Slander from the NY Times

[Wampa]

Historically speaking, the Times and the Post have been guardians of truth and standard barriers for news reporting.

Freudian slip??? You meant standard bearers, not barriers

That slip notwithstanding, what you said was probably historically true, but things have changed dramatically in recent years, especially with the Washington Post. My local newspaper rarely writes any original national or world news stories anymore, instead just running stories from the Times, WaPo, and the Associated Press. I have this little game I play when I read the paper: every time I see an article with excessive bias, I say “oh, this one must be from the Washington Post” and I’m right 90% of the time

Personally, I try to stick to the wire services (e.g. AP, Reuters), as they seem to be the least biased. Note that WaPo falls under ‘Skews Left’ on this oft-cited Media Bias Chart, rather than under Neutral, where the wire services are.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Julian, less than 4% of men are gay. That’s just a fact. See Gallup if you don’t believe me.

That’s somewhat debatable, mostly because Gallup’s methods may not be great for this kind of socially-sensitive topic. There have been studies that suggested a rate as high as 20%. They just aren’t as direct as, “Are you gay?”

Further, I’m wondering what relevance this has. Obviously, certain populations can have demographic makeups not in alignment with the general population. For instance, there are about 37000 priests in the U.S., and 250 are African American. That’s less than 1%, despite 13% of Americans being African American. In contrast, an estimated 40% of Catholics are Hispanic, despite Hispanics only making up about 17% of the U.S. population. Basically, you can’t assume that the demographics of a population will remain the same for all sub-populations, and we can’t assume that the number of priests with SSA is the same percentage as the general population. It can, as the two other examples, be wildly different.

Perhaps the NYT reporter went on over to Church Militant…

In one headline we have the assertion that the Church is a sexual prison.

She made a headline out of a quote from a priest in the same article that was describing what it is like to be a priest with SSA. How is that a problem? Yeah, it’s arguably the most eye-catching headline that isn’t downright deceptive, but at least it isn’t “HOW MANY PRIESTS ARE GAY?!? YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT THIS PRIEST SAID!”

talk to any heterosexual priests

Because a heterosexual priest knows what it is like to be a priest with SSA?

 

[YourNameHere]

There is one truth.
The way people see the truth are those who call themselves conservative or liberal.

 

[YourNameHere]

I don’t read the National Catholic Reporter. I have no Idea what they print.

 

[0331]

I don’t read the National Catholic Reporter. I have no Idea what they print.

The NC Reporter is well known for heterodox views. In 1968, Kansas City Bishop Herman Helsing ordered them to stop using the name ‘Catholic.’

‘nevertheless, they persisted’

 

[adgloriam]

as they seem to be the least biased

I think those last 2 are really really biased in their own way. Again, if you’re not a US citizen you get a different “worldview” in your news that makes the contrasts more evident. (and yes, those 2 outlets do report occasionally on catholic issues and it isn’t neutral.)

 

[AlNg]

This is what slander looks like; this article is baseless from the very beginning and should be retracted.

OK, but I thought that Father James Martin, S.J. says that this is a wise, thoughtful, and well researched article. This was from a Fr Z blog:
[http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/02/the-rome-summit-gay-priests-and-sodoclericalism-wherein-fr-z-rants/ ]

 

[goout]

goout:

So you see nothing amiss here. That’s a headline with serious journalistic integrity, with no apparent bias…
ok

What would you prefer the headline to be?

Something with mature content. Something that is not inflammatory.
?
""All dogs are going to hell! “”
“That’s inflammatory!”
“What? What would you prefer me to write?”

It’s the standard reply of someone who stinks up the room then looks around in disbelief, as if self control and responsibility are not options.

 

[JMMJ]

I didn’t see anything wrong with the title. It was a quote from somebody who is interviewed for the article. I think it was clear from the title what the article was about, and the reader could choose to read or not read the story.

 

[KJW5551]

@ZMystiCat if you believe for one second that 20% of the population–1 out of every 5 people you meet–is gay, then send me a DM because I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[goout]

Yea, and my neighbor says dogs burn in hell. That’s a quote. Newsworthy stuff. Should be a headline. See nothing wrong with it. Very catchy. Someone said it. It’s news. Probably a video on facebook to back it up. You don’t have to read the story. Just look at the headline, that conveys the message. Real stories and research take too much time.
Headlines
Videos.
All you need.
It’s news.

And it sells drugs and cars, so we’re on track.

 

[errereer]

“Some I assume are good people”
Why does nobody sue that jerk for everything he’s got?

 

[ZMystiCat]

if you believe for one second that 20% of the population–1 out of every 5 people you meet–is gay, then send me a DM because I have a bridge to sell you.

For the record, I suspect 20% is a bit high of an estimate, but at the same time, as the study notes:

In the Direct Report treatment, 11% of the population reports that they do not consider themselves heterosexual (8% for men, 16% for women). In the Veiled Report treatment, this increases to 19% (15% for men, 22% for women).

Also:

the number of participants reporting having had a sexual experience
with someone of the same sex increases from 17% (12% for men, 24% for women) in the Direct Report treatment to 27% (17% for men, 43% for women) in the Veiled Report treatment, a 59% increase (difference, p<0.01).

Now, does that certainly mean that nearly 20% of the population experiences SSA? No, but it does highlight how methodology can affect outcome. For instance, the Gallup poll you cited saw a notable increase among millennials compared to the general population, which could at least indicate people from older generations aren’t as willing to admit to having SSA.

