Fervent liberalism is not the only thing that's predictable at the Los Angeles Times. You can bet that when the Times publishes a news article on the Church abuse scandal, rabid letters to the editor that bash the Church will follow a few days later.
Such was the case in yesterday's paper (Sat. 12/15/07). Yet the Times also failed to identify that both letter writers critical of the Church have established records of public involvement and activism in the abuse scandal narrative.
One letter was from a man named Udo Strutynski, who in his letter blasted "the conduct of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles." However, the Times completely failed to note that Strutynski is a lawyer who, according to the Times' own reporting in 2006, has filed cases against the Los Angeles Archdiocese and the Jesuit order (source). A 2004 Times article also identified Strutynski as someone "who said he was a victim of sexual abuse by a priest" (link). Strutynski was also cited in a 2005 Times article. In addition, Strutynski is a core member of an activist group called ACT - A Coalition for Truth, an organization that states that they "actively and publicly challenge the structures in which this abuse continues to flourish."
The other letter was from Margaret Schettler, who made the ridiculously false claim, "When it comes to concern for victim/survivors, not much has changed over the past five years." Yet it may have interested the Times and its readers that Schettler was the subject of a 2004 article in the Washington Post. She has also been quoted about the scandal in a 2005 article in the Times; in a 2004 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune; in a 2004 article in the Riverside Press Enterprise; and a 2004 article in the San Diego Press-Enterprise. She also spoke at a 2004 news conference regarding an abusive priest with whom she said she worked in the 1970's. In addition, in a 2005 letter to the liberal National Catholic Reporter, Schettler claimed news of the abuse scandal "eroded" "the credibility of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Strutynski and Schettler have every right to have their views published in a letter to the editor. However, readers have a right to know when letter writers have especially notable records of public involvement in the issue that they're writing about. And the Times should properly identify such people.
As we've stated in the past, clerical abuse has wrecked real, damaging, and immeasurable harm upon numerous victims. But the Times continues its dishonest, disproportionate, and misleading reporting when covering this issue. We've reported on it in the past here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
+_+_+_+
Related post: "Deliver Us From Evil" is on DVD: It Does Not Deliver Truth
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is typical of the
December 16, 2007 - 21:29 ET by rbosqueThis is typical of the left. All these charades are only meant to hurt the Church and not to look at the problem objectively.
"Hurt the Church" or more
December 16, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Edhenry"Hurt the Church" or more likely to advance their agenda/public profile.
The homosexual preist abuse cases are vile, but the dominant component of homosexuality is a cunundrum for the liberal press. Trial lawyers suing the Cathilic church = Bonanza, except for the homosexual angle, which they twisted to pedophile only.
Cant honestly report homosexuality, no more than publish the (D) if the crime was committed by a democrat.
I am freezing my global warming a$$ off this winter.
THE BOTTOM LINE...
December 16, 2007 - 22:58 ET by danybhoyTypical case of lying by omision, & we know why.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Sorry, dude. You're way
December 17, 2007 - 01:49 ET by fitzfongSorry, dude. You're way wide of the mark on this one. As a Catholic who grew up in Los Angeles, I know full well how the Archdiocese and Roger Mahoney have "handled" this scandal. Not only has the Mahoney Crime Family fallen well short of full disclosure on this issue, Mahoney's crew has gone on a PR offensive that's included victim intimidation, professional spin doctoring and a cynical circling of the wagons. Mahoney has exploited the persecution complexes of the true believers to portray himself and his enablers as victims in this situation. And to rally the media around him, Mahoney put himself front and center of the illegal immigration issue, wagging his finger at those who aren't in favor of full-fledged amnesty...as if he had any moral authority left to make such a statement. Roger Mahoney is a pimp, and there are literally hundreds of embattled religious leaders who are far more worthy of your protection (Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart and Al Sharpton, for instance). Anyone who's familiar with my posts knows that I am no fan of the LA Times. But in this case, I've got no problem with their coverage.
First of all ...
December 17, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Dave Pierre1. First of all, my post is not about how the Cardinal has handled the scandal. It's about the LAT not revealing the public involvement and activism of the letter writers. I agree that the scandal has not always been handled well by the Cardinal, but that is not what my post is about!
2. You say you've got "no problem with their [LAT's] coverage" of the scandal. May I recommend you take a peek at the links at the end of my post. If most of what you've learned about the scandal has come from the LAT, you may be surprised that what they publish is sometimes flat-out wrong. Again - this has nothing to do with the Archdiocese's handling of the issue. It's about the LAT's reporting.
3. I'm curious about the "victim intimidation" thing. What is that about? Sounds like something from John & Ken on KFI.
4. The correct spelling is "Mahony" (not "Mahoney").
Cheers.
