As we reported a couple days ago, when a veteran middle-school teacher in nearby Santa Monica pleaded guilty last month to "multiple counts of illegal sex acts" and molesting nine young girls, the Los Angeles Times didn't print a single syllable about it in their paper. Not one. The teacher was sentenced to 14 years in state prison. Although the Times had reported the teacher's original arrest and some follow-up last May and June, the story of the teacher's guilty plea and sentencing only made it to the paper's blog.
Now look at the front page of today's Times' 'California' B section (Sat. 1/31/09). Prominently displayed on the top of the page are two color photos related to the sentencing yesterday (1/30/09) of a former Catholic priest. (The on-line edition shows only one photo; the print edition displays two, including one of the back of the victim.) Indeed, the abuse reported by the victims is terribly awful and sad. ("My family trusted you to teach me the ways of the Lord, not the ways of hell," one of the victims, now in his 30s, told Miller in a trembling voice.) However, it's not hard to not notice that the reported abuse took place 20 years ago, and Cardinal Mahony moved to defrock the man (successfully) a number of years ago.
As we've reported several times before (see below), the Times constantly appears to ignore or downplay current-day sex abuse scandals involving teachers and school districts, but trumpet cases that involve decades-old episodes of abuse by Catholic priests.
It's the awful abuse of children that should anger the Times and everyone, not just the job title of the perpetrator. Does anyone really think that the Times would have minimized the story of that sentenced child molester in Santa Monica if the man had the word "priest" in his job title? Of course not.
Double ... standard ... again.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
Previous (partial list):
LAT Minimizes School Sex Scandals But Trumpets Flimsy Story on Cardinal Mahony (NB, 1/30/09)
Not the Catholic Church? (Part III): LAT Misses Further Sex Abuse Charges Against School Aide (NB, 10/26/08)
Not the Catholic Church? (Part II): L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal Continues To Grow; Where's the MSM? (NB, 9/22/08)
Not the Catholic Church? MSM Mum About Huge L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal (NB, 5/19/08)
LA Times Admits To False Reporting On Cardinal Mahony (NB, 6/15/07)
After Bogus Attack, Catholic Charities Debunks LA Times Columnist (NB, 2/25/07)
LA Times Slammed For Two Faulty Articles, 'Insulting To All Catholics' (NB, 4/1/07)
In This Case, Headline In LA Times Unfair To Cardinal Mahony (NB, 12/2/06)
LA Times Goes to Texas, Alaska Seeking Church Abuse Scandals (NB, 9/5/06)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My wife works for the local
January 31, 2009 - 21:38 ET by rbosqueMy wife works for the local district here in L.A. County. She tells me there are many other incidents that never get reported and others that conveniently fade away. The teacher's union's make sure they don't hit the papers.
Still ignoring the 75 and charged 10 counts
January 31, 2009 - 22:32 ET by klchadwickWhile I personally condemn ANY acts such as these, it seems that the LAT is being very selective in their reporting....STILL.
Santa Monica middle school teacher = 9 girls
Cardinal Mahoney = 35 (?) accusers from 20 years ago (which doesn't make it acceptable)
BUT...
Illinois middle school teacher = 10 counts of possession of child pornography AND admits to molesting over 75 boys!
Once again, why is IL being ignored? One more spot on the home state of "The One"?
Remember, people
February 1, 2009 - 10:29 ET by moderncommentaries83If Catholic priests could marry, and if women could be Catholic priests, none of the abuse in Catholic Churches/schools would have happened!
Oh, wait...teachers can get married and women can be teachers. Which kind of throws the media template (that the Catholic abuse is due to our "sexist" policies) out the window, doesn't it?
So, naturally, they can't really report the facts about teacher abuse because, hey, people might figure out that the public school systems - not just in LA, but across the nation - are abusing children in far greater numbers than the Catholic Church.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but schools are pretty much immune from lawsuits related to such conduct, right? Meanwhile, priests and bishops who caused all those problems 10, 20, 30 years ago are having their former churches and dioceses sued almost out of existence.
