The Pope speaks 'for the first time'-- yet again
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 11, 2010
Addressing the sex abuse crisis for the first time from the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness on Friday…
That's the opening line of a New York Times report on the Pope's homily during the closing Mass of the Year for Priests. Did your jaw drop as you read it?
Addressing the sex abuse crisis for the first time…
What? What?!! How many times in the last several weeks has the Holy Father addressed this topic? How could the Times-- which has micro-analyzed every papal statement-- convey the notion that the June 11 remarks were his first? USA Today, reacting to the same remarks, accurately conveyed the idea that we've heard the apologies before-- many times-- with the headline query:
Will Pope Benedict's apologies for abuse crisis ever be enough?
Addressing the sex abuse crisis for the first time from the seat of the Roman Catholic Church [emphasis added]
So he wasn't really addressing the issue for the first time at all. He was addressing it for the first time under these particular circumstances.
Ah. Now I understand. Using the same logic, I can safely say that I am herewith criticizing the biased coverage of the New York Times for the first time. The first time today, that is.
If you read the sports pages regularly, every now and then you'll see a headline announcing that a local baseball star "broke the strikeout record." Read the story carefully, and you learn that the reality is more mundane than the headline suggests: the hometown hero only broke the record for left-handed pitchers…under 22 years old… in a day game… on a Tuesday… west of the Mississippi.
Why do sports-page editors write such overblown headlines? Because they want to create some excitement about the pitcher's performance. And why does the Times begin its story with such a misleading sentence? Because the paper wants to create the impression that Pope Benedict has been tardy in addressing the sex-abuse scandal.
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: wolfdavef3415 -
Jun. 12, 2010 12:30 AM ET USA
They changed the story, by the way.
Posted by: Chestertonian -
Jun. 11, 2010 10:06 PM ET USA
The NYT doesn't have to stoop so low; it shouldn't be stooping at all, and wouldn't be in financial straits if it would only straighten up--excuse the pun. I have no sympathy for them, as they're reaping what they've sown, and apparently would rather plow it under than use good seed instead of weeds.
Posted by: wolfdavef3415 -
Jun. 11, 2010 2:53 PM ET USA
Wow, flushed the head of the nail in one stroke. It is absurd that the 'paper of record' has to stoop so low.