1) I understand that your
December 17, 2007 - 18:41 ET by fitzfong1) I understand that your blog site highlights the inaccuracies and biases of the LA Times on a whole host of subjects. Fair enough. And the straw man nature of the letter postings is comparable to the CNN handling of the debates last month. You have a fair point there. But then again, if someone submits a letter to the editor without indentifying his organizational ties in the letter, must the paper withhold the letter or automatically contextualize (perhaps erroneously) the letter as originating from someone with biased ties? It's not like they had video footage of the writer being interviewed on the subject, then flew him in from across the country to surprise candidates with his "spontaneous" follow-up question. Should they have given the letters more scrutiny? Perhaps. But I suspect a good share of letters to the editor originate from people with organizational ties to interest groups presenting themselves as detached private citizens.
2) Actually, much of what I've learned from the sex scandal has come from a lifetime attending Mass, Catholic School and countless Church functions. I've seen first hand how the Church has handled accusations that have proven to be true. It starts with a circling of the wagons and an isolation of the victims and their families...the classic "who are you going to believe" defense. I'll acknowledge that sometimes accusers are given too much of the benefit of the doubt...as the shameful prosecution of the McMartin Pre-School proprieters exhibited. But the Church often leveraged its perceived moral authority among Parishioners against its accusers...as especially preceding the 1990s it was often seen as scandalous to lodge such an accusation at such unquestionable pillars of the community. And when one priest I knew personally got convicted on multiple counts of molestation, the judge in the case took into account what he described as piles of mail from Parishioners requesting leniency for the priest...lightening his sentence beyond belief. Of course, this priest ended up getting picked up on multiple subsequent occasions for soliciting minors even after cooling off in the Church's clergy "half-way house". As for the LA Times' reporting of the abuse scandal, it seems to me that, if anything, the paper has been complicit in his behavior. He managed to get a lot of heat taken off himself, not just from the Times, but from the local news networks...no doubt in large part because of his role in the illegal immigration debate...but also because the media is afraid of alienating such a large segment of the community. How long would it have been before Bill Donohue, my Church's equivalent of Al Sharpton, steamed into LA to rally like-thinking parishioners against unfavorable media coverage? Mahony hired a PR firm to act as mouthpiece for the Archdiocese. Why did he need to use parishioner donations for something so frivolous? He orchestrated the dismissal of Frank Keating who was hired by the Congress of Catholic Bishops to conduct an independent investigation into the Church's handling of the scandal. Keating suggested that Mahony was effectively the worst of the worst of when it came to the Bishops and their handling of this mess (and this included Bernard Law)...and Mahony's heavy-handed response confirmed that suggestion. Of course, this is the same Mahony who cynically asserted a non-existent "Priest-Bishop Confidentiality" defense as an extension of the established Priest-Penitent Confidentiality immunity to deflect questions about his role in the handling of pedophile priests. Frankly, his maneuverings have been Clintonesque...and the negative coverage he's gotten has been roughly proportional to the negative coverage the Clintons have received in the media...virtually non-existent.
3) Frankly the John & Ken charge suggests more about your biases than it does of mine. It would be like someone suggesting that my expression of distaste for the way the Clintons have conducted themselves over the years is down to my regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh talking points. Or, more accurately, that your expression of distaste for the way the LA Times has handled this scandal is the result of your regurgitation of talking points from the LA Chancery Office. Sure, I've listened to the John & Ken Show over the years, and while I happen to agree with them in large part on this issue, they essentially confirm and articulate many of my beliefs on this subject (rather than shaping them as you're no doubt suggesting). It's a lazy and reductive charge. Grow up.
4) Thanks for the spelling correction. As you can see, I've taken my mistake on board and have corrected it.
I suspect that we're likely to agree on more issues than we are to disagree...but not on this one.
Cheers.
Response ...
December 18, 2007 - 01:22 ET by Dave Pierre1. "[M]ust the paper withhold the letter or automatically contextualize (perhaps erroneously) the letter as originating from someone with biased ties?"
No. As I wrote in the post, "Strutynski and Schettler have every right to have their views published in a letter to the editor. However, readers have a right to know when letter writers have especially notable records of public involvement in the issue that they're writing about. And the Times should properly identify such people." The fact that Strutynski is a member of an activist group should be noted.
2. "LA Times ... [T]he media [are] afraid of alienating such a large segment of the community."
I don't know how you can draw that conclusion. Stories of clerical abuse, even if the episodes happened decades ago, are often front-page news, above the fold, in the Times. Meanwhile, as I reported in a post last year, a SoCal substitute teacher reportedly admitted to police of molesting between 100 to 200 girls in 13 different school districts. When the guy was finally convicted and sentenced last July (the sentence was pretty light because the girls were so young they couldn't testify), the story was on page B7. Compare that kind of coverage to any priest. Where are the follow-up articles by the Times on the school teacher? Sample question: How does a teacher molest so many girls over so long a time in so many different districts?
