Posted on 06/15/2007 6:31:40 AM PDT by lowbridge
Posted by Dave Pierre on June 15, 2007 - 08:25.
Check out the very first line from this June 7, 2007, article in the Los Angeles Times (emphasis mine):
A judge Wednesday ordered Cardinal Roger M. Mahony to testify in a lawsuit alleging that he failed to protect parishioners from a pedophile teacher, but then granted the Los Angeles cleric's request for a trial delay.
Now check out this whopper of a correction from the Times on June 13, 2007 (emphasis mine again):
For the Record
Clergy abuse: An article in Thursday's California section about Cardinal Roger M. Mahony being ordered to testify in a lawsuit said the suit alleged that he failed to protect parishioners from Paul Kreutzer, a pedophile teacher. In fact, the suit accuses the Archdiocese of Los Angeles of failing to protect parishioners from abuse by Kreutzer between 1974 and 1976. Mahony did not become archbishop until September 1985 and is not named in the suit.
Wow. In other words, a central fact of the June 7 article, that Cardinal Mahony himself is being directly charged in this lawsuit for failing to protect parishioners from a pedophile, is completely false!
What is going on at the Times in its coverage of the church abuse scandal? It was only two-and-a-half months ago that the Archdiocese responded to two faulty articles that the Times had published in covering the scandal. (One of which contained faulty info regarding Cardinal Mahony. Read about that here.) (In addition, we have published here, here, here, here, here, here, and here about unfair, biased, and/or inaccurate reporting regarding Church issues.)
The Times staffer who authored the two faulty articles from March and the one we've mentioned here is a guy by the name of John Spano. In light of Spano's established record of misinformation, is it too much to recommend to the Times that they assign another reporter to this important story?
(By the way, in doing a Google search on Spano, I came across this interesting tidbit of information. It appears John Spano is married to a woman Episcopal rector, The Rev'd Susan Webster Klein. Feel free to discuss the relevance (if any) of this.)
The only reason, in my opinion, why the LA Times issued a correction is because this time their lie was way too easy to expose.
And how does the “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE” provide for the proper handling of LYING AND FRAUD in the MSM ??? (that was a joke, of course).
This is a stupid one by LA Times. There is so much more that Mahoney has done to shame Catholics in Los Angeles.
The guy is extremely dirty.
I’m no fan of Cardinal Mahony, but this doesn’t reach the standard of libel?
LOL! That’s a keeper.
I think that one has to prove intent to lie in order to win a libel case. The LA Times can just say in their defense, "hey, it was an accident", and they get off scott free.
bump
bump
bump
There are enough facts floating around about Phoney Mahony that papers don’t need to be making this kind of mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.