…they noted it will be the first since the scandal broke.

No mention on the lack of press conferences by the president over the last nine months. Then again both Norah O’Donnell and Chuck Todd defended the president on Chris Matthews show this weekend so it is not much of a surprise.

I wonder if they will hit Bruce Springsteen over his affair. I don’t know how many of Tigers women were married.

…they had a shot.

Then they went after the pope and lost me at once. This pope already stepped up to the plate on this and anyone who has followed the scandals for years would know this. I suspect they still haven’t read the links I provided yet.

The MSM has to remember they are not the only source of information anymore and anyone who is you know actually informed isn’t going to fall for this crap.

Update: Of course they aren’t questioning the NYT because unlike bloggers they have layers of fact checkers.

Update 2: The gullibility of the NYT makes Hot air’s headlines. Will it make the MSM’s anytime soon?

Update 3: And here are some interesting numbers care of POWIP

…it would be necessary to invent him:

By using the word “regime,” Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase “Bush regime” from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn’t get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. “I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,”

York document’s Matthews deep distress at the use of the word “regime” and how it so bothered him, then of course finds over 6000 uses during the Bush years including this gem:

Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

the left’s abiding belief that people on the right are so foolish that they don’t know how to do a google, Nexis search nor our ability to see video tape never ceases to amaze me.

The are so used to the concept that they are the gatekeepers that mere mortals like ourselves could not possibly catch them beclowning themselves.

Update: And of course Glenn saw this early this morning, He must type like lightning!

…and the Three Stooges on WSBK.

Moe Larry & Curley win every time, at least the stooges unlike Friedman are only pretending to be fools.

Update: Anna Marie Cox compares Code Pink to the tea parties with a straight face on Reliable Sources, David “I’m the only true conservative” Frum and Craig Crawford of don’t call her on it and of course Howie Kurtz doesn’t either.

It takes a certain amount of ignorance and dishonesty to make this comparision, it is this combination of errors that have caused CNN’s audience…
…and of course they are going to play up the NYT Pope stuff, I’m torn between the desire to just listen to my Tom Bakers and to see if he challenges the Times at all (HA).

Update 2: Well the panel will be the reporter from the times and Sally Quinn! Absolutely no chance of anything truthful here, time for Tom Baker. Enjoy last place CNN.

…the press didn’t have a lot of objections to “blow Jobs“:

The White House is working hard to secure deals that yield fluffy, feel good commentary about the Obama White House. One American White House reporter used colorful terms to describe the arrangement. The reporter said, “They want ‘blow jobs’ first [in the press sense]. Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access.”

When you sell yourself for a living It just becomes a matter of haggling.

You just knew Robert Stacy was going to have fun with this didn’t you and Ann Althouse and the Mudville Gazette comment, but it is Ed Driscoll who asks the important question:

Considering the near-monolithically favorable coverage that Obama received on the campaign trail from the inside the Beltway crowd, to equally gushing coverage after The One won the gig, how gushing does the hagiography have to get before it qualifies for B.J.-level “journalism” in the White House’s jaundiced eyes?

MSM you have no business complaining, you did this to yourselves.

Funny you should ask via Fr. Z links to an article at the LOGIA that describes themselves as a quarterly journal of Lutheran theology in it John Stephenson looks at the attacks on the Pope and has this to say:

The secular press has had it in for Joseph Ratzinger for going on three decades. Before his election as Pope in the spring of 2005, he was routinely derided in his homeland as the Panzerkardinal (“tank cardinal”) and caricatured in North America as the “Enforcer” or even the “Rottweiler.” The roots of this negative reputation stretch back at least as far as the book-length interview he granted to the Italian journalist Vittorio Messori that catapulted him to global fame when published as The Ratzinger Report in 1985. Prior to that juncture, as a heavyweight German academic who had leapfrogged over a major episcopal see (Munich-Freising) to become a leading official in the Roman curia (as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) under the still new John Paul II, Ratzinger’s was hardly a household name.

But shrewd observers must wonder about the startling disproportion between the enormous hue and cry artificially whipped up by the media and the softly spoken real life figure who seems always to have avoided hyperbole like the plague.

Let me reiterate that this is from a Lutheran journal. A denomination that refers to the Roman Catholic Church as, in the words of one Lutheran priest: “that institution that is rightly labeled as Antichrist in our Lutheran Confessions”. How bad must things be if the media has these guys defending the Pope? They have their own issues, big ones, yet they have at least eyes enough to see this for what it is. Here is the big finish:

As Easter of 2010 approaches, though, if for no other reason than that we remember Martin Niemöller’s post-war regret at not having spoken up for the Jews in due season, we might fitly major in sympathy, understanding, and prayer for the courteous and learned aged prelate who is right now a walking target for innumerable hellish darts launched by theological Modernists and by the unbelieving world that have between them zero tolerance for any crisp, clear, and confident confession of Christ Jesus our Incarnate God.

If any protestant church proclaiming Christ thinks that the media is their friend their errors are more than simply theological.

Exit