Abuse by school teachers (even if there are numerous victims) is far, far more prevalent, but the stories are often relegated to the "In Brief" section in the "B" section of the paper. Hardly a week or two pass without at least one SoCal teacher or coach being arrested on some kind of abuse charge. (And those are just the ones that the Times happens to catch.) Take this one from just last Wednesday (12/12/07). (Scroll down to the one about the coach in Torrance.)
The sexual abuse of any child by anyone is simply awful. But the media coverage of abuse by priests is way disproportionate and, quite simply, unfair. It really can't even be argued.
3. "Mahony hired a PR firm to act as mouthpiece for the Archdiocese."
Gee. What great press coverage they've been getting, eh? Obviously, that PR firm has done an amazing job.</sarc>
As far as your statement that "[Mahony] managed to get a lot of heat taken off himself," I totally disagree, and I have this post to show.
4. John & Ken Show ... "It's a lazy and reductive charge."
Yikes. Touch a nerve, did I? I didn't make any "charge." All I did was ask you a question. ("I'm curious about the 'victim intimidation' thing. What is that about?") Since I hadn't really read anything like this in the LAT, and I know that J&K have spent a lot of time on the abuse scandal, I figured it was heard on their show. I guess I was right. I'm a KABC/KRLA guy myself, but I've heard J&K talk a bit on the abuse issue. Quite simply, I haven't found them very reliable. (And that would be an entirely different post.)
5. "[Y]our expression of distaste for the way the LA Times has handled this scandal is the result of your regurgitation of talking points from the LA Chancery Office."
Pardon me, but if there are any "talking points," I'd sure like to see them! Where can I find these "talking points"? It would make my hobby much easier. Every post I've done is the result of my own personal research and work. The only one I can't say is entirely original to me is this one; it's a post in which I passed on essentially what was written in The Tidings.
I spend a lot of time composing my posts, and I don't deserve the baseless charge that I "regurgitate talking points."
1) No. As I wrote in the
December 18, 2007 - 02:56 ET by fitzfong1) No. As I wrote in the post, "Strutynski and Schettler have every right to have their views published in a letter to the editor. However, readers have a right to know when letter writers have especially notable records of public involvement in the issue that they're writing about. And the Times should properly identify such people." The fact that Strutynski is a member of an activist group should be noted.
First you answer my question in the negative, then complete your answer as if it was meant to be in the affirmative. What am I supposed to make of that?
2) The fact that the LA Times is largely ignoring other sex scandals means only that the LA Times should be covering those sex scandals more aggressively. By taking the proportionality position, you seem to be implying that the LA Times should be covering the priest sex scandal less, not that it should be covering the other sex scandals more. Lame.
3) Are you suggesting that the Archdiocese should be getting great press coverage?
4) Since I hadn't really read anything like this in the LAT, and I know that J&K have spent a lot of time on the abuse scandal, I figured it was heard on their show. I guess I was right.
No you weren't. Obviously you didn't take my entire post into account and took out of my John & Ken response what suited you. You've essentially confirmed my accusation that your charge was lazy and reductive. Good job.
5) I spend a lot of time composing my posts, and I don't deserve the baseless charge that I "regurgitate talking points."
Now, who's nerve has been touched? I didn't charge you with regurgitating talking points. I merely suggested that your implication that I was taking talking points from John & Ken would be like me claiming that you were regurgitating talking points from the Chancery Office. Big difference, isn't it?
Again ...
December 23, 2007 - 13:38 ET by Dave Pierre1. "First you answer my question in the negative, then complete your answer as if it was meant to be in the affirmative. What am I supposed to make of that?"
Good grief. I could not have been more clear. Read the post. "Strutynski and Schettler have every right to have their views published in a letter to the editor." As far as something being done "erroneously," it goes without saying that nothing should be done erroneously by a newspaper. Isn't that obvious?
2. "By taking the proportionality position, you seem to be implying that the LA Times should be covering the priest sex scandal less, not that it should be covering the other sex scandals more."
You're inferring something I haven't implied. All I've done is point out the clear fact that the Times has made a deliberate decision to report abuse by priests differently and inequitably than with other members of society.
3. "Are you suggesting that the Archdiocese should be getting great press coverage?"
Ugh. I'm not suggesting that either. I just find it almost hilarious that people like to point out that the Archdiocese supposedly hired a PR firm, yet the press coverage they get is almost universally critical.
4. "Obviously you didn't take my entire post into account and took out of my John & Ken response what suited you."