The thing I don't get is that the media (and liberals in general) love sex and will think of pretty much any excuse to allow it. Heck, they even splashed headlines and lead stories about Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau and their "love story"...keeping in mind that it started when Letourneau sexually abused Fualaau when he was 13 years old. She was 34 at the time.
Heck, even her Wikipedia entry takes a slam at conservatives: it says she's the daughter of "a Roman Catholic congressman" and a "homemaker and anti-feminist activist." So clearly, her parents are to blame for her sexual deviancy.
And, naturally, groups like NAMBLA get a pass from the media, too. So some sex - even abuse - is okay if it's "politically correct."
What steps will schools take to protect children? Other than platitudes and lip-service to "programs"? Meanwhile, Catholic dioceses throughout the US are implementing programs to detect and prevent abuse, and working toward eliminating candidates from seminary that are more likely to abuse.
But that won't be enough. And seeing as most of the abusers within the Catholic Church were gay men, thereby meaning fewer gay men will be admitted to the seminary, the day will come when the Church is not attacked for the abuse, but for doing something to prevent it in the future.
We will be punished for closer scrutiny of who desires to become a priest. Schools won't be held to the same standard.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
→ Don't start
February 1, 2009 - 10:35 ET by Cool ArrowIf Catholic priests could marry, and if women could be Catholic priests, none of the abuse in Catholic Churches/schools would have happened!
Do we really need to entertain this comment so early on a Sunday Morning?
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
That's the media template
February 1, 2009 - 12:10 ET by moderncommentaries83If you read a majority of these stories and/or op ed pieces on the abuse, the basic argument that always comes back to light is that the reason there was abuse in the Catholic Church is because of the "oppressive" rules concerning the all-male, celibate priesthood.
In other words, many in the media argue (poorly) that if the Catholic Church allowed priests to marry (or, more accurately, have sex) and allowed women to be priests, there wouldn't have been a sexual abuse scandal.
Of course, stories of abuse from public schools, other denominations, and the population at large disprove the notion that the all-male celibate priesthood is to blame for the abuse, because women can be teachers and teachers can marry.
But the media never notices their willful ignorance of such matters...
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Double standard largely based on gay politics
February 1, 2009 - 10:43 ET by nkviking75Liberals point out that religious figures espouse certain moral standards on sex, and when they violate them, that makes them hypocrites. Religious people are also the major force opposing special rights for gays, especially gay "marriage". Thus, every moral failure by a religious figure must be given maximum exposure in order to discredit their opposition to the gay movement.
The teachers union is a driving force for liberalism and gay rights, so when teachers mess up, the incidents are either covered up or minimalized.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
viking
February 1, 2009 - 10:48 ET by choselife3xExcellent point!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
No only that, but liberals
February 1, 2009 - 11:13 ET by motherbeltNo only that, but liberals don't espouse any standards, so they can't be hypocrites for violating them!
Nice how that works out, huh?
And your problem is . . . ?
February 1, 2009 - 13:13 ET by 1611LilacLadySetting aside the lack of coverage of today's teachers abusing their children for a moment . . .
That man, former priest that he is, WAS a priest when he abused his victims. It matters NOT that it was 30 years ago. There were pedophile priests then . . and there are now. And frankly, though the RC hierarchy may have defrocked that wicked man, that didn't take away his being a pedophile.
Coverage of pedophiles, of any sort, is right.
Lack of coverage of any sort is wrong.
Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil. . . KJV
When you put th3 clowns in charge....
February 1, 2009 - 17:02 ET by wotsiznamewotsizname Who's in charge of the schools? The best teachers? Hah! In socialized education THE POLITICIANS ARE IN CHARGE. THAT'S what's wrong with the schools. And the farther they are from the classroom, the bigger mess they make. (See U.S. Dept of Ed., etc.) Education professors, who don't necessarily know about teaching young people, and the school superintendents and principals who don't teach anybody anything, didn't like being teachers and tell teachers how to teach, all look down on teacher-practitioners who know how. Give the teachers a school to run by themselves and watch it bloom. (I know, we need building, district, state and federal politicians to tell them how!)