The New York Times as a religion
"In my house growing up,” says the newly appointed editor of the New York Times, “the Times substituted for religion. If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal takes that remarkable quotation as the basis for his argument that the Times is now acting like a corrupt religious institution, unwilling to admit error and zealous of protecting its own institutional prerogatives.
Let’s not get carried away… from what I understand that part of her statement was deleted from the final story:D
The newspaper-as-religion trope immediately set right-wing ideologues seething, all the confirmation they needed that the “Valhalla” (Abramson’s word) of godless lefties was in the hands of … a godless lefty. Suspicion grew when the Times cut the “religion” quote from the final version of its story on the management change. Source
Do you really think that she was arguing theologically? Or might it have been hyperbole?
But, never mind. I consider it the best newspaper in the world, read it daily, and don’t see a real rival to it except perhaps the WSJ. That said, I’m sure you read the paper you believe to be the best.
Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice it seems to me in America. If the same comments that were made about Catholic religious figures were aimed at Rabbis, immams or Dali Lamas there would be widespread outrage.
… Open Season on the ChurchBy Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. Open Season on the Church
Inflated, often baseless charges go unanswered and so appear to many to be true
Well, we’ve reached it at last: it’s now officially open season for shooting at Catholic priests. Almost every day now we are treated to new distortions, straight-out lies and manipulations by the media. Some of them are simply vicious — nearly rabid! The New York Times, to no surprise, leads the pack.
… Anti-Catholicism and the New York TimesBy Patrick J. Buchanan
“Anti-Catholicism,” said writer Peter Viereck, “is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual.” It is “the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people,” said Arthur Schlesinger Sr.
If there was any doubt that hatred of and hostility toward the Catholic Church persists, it was removed by the mob that has arisen howling “Resign!” at Pope Benedict XVI.
You are the one saying that they are presenting falsehoods; I see it as presenting their own opinions - which may or may not line up with “the facts.” I would stand up for a right wing columnist as well, allowing him or her to assert their own opinions whether I agree with them or not.
The same opinion held by Abp. Dolan, Fr. Groschel etc., backed up by facts and not seeking to exonerate the New York Times’ anti-Catholicism based on article from the sports page, fashion page etc…
Those clerics have a perfect right to say or believe what they want - and to let us know what they believe about the NYT. And, even to the extent that the NYT Editorial page is no friend of the Catholic Church, what do you want Catholic Americans to do about it? Shut them down? There is a 1st Amendment BTW.
I read the Times and the WSJ daily. I make up my own mind, weighing what each says and taking into account the prejudices of each. Fr. Groschel et al may do the same. And, if you can’t bring yourself to read the Times, that’s fine - read what you will.
Maureen Dowd went into attack mode in an editorial based on the content of the purported “news” story in the NYT. Other publications rightly criticized the NYT.
Dowd’s Pope Attack ‘Is False’
Maureen Dowd’s fiery Wednesday column is drawing plenty of attention–not all of it good. Critics say that in denouncing Pope Benedict and calling for his replacement–preferably with a female–Dowd may have gone too far. The New York Daily News editorial board argues that some of her claims were downright false. John McCormack at The Weekly Standard expanded on the Daily News’s response, saying Dowd “libels” the pope.
The Times is anti-Catholic smut. I don’t read anti-Catholic smut.