Again - no, I didn't. You're the one who flew off the handle at the J&K reference. And you still have not answered my original question!
5. "I didn't charge you with regurgitating talking points. I merely suggested that your implication that I was taking talking points from John & Ken would be like me claiming that you were regurgitating talking points from the Chancery Office."
Fair enough, though I didn't read it that way. But - again, for the umpteenth time - I never implied that you were regurgitating J&K talking points. In the midst of asking you a question - a question which you still haven't answered - I stated that what you said sounded like it would have been heard on that show. You then responded that you do listen to J&K and that you "agree" with them on this issue. Uhhh ... OK, then.
1) It's the letters to the
December 24, 2007 - 01:38 ET by fitzfong1) It's the letters to the editor section! You know, the one that is subject to the unsolicited submissions of private citizens. Garbage in, garbage out. What do you want, a "Fairness" Doctrine?
2) So, what? What are you suggesting the Times should do? Cover the Archdiocesan sex scandal less, or the unrelated sex scandals more?
3) Once again, so what? Did I miss something? I wasn't aware that you were guaranteed favorable press coverage simply by hiring a PR Firm. Seems to me that the Archdiocese has deserved universally negative coverage.
4) What "question" have I not answered? You suggested that my charge of Archdiocesan victim intimidation was the direct result of listening to John & Ken ad nauseum...as if that was the only way I could possibly know of such intimidation. I told you that as a Catholic who attended mostly Catholic schools, I have a pretty good perspective on how the Church has chosen to "handle" the matter over the years. This wasn't useful to your John & Ken charge...so you ignored it. But I invite you to re-read my explanation if you could be bothered.
5) I came to my conclusions on my own. I don't need confirmation from John & Ken to know what I know about this situation...though I've often agreed with what they've had to say on the matter. Are you suggesting that they're lying? Please. Enlighten me.
AGAIN ...
December 27, 2007 - 00:34 ET by Dave Pierre1. "It's the letters to the editor section!"
Gee, whiz ... You could have responded that way about four posts ago! By the way, that issue is the topic of my article!
2. 3. "So what?"
Again - you could have said that a while back. Also, I already answered #2.
4. "What 'question' have I not answered? ... I told you that as a Catholic who attended mostly Catholic schools, I have a pretty good perspective on how the Church has chosen to 'handle' the matter over the years."
You ... have ... got ... to ... be... kidding. "What question have I not answered?"? The question I keep having to ask you! You wrote, "Mahoney's (sic) crew has gone on a PR offensive that's included victim intimidation," and I asked, "I'm curious about the 'victim intimidation' thing. What is that about?" You've been deflecting from giving an answer for several responses ever since.
I, too, attended several years of Catholic school, yet I have no idea what you're getting at.
5. "Are you suggesting that [J&K are] lying?"
Again - I said nothing of the sort. Again - You've defelected my question for the fourth (?) time by responding with a completely irrelevant question.
You might want to think about all this the next time you post.
Cheers.
1) "Gee, whiz ... You could
December 27, 2007 - 21:05 ET by fitzfong1) "Gee, whiz ... You could have responded that way about four posts ago! By the way, that issue is the topic of my article!"
Other than to express embarrassment for your glaring over-reaction to a Letters to the Editor section, I don't know what the purpose of the above statement was.
2) "Also, I already answered #2."
No, you didn't. You've repeatedly avoided the question. You complained about the disproportionality of the coverage as some kind of "observation". The mere fact that you've complained about the coverage suggests you believe that there's a solution to the disproportionate coverage. Otherwise, what the hell are complaining about?
4) "You wrote, "Mahoney's (sic) crew has gone on a PR offensive that's included victim intimidation," and I asked, "I'm curious about the 'victim intimidation' thing. What is that about?" You've been deflecting from giving an answer for several responses ever since"
What, exactly, do you want from me? Shall I give you my name, social security number, mailing address, home parish and next of kin? Let's see: I was an altar boy at a parish in California where one of the priests molested a couple of my fellow altar boys. When the mother of one of the victims complained to our Pastor about this priest, the accused priest claimed the mother was just a slut who wanted to get back at him for not sleeping with her. The Pastor backed him and allowed the rumor to spread within the parish so that the victim and his family were made to feel unwelcome attending said parish. Does that sound like intimidation to you? How about this one? A few years later, I witnessed my girlfriend getting "innappropriately touched" by her boss...a priest. I, of course, was a coward that day, worried for my own future (people didn't look too kindly on priest batterers in those days), so I didn't take a swing at him. I did, however, report him to the administration...saving and replaying some of the messages he left on her answering machine for them. They did nothing...they gave him the benefit of the doubt and my girlfriend was afraid of pursuing it further. Turns out he was moved to our co-ed school amid sexual harrassment charges at an all-girl's school. Make no mistake, Mahony, as an Archbishop, has some jurisdictional authority over Bishops in neighboring Dioceses...and he's been more than willing to lay the heavy hand of authority over his fellow Bishops when it's suited him. His shameful display in the wake of the Keating report along with his cynical assertion of a non-existent "Bishop-Priest Confidentiality" to prevent accusers from access to files during discovery are just two other examples of Mahony's pathology of victim intimidation.
