Friends of the Groom?
By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 22, 2003
Jeff Miller raises the question of why the media have developed a stutter in reporting on the world's most notorious p-p-p-p- entertainer.
Looking at the headlines on Michael Jackson it is interesting that the word pedophile is never used in connection with him. Google News returns about 8,000 stories on Michael Jackson and they use molestation and 0 stories with the terms Michael Jackson and pedophile. The terms priest and pedophile turns up 70 stories over the last couple of days.
Personally I think the term pedophile almost always darkens counsel -- it's one of those words that, as Flannery O'Connor said, have "a private meaning and a public odor" -- but just as the media did not spare us details about the boys left bleeding after sundry priests "entertained" them, neither were they bashful about using the P-word of clergymen. Why should Michael Jackson get a pass? Perhaps we might find a clue here.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($30,504 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: marysprayerss -
Nov. 23, 2003 8:48 PM ET USA
Strangely enough on my way to Mass this morning I was caught off guard by a newspaper box containing one of the area Hispanic newspapers. I don't speak Spanish, but I now find that the "p" word is easy to translate from Spanish into English! It was in huge headline print, next to a huge picture of Michael Jackson. So, somebody's not afraid! Of course, he hasn't been tried yet, so we are bound to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Posted by: -
Nov. 22, 2003 2:29 PM ET USA
Oh it goes beyond merely association with the liberal media establishment. The liberal media have no problem with pedophilia, just the same as they have no problem with abortion and no problem with homosexuality. There isn't a single perversion that, given time, the New York Times won't embrace. But they know that we don't tolerate those things. When a large number (not percentage) of our priests and bishops turned out to be criminals, it was a target of opportunity. Now they're back on message