Catholics jump into knee-jerk defensive mode whenever a criticism is leveled on the Church. People are quick to say that the popes and the Church are not impeccable, just infallible. If that is true, then we can stand some criticism. I can’t imagine how anyone can, in good conscience with honesty, believe that the Church handled this sex abuse scandal the right way for the last decade. It’s just outrageous. It needs to be cleaned up. Thanks to media scrutiny and outside pressure, it is getting cleaned up. But one might ask, what if the media and the lawsuits and the outcry hadn’t happened? Take the media pressure and outcry away and you’d have-----status quo. A little criticism makes us all better. Sadly so many Catholics in here especially think every criticism is “anti-Catholic.” I don’t concur.
S
sedonaman
Guest
How did you reach this conclusion?
E
estesbob
Guest
I think Catholics take criticism very well. But when you run across nonsense like the New York Times publishes-for instance ,trying to link Pope Benedict to the homosexual abuse carried ot by Midwestern priest some 20 some years ago it is right for the Church to defend themselves. It would be sad sad to see Catholics let it specious charges like these go unanswered
The York Times attacks the church because of their stance on abortion and homosexual behavior. And of course because among the liberal elite opposing religion, especially Catholicism, is very acceptable and these are the people that pay the New York Times bills.
R
Roy5
Guest
A few quick comments
Code:
1. I believe the owners of the *NYTimes* are Jewish. The Sulzberger family once ran it and probably some of their descendants still do. But it's true. Orthodox Jews also can be very critical of the *Times* became the Sulzbergers etc were/are not Orthodox. Neocons Jews are critical of it, too, because it doesn't always want to rush to war in the Middle East.
2. The *Times* has covered 'Jewish' scandals, whether of the financial variety (e. g., Madoff), or those involving crooked or predatory rabbis or those who claim their products are kosher when they're not, etc. They also have gone after suspicious cults over the years. I have read it for 50 years and keep pretty close tabs on the *Times*. While I often disagree with some editorial or some of its columnists, there is no more complete news than one gets in the *Times*. Most other papers appear to be digests in comparisonj. I presume that's why the *Times* has become so costly.
3. The* Times*is liberal generally, but that is not synonymous with 'left', When it comes to many issues the Catholic bishops are definitely liberal, too.
4. I also subscribe to the* NYNews* and often pick up the *NYPost.* I find interesting stories in both, but they are loud tabloids which feature lots of gossip about celebrities, cheesecake photos, and other popular but often unimportant matter. The *Post* has become very neocon on foreign policy. "Let's bomb 'em." It can't stand any criticism of Israel. The *News* is almost as bad. Both are Jewish-owned. The *News* does make room for a limited number of guest columns that take issue with the paper's policies. Neither of these papers appeal to those interested in serious news coverage.
5. *USA Today* is the only paper I read that comes close to providing material such as one finds in the* Times*.
6. It always 'tickles me' that so many conservatives swear by the Washington *Times*, which has been owned by the Moonies! The Washington *Post* is more-or-less like the *NYTimes* in its editorial policies.
7. The *NYTimes* is a national gem - even an international jewel - and silly attacks upon it reveal the prejudices of the attackers. Disagreement, fine. Taking issue, fine. This is America. But to try to smear it as anti-Catholic is ridiculous. It has exposed lots of scandals over the years, and I salute it for that!
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
I strongly disagree.
Well, that’s your opinion. I don’t think the paper ‘attacks’ the Church. It reported on that odd situation with the St. Louis renegade parish. That was no attack.
Sometimes criticism of some decisions of Church leaders is appropriate. Folks seem to ignore that fact. I don’t believe there is some dark, ulterior motive to such criticism.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Yes, $5 on Sunday ordinarily. The Times is simply incomparable among American newspapers.
Agreed. They’re all sports and scandals and police beat.
Without question. I know people don’t know what they’re talking about when they refer to it as the New York Slimes or try to smear it another way.
Hey, they don’t have to read it, but I’d like to know what they suggest as an alternative.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
As for Sulzberger’s butting in: “There are Times writers who during his long tenure have never heard from Punch Sulzberger, pre- or post-publication.”
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I’ve reached this conclusion since 2007 when I’ve interacted with tons of Catholics in here who think any criticism of the Church is a conspiratorial attempt to overthrow the Vatican. I myself have criticized Pope Benedict’s behavior in the scandal when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and got the royal smack-down with the “anti-Catholic” fervor. I hardly am anti-Catholic…You also have guys like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the United States who is a major knee-jerk apologist.
E
estesbob
Guest
The National Equirer -at least they admit they make up lot of what they report. it is hillarious to see liberals refer to the NYT as some kind of newspaper icon. it threw that title away a long ago. Other than the liberal elite it is considere a national joke. There circulation has been plunging for years. .
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
My take is this…
Catholics often do take criticism well and are unfairly attacked. The condom folks, the pro-women’s ordination crowd, the gays, and a bunch of anti-religious nutjobs in the science community regularly level unfair and absurd charges against the Church. Groups like planed parenthood ARE very vile and anti-Catholic with a definite agenda. There are atheists that are horribly anti-Catholic, guys like Hitchins.
But I personally think Ratzinger DID drop the ball on the sex abuse scandal. When CNN had a paper trail of letters from priests and bishops begging him to defrock and punish priests, you can follow the trail of how he advised letting these guys just get moved or turned the other cheek. I think he handled it horrifically! So did John Paul II. Just look at how he did the slap on the hand to Cardinal Law. That man was unconscionably bad with the scandal and he got moved to Rome with his own cathedral…sigh…
Criticism of the Church is often unfair, targeted conspiracy, and totally inappropriate. Other times the Church totally deserves it.