5) "Again - I said nothing of the sort. Again - You've defelected my question for the fourth (?) time by responding with a completely irrelevant question.
You might want to think about all this the next time you post."
Irrelevant? Hardly. Inconvenient for your increasingly tortured argument? More likely. You have repeatedly used a specious guilt by association argument to suggest my assertions of Archdiocesan victim intimidation originate from the observations of a couple of radio hosts rather than from any personal knowledge. Weak.
As for your little throw-away lecture...sarcasm isn't pretty on you. Perhaps you should seek the permission of an adult before you operate that weapon again.
Response ...
December 30, 2007 - 17:39 ET by Dave Pierre1. "The mere fact that you've complained about the coverage suggests you believe that there's a solution to the disproportionate coverage. Otherwise, what the hell are complaining about?"
LOL! You actually asked a question that you answered yourself in the sentence before! First, you repeat what I'm complaining about ("the disproportionate coverage"). Then, in the very next sentence, you ask, "What the hell are (sic) [you] complaining about?" LOL!
2. "a PR offensive that's included victim intimidation ..."
First, you could have responded the way you did several posts ago. Second, your years-ago local anecdotes, although real and angering, do not constitute evidence of a current "PR offensive" by Cardinal Mahony himself, and that's the charge you leveled. Have priests and church officials miserably failed and mishandled abuse allegations? Absolutely! But a "PR offensive" by the Archdiocese of "victim intimidation"? You've provided no evidence of this.
3. "[Cardinal Mahony's] shameful display in the wake of the Keating report."
I'm almost afraid to ask about this one. I'm under the impression that the National Review Board, of which Keating was chairman for a while, did not release any official reports until after he had resigned. But I may be mistaken on this. What is this "Keating report"? And what was the Cardinal's "shameful display"? I may need enlightening on this one.
4. "a non-existent 'Bishop-Priest Confidentiality' to prevent accusers from access to files"
Under California law, a person's personnel file is not the employer's, but the employee's. You knew that, right? Accused priests have their own lawyers, completely independent of the Church, protecting their own clients' files. Guess what. I don't think that's right, but that's California law. Meanwhile, the Archdiocese has handed over its files, and they are currently in the hands of a judge. You knew that, too, right?
(To illustrate the Catch-22 that the Church in California faces: In Orange County, an admitted abuser, long ago removed, sued the archdiocese and got $100,000, claiming that the archdiocese had violated his privacy when certain aspects about his employment and actions were made public. The Archdiocese would be actually be breaking the law by handing over files that aren't theirs.)
Do yourself a favor: Educate yourself and listen to this: http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/ww/ww061206la_archdiocese_settl
4. "You have repeatedly used a specious guilt by association argument to suggest my assertions of Archdiocesan victim intimidation originate from the observations of a couple of radio hosts rather than from any personal knowledge."
I never made any such argument, and you know it. Please stop making stuff up. You've been busted on this point already. For the sake of your credibility, let it drop.
5. "[S]arcasm isn't pretty on you. Perhaps you should seek the permission of an adult before you operate that weapon again."
I used no sarcasm. I was making a point. Perhaps you should look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary. And your "seek the permission of an adult" attack is a sure sign that you've had to resort to ad hominems rather than facts.
Not cool, man. Not cool at all.
1) "LOL! You actually
December 30, 2007 - 22:27 ET by fitzfong1) "LOL! You actually asked a question that you answered yourself in the sentence before! First, you repeat what I'm complaining about ("the disproportionate coverage"). Then, in the very next sentence, you ask, "What the hell are (sic) [you] complaining about?" LOL!"
What is so difficult for you to understand here? You lodged a complaint about the "disproportionate coverage" the LA Times gave in its LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SECTION (as if to suggest that the Editor submitted these letters). It would appear that you see this "disproportionate coverage" as a "problem". So, I asked you...repeatedly...what solution you proposed for this "problem". What, you don't have a solution? It's just a random whine? And here I thought Kurt Cobain was dead.
2) "But a "PR offensive" by the Archdiocese of "victim intimidation"? You've provided no evidence of this."
Well, maybe not to your satisfaction. But I don't suspect you'd know evidence if it hit you in the face.
3) "Meanwhile, the Archdiocese has handed over its files, and they are currently in the hands of a judge."