But rather than point out methodological failures or incorrect assumptions (and I can think of a couple) in a study that shows results that seem odd to you, you…imply I’m a troll. That sort of highlights a lot of problems in how these discussions play out.

 

[Larry1700]

There actually is a browser extension that let you know how trustworthy a news site is based on very clear standards that are about as neutral as you can get. If you’re ever on a site, you can click the extensions button to see how it rated. The rating will also appear in Google searches, albeit with a delay.

Do you know who designed, controls and/or owns that browser extension? Is there any way to verify the accuracy/trustworthiness of that tool?

 

[TMC]

The Church is embroiled in a sex abuse scandal that appears to go back centuries. The Pope has admitted that sexual abuse and exploitation of nuns by priests is a serious problem in the Church. The Vatican admits that priests fathering children is common enough that the Church has policies and procedures for how to handle the offspring. Exposes and investigations of abuse at Catholic orphanages and workhouses have become commonplace.

And our outrage is that a newspaper may have mis-estimated the number of gay priests? Seriously?

 

[SeekSalvation]

I say supposedly because the Church has been strangely silent on the recent infanticide abortion laws couching this legislation as a continuation of women’s reproductive rights a euphemism if ever there was one.

This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. NY Cardinal Dolan has been all over the news regarding the infanticide abortion bill signed by Cuomo. As a matter of fact Cuomo is in a fight with the diocese. Pope Francis has also come out condemning abortion after Cuomo signed the infanticide abortion bill.

 

[Larry1700]

Or perhaps the way people see the truth is based on/skewed by the sources they choose to believe.

I watched CNN daily since its inception. As time went on, they grew more opinion-oriented. And those opinions showed more and more bias for globalism, against Christianity, for abortion, for gay activism, etc. I felt like I was being mocked, and that they were trying to drive people with beliefs like mine out of the mainstream. When Fox News came around, I switched.

Is FoxNews biased? Many of the news-oriented shows are not so much (“America’s Newsroom,” “The DailyBriefing,” etc.), or they make a strong effort at showing both sides of an issue.

Of course the “opinion shows” are biased (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson). But they are openly biased. They don’t pretend to be otherwise. Most importantly, they are opinionated about principles, not politicians. They strongly support a politician only to the extent that he/she supports those principles.

There is huge misunderstanding that the principles of people like me are determined by the FoxNews opinion-show hosts, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. Absolutely not. I start with my principles, then look for news sources which sees the world from a similar perspective as my own. I still may disagree about such things as nuances and methods to achieve goals which move America in the direction of my principles, but the fundamental principles aren’t changed. I am concerned, for example, how a politician is going to work towards ending abortion. Or how he/she is going to protect the United States from potential terrorists. Or how they’ll ensure that we have the highest chance of keeping us safe from nations such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran. Or what they’ll do to keep belief in God in the forefront of our citizens’ minds (or at the very least not be mocked for being a believer.)

There are aspects of many stories which can be accentuated or ignored based on the authors and editorial decisions of the news source. In the classic case of 4 people witnessing a car accident from different angles, there may be 6 versions of the truth (including the drivers’ versions). Additionally, there are multiple factors (conditions of the streets, vehicles, and drivers), which might have led to the wreck. And more information might come out much later (such as drug/alcohol tests). If there was a news source which could/would report “only the facts,” I’d probably prefer that source. On the downside, it might make for long, dry reading!

In summary, I acknowledge that I get most of my news from biased sources (even the ones who make a strong effort not to be), but so does everyone else, whether they admit it or not. I would rather listen/watch/read from a source that tells me how my principles are being upheld or violated, rather than one that tries to convince me and others that my principles are outdated/ridiculous.

 

[otjm]

That is correct; most people do not know the difference - or care.

 

[minux]

We have fundamental areas of discussion. Are there a disproportionate number of homosexual priests compared to society? If so, why is that a matter of concern other than that being a Cross to bear as a Catholic? Is the abuse by Priests greater in the Church than mainstream society? What criteria for comparison are we utilizing?

Per Pope Francis, as we are dealing with spiritual salvation via an institution, abuse by any form of a Church official is a serious issue.

However, the Church remains a positive exemplar in many peoples’ lives. With the same logic as the critiques, does that mean everyone in society should join Our Church, because it is such a positive force for many?

 

[otjm]

You are very late to the party. After the John Jay report came out, estimates were swirling everywhere, ranging from 10% to 90%.

You made mention in another post that the real estimate is 15%; it would help if you would cite the reference.

a priest I know quite well was laicized and is now married - no SSA - and in conversation a while ago I asked them what they thought the % was in his diocese. after some reflection he estimated about 40%, and followed that up with observations he had made over years where the priests had their yearly meeting. His comment was that it was fairly clear, when there was a break in the meeting, of two groups, and about 40% were in the group with those who were clearly SSA.

That is not a scientific poll; it is a fairly accurate physical observation by someone “inside”, and it does not surprise me at all.

The difficulty is that any poll is going to be an estimate, and depends on the polling process itself; there may well be dioceses which have a higher number of priests with SSA, and there may well be some with a lower number, both of which would be normal distribution issues. From my own personal experience a little more than 50 years ago of having been in college seminary, I sincerely doubt the overall number is 15% (per the uncited information in your post).

I would welcome your citation.