The way the sex scandal is dealt with often in CAF is, “yeah, well look at how many Baptists and other Protestants abuse kids!” or “it really only amounts to like 1% of the entire priesthood when you think about it!” Tell that to the kids that got fondled, penetrated, violated, and mentally scarred for life. Catholics should be able to admit the problem was extensive, horribly dealt with, covered up, and there was a heap of denial and naivate.
Catholics often do take criticism well and are unfairly attacked. The condom folks, the pro-women’s ordination crowd, the gays, and a bunch of anti-religious nutjobs in the science community regularly level unfair and absurd charges against the Church. Groups like planed parenthood ARE very vile and anti-Catholic with a definite agenda. There are atheists that are horribly anti-Catholic, guys like Hitchins.
But I personally think Ratzinger DID drop the ball on the sex abuse scandal. When CNN had a paper trail of letters from priests and bishops begging him to defrock and punish priests, you can follow the trail of how he advised letting these guys just get moved or turned the other cheek. I think he handled it horrifically! So did John Paul II. Just look at how he did the slap on the hand to Cardinal Law. That man was unconscionably bad with the scandal and he got moved to Rome with his own cathedral…sigh…
Criticism of the Church is often unfair, targeted conspiracy, and totally inappropriate. Other times the Church totally deserves it.
The way the sex scandal is dealt with often in CAF is, “yeah, well look at how many Baptists and other Protestants abuse kids!” or “it really only amounts to like 1% of the entire priesthood when you think about it!” Tell that to the kids that got fondled, penetrated, violated, and mentally scarred for life. Catholics should be able to admit the problem was extensive, horribly dealt with, covered up, and there was a heap of denial and naivate.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Let’s hope the NYT and the LA Times both plunge into the abyss. Rags both.
E
estesbob
Guest
They are. Here the lates results:
WALL STREET JOURNAL 2,061,142 … 2,024,269 … 1.82%
USA TODAY 1,830,594 … 1,900,116 … -3.66%
NEW YORK TIMES 876,638 … 927,851 … -5.52%
LOS ANGELES TIMES 600,449 … 657,467 … -8.67%
WASHINGTON POST 545,345 … 582,844 … -6.43%
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 512,520 … 544,167 … -5.82%
NEW YORK POST 501,501 … 508,042 … -1.29%
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 477,592 N/A
CHICAGO TRIBUNE 441,508 … 465,892 … -5.23%
HOUSTON CHRONICLE 343,952 … 384,437 … -10.53%
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER 342,361 … 361,481 … -5.29%
NEWSDAY 314,848 … 357,124 … -11.84%
DENVER POST 309,863 … 340,949 … -9.12%
ARIZONA REPUBLIC 308,973 … 316,873 … -2.49%
MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE 297,478 … 304,544 … -2.32%
DALLAS MORNING NEWS 264,459 … 263,810 … 0.25%
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER 252,608 … 271,182 … -6.85%
SEATTLE TIMES 251,697 … 263,588 -4.51%
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES 250,747 … 275,641 … -9.03%
DETROIT FREE PRESS 245,326 … 269,729 … -9.05%
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES 239,684 … 240,146 … -0.19%
OREGONIAN 239,071 … 249,164 … -4.05%
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE 224,761 … 242,693 … -7.39%
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 223,549 … 251,782 … -11.21%
NEWARK STAR-LEDGER 223,037 … 246,006 … -9.34%
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Would you like to cite to some other newspapers or media that consider it a national joke? To the best of my knowledge, even your beloved Rush and Glenn and Michael have not referred to it as a national joke.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Then don’t read them.
E
estesbob
Guest
More people listen to Rush Limbaugh in an hour than read the NYT in a week Does that make him a national Gem?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
So what? He’s an entertainer and pundit, by his own admission. He doesn’t claim to be a news source…
By the way, I find it tremendously amusing that you and a few others get so hot and bothered because some of us read the New York Times. You have to keep attacking it. Why?
Now, if you simply didn’t care for the paper, didn’t like the editorials, you could have said that. Heck, I don’t particularly care for the Washington Times, but I wouldn’t think of getting apoplectic about it the way you guys with your insults are getting about the Times.
I would recommend to others on this Forum that they read the New York Times because I admire it very much, consider it accurate, and believe it to be one of the five best newspapers in the United States. You may, in turn, tell us all about how you don’t like the paper. Fine, but there’s no need to get red in the face about it.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I don’t, Rich. 
Why would I read them if I am hoping they go under? That wouldn’t make a lot of sense to give $$$ to a rag that I hope collapses?
Why would I read them if I am hoping they go under? That wouldn’t make a lot of sense to give $$$ to a rag that I hope collapses?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Fair enough.I don’t, Rich.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I wish we could get a media that kept opinions and biases to a real minimum. I think both MSNBC and FOX are bad for America. Journalism has degraded itself into punditry and emotional rants. I miss the liberal intellectuals and the conservative intellectuals having thoughtful, insightful, lucid debates. How I miss the William F. Buckleys of the world and how I loath the Palins, Limbaughs, and Becks…The guys like Victor Davis Hanson and George Will are not the loud GOP voices. It’s the screamers. And in the Democratic circles it’s crumbs like Sauros pulling everyone’s strings. Like Shakespeare said, why can’t we kill all the lawyers and start over? 
- Status