Yes, and how many rounds did they have to lose in court for this to happen? I understand that the formal report was submitted after Keating resigned. Mahony, who put himself out front and center as a champion of "full disclosure" belied that moniker by stonewalling the investigation (e.g. the non-existent Bishop-Priest Confidentiality assertion). When Keating suggested that this tactic was akin to "La Cosa Nostra", Mahony cemented that charge by getting Keating clipped from the Board. That's why the report was submitted after Keating was no longer involved.
4) I never made any such argument, and you know it. Please stop making stuff up. You've been busted on this point already. For the sake of your credibility, let it drop.
Look, Dave, it's high time you engaged in some honesty here. If anyone has been "busted on this point", it's you. I challenged your pointless little whine, and, lacking the courage of your convictions to defend your feeble position, you chose instead to reduce one of my charges to something that could only come from John & Ken. When I gave you specific examples of my experience (by the way, I've only scratched the surface on that) to illustrate what a lazy and uninformed charge you made...you dismissed my experiences as anecdotal. And, perversely, you expect me to explain how I'm not simply a John & Ken mouthpiece while you simultaneously deny that you lodged the charge in the first place. Talk about trying to have it both ways! I will "let it drop" as soon as you get it right, and not before.
5) "I used no sarcasm. I was making a point. Perhaps you should look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary. And your "seek the permission of an adult" attack is a sure sign that you've had to resort to ad hominems rather than facts."
If it makes you feel better about yourself to maintain for public consumption (such as it is) your position that you weren't being sarcastic, go ahead and maintain. I would say that your sarcasm and condescendsion have increased as your presentation of facts has decreased...but that would suggest that you presented facts to begin with.
This is too easy.
December 31, 2007 - 00:45 ET by Dave Pierre1. "You lodged a complaint about the 'disproportionate coverage' the LA Times gave in its LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SECTION."
No. My beef is about the "disproportionate coverage" OVERALL on the issue. I've stated this for a while now.
You're 0 for 1.
2. "But I don't suspect you'd know evidence if it hit you in the face."
Ah, yes. The ol' ad hominem.
Now you're 0 for 2.
3. "I understand that the formal report was submitted after Keating resigned."
In other words, there is no such thing as "the Keating report." YOU MADE IT UP. The guy's name appears nowhere on the list of authors of the report (pdf file). Question: Where did you come up with the name "the Keating report"?
0 for 3.
4. "Mahony cemented that charge by getting Keating clipped from the Board."
I've heard that one, too. But what evidence is there of this? Where have you learned that? The other members of the board asked the guy to resign. In addition, the NY Times reported, "Mr. Keating said he had intended to give up the job after his first year anyway." Please explain to me how a bishop on the other side of the country gets someone "clipped" from an independent board of lay people that is very critical of how he mishandled the scandal. Again - I may need enlightening on this one.
Foul ball.
5. "[Y]ou dismissed my experiences as anecdotal."
I didn't "dismiss" anything. You charged that there was a "PR campaign" by "Mahoney's (sic) crew" of "victim intimidation," but you provided zero evidence. Your story alleges intimidation at the local level, but it doesn't doesn't even come close to providing proof of a "PR campaign" by the Archdiocese (your charge).
I'll file this one along with "the Keating report."
0 for 4.
6. "[Y]our presentation of facts has decreased...but that would suggest that you presented facts to begin with."
You cannot provide a single example of where I've gotten a fact wrong in my entire article or comments.
That's what we call a "baseless attack."
You're 0 for 5.
Buh-bye.
I get the sense that you've
December 31, 2007 - 16:24 ET by fitzfongI get the sense that you've been carrying on your pathetic little defense of Mahony just to make yourself look interesting. You must figure that if you string this one out long enough you can make up for the fact that your previous LA Times/LA Archdiocese posts have drawn crickets rather than comments. You can delude yourself into thinking "ooh, I'm up to 18 comments, the world agrees with me that the Archdiocese is being persecuted by the LA Times".
1) "No. My beef is about the "disproportionate coverage" OVERALL on the issue. I've stated this for a while now."
Yes, and I've asked you REPEATEDLY what you propose should be done about it. Strangely, you've ducked that one every time. Why are you so afraid of answering that question? Is it that when faced with answering the question, you'll come to the realization that you have no argument whatsoever? That your basic premise that the LA Times is...and, no doubt, others are...persecuting Mahony, the Archdiocese and the Catholic Church over the sex scandal is a stretch, at best? To use the Letters to the Editor section as support for your ongoing complaint about the "overall disproportionate coverage" smacks of desperation. You're grasping at straws.
2) "Ah, yes. The ol' ad hominem."
Call 'em as I see 'em, Dave. What do you expect? You've set up a self-serving, arbitrary standard for what constitutes evidence because you must defend your position at all costs. Guess what? That does not entitle you to avoid having your motives questioned.
3) "In other words, there is no such thing as "the Keating report." YOU MADE IT UP. The guy's name appears nowhere on the list of authors of the report (pdf file). Question: Where did you come up with the name "the Keating report"?"
Are you so desperate to defend your weak position that you have to resort to seizing on a semantics issue for leverage? By the way, two can play the hair-splitting game...where do you draw the conclusion that I was suggesting by my use of the phrase "the Keating report" (small "r") that I was indicating the full, formal report? Of more importance is what Keating said and how Mahony reacted.
4) "I've heard that one, too. But what evidence is there of this? Where have you learned that?...Please explain to me how a bishop on the other side of the country gets someone "clipped" from an independent board of lay people that is very critical of how he mishandled the scandal."
Well, here's one, for starters: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89854,00.html
I don't know, Dave. Perhaps Mahony sent a message via Pony Express. When the mafia puts a hit on you, influence trumps distance. Who do you think ordered the Bugsy Siegel hit, the Beverly Hills mob? I don't see how Mahony's physical distance from where a board convenes is evidence that he had nothing to do with Keating's resignation/termination.
5) "I didn't "dismiss" anything. You charged that there was a "PR campaign" by "Mahoney's (sic) crew" of "victim intimidation," but you provided zero evidence. Your story alleges intimidation at the local level, but it doesn't doesn't even come close to providing proof of a "PR campaign" by the Archdiocese (your charge)."
Go ahead, continue to tie yourself in knots denying that the Archdiocese has not engaged in victim intimidation. I say it has engaged in victim intimidation, and I have only given you personal examples. Oh, but of course, the Archdiocese didn't hire Michael Sitrick, the self-discribed "Wizard of Spin" to engage in a PR Campaign. They must have had other, less obvious reasons for hiring him, I guess.
6) "You cannot provide a single example of where I've gotten a fact wrong in my entire article or comments."
Your article wasn't fact-based. It was a calculated whine designed to garner unearned sympathy for Roger Mahony, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Catholic Church over it's handling of the pedophile scandal. Sorry, man. No sale. Usually on this site, reasonable, well-intentioned people discuss issues of media bias on a whole range of subjects. The more interesting the author's take on the subject is, the more it will generate discussion, or at least comment. In the past, you have submitted articles that have generated much discussion and comment. But, in case you haven't noticed, your articles on the various permutations of the priest sex scandal have been the equivalent of the proverbial tree falling in the empty forest. Why? Well, for starters, most of the articles submitted are about right vs. left rather than right vs. wrong. Not only have you chosen a right vs. wrong discussion, you've chosen to stand up for the wrong side. Face it, Dave, this story is a dog. While we're on "0 for" baseball references, no one is reading or commenting on a perceived bias against the Archdiocese because the Archdiocese is unworthy of any such defense. Perhaps you should consider flogging these articles to the Tidings...if that outlet has a blog, I'm sure you'll generate a lot more sympathy there than you will here.
Happy New Year ...
December 31, 2007 - 22:43 ET by Dave Pierre1. "I get the sense that you've been carrying on your pathetic little defense of Mahony" ... blah, blah, blah
Unbelievable. You continue to outdo yourself with each post. Read my article. Where is the "defense of Mahony"? In fact, the name "Mahony" (or "Mahoney," as you say) appears nowhere in the article. I also wrote a couple of comments ago, "Have priests and church officials miserably failed and mishandled abuse allegations? Absolutely!"
You're a perfect example of someone who has a kneejerk reaction to criticism of media coverage of the scandal. Any such criticism of the media is immediately perceived by some as a "defense" of actions by bishops and priests. It isn't. (From my article: "As we've stated in the past, clerical abuse has wrecked real, damaging, and immeasurable harm upon numerous victims.") This is a criticism of media coverage, and my post is part of a larger context of several posts (linked at the end of the article) criticizing how the LAT has covered the church abuse scandal.
Again - you continue to make stuff up as you present more and more erroreous information.
2. As far as your "letters to the editor" beef, I'm willing to bet you'd feel differently if you saw a letter that was published from someone you knew to be an Archdiocean official, but it was simply signed, "Jim Whatever from Pasadena."
3. What can be done about the "disproportionate coverage"? It's obvious. They neeed to evaluate their coverage with honesty and equity and without bias. They should stop giving people like me the impression that it's not really the awful abuse and harm they care about, but it's who commits the abuse. Decades-old Catholic Church abuse in a remote village in Alaska gets several thousand words and prominent front-page coverage in the Times. Meanwhile, a substitute teacher in Southern California admits to molesting "100 to 200 girls" in 13 different school districts. (Coverage: Page B3) Yet the Times doesn't look in to this a little deeper as to how on earth this atrocity could happen in their own back yard? What do you think of that? (In some of the links at the end of my article, I elaborate on this a bit further.)
3. "I don't see how Mahony's physical distance from where a board convenes is evidence that he had nothing to do with Keating's resignation/termination."
Wha-? The burden is on you, who made the charge, to provide evidence that the Cardinal had Keating "clipped." You provided none.
Meanwhile, the evidence suggests nothing that reflects your claim. NY Times (6/17/03):
4. "Your article wasn't fact-based. It was a calculated whine ..."
Of course it was fact-based! I presented undisputable facts that the two letters were written from well-known activists on the issue.
You are wrong yet again.
... A "PR campaign" of "victim intimidation"? No evidence at all.
..."Keating report"? No such thing. It's not referred to that way in any mainstream press coverage. (The first report from the board was released in December 2003. Keating resigned six months earlier in June, and his name is nowhere on the list of authors.)
If there's one thing I've learned from this post, it's how misinformed some people have become on this issue.
Thanks.
"In fact, the name
January 1, 2008 - 03:14 ET by fitzfong"In fact, the name "Mahony" (or "Mahoney," as you say)..."
Geez, Dave. You sure know how to carry a grudge. I misspelled Mahony's name (admittedly more than once) on my first post only. You corrected me in your response. Since then, we've gone several rounds on this subject and I've spelled his name correctly time after time. A bit petty of you, don't you think?
I also wrote a couple of comments ago, "Have priests and church officials miserably failed and mishandled abuse allegations? Absolutely!"..."As we've stated in the past, clerical abuse has wrecked real, damaging, and immeasurable harm upon numerous victims.")
That is so boilerplate, it's not even funny. Why don't you add the standard "mistakes were made" euphemism to complete the set? This was not merely passive bumbling as your milquetoast acknowledgements would suggest, this was active corruption and obstruction of justice.
As far as your "letters to the editor" beef, I'm willing to bet you'd feel differently if you saw a letter that was published from someone you knew to be an Archdiocean official, but it was simply signed, "Jim Whatever from Pasadena."
No. I. Wouldn't. I'd consider the source and move on. Much as I know Todd Tamberg is a resident Archdiocesan apologist, I also know that he's a private citizen and has every right to submit a letter to the editor as a private citizen.
Meanwhile, a substitute teacher in Southern California admits to molesting "100 to 200 girls" in 13 different school districts. (Coverage: Page B3) Yet the Times doesn't look in to this a little deeper as to how on earth this atrocity could happen in their own back yard? What do you think of that?
If you track back to one of my earlier responses, I believe we were somewhere on the same page with this issue. The substitute teacher story has been egregiously under-reported. But using your proportionality argument, you seem to be making the leap that the priest sex scandal is over-reported. I accept that the substitute teacher scandal should be getting greater coverage, but that doesn't mean the Church scandal should be getting less attention.
By the way, the "misinformed" charge is reckless, ignorant and more than a bit self-serving. Your article was the classic "making a mountain out of a mole hill", knee jerk response. It's as if you were simply waiting to be offended by something...anything. When you were done grasping at straws, you ludicrously found something objectionable in a letters to the editor section of the LA Times. You really scraped the bottom of the barrel on this one, Dave, and it shows. But instead of accepting the fact that you made a big deal out of a nothing event, you had to compound the damage by digging your heels in and insisting that the Times was perpetrating some grave injustice...then accusing someone who doesn't buy into your blinkered interpretation of the facts as "misinformed". If you want to delude yourself into believing that the LA Times is persecuting the Archdiocese, by all means, you're entitled to your opinion. But as someone who has, among other things, attended Mass at the new Cathedral in the wake of the scandal...I'm in a pretty good position to comment on the attitude of the Cardinal and his subordinates with regard to this issue. For public consumption, they wring their hands over unspecified "failings"...expressing sympathy for "those who were affected". In reality, the victims are no more than a nuisance to be dealt with. I actually heard a priest suggest that victims felt they were entitled to large payoffs simply for having someone put his hands in their pockets. In the meantime, Mahony and his suited goons have been conducting damage limitation exercises to make the problems go away. I know he's got a lot to lose and may feel the need to be pragmatic...but he can't act the way he has and pretend to care about the victims. It simply doesn't reconcile. Happy New Year.
It's not just the LAT.
December 17, 2007 - 12:26 ET by mattmIt's not just the LAT. This happens in my area as well. I bet it's standard practice in every major newspaper in the country.
Hi mattm... You are
December 17, 2007 - 12:30 ET by bigtimerHi mattm...
You are correct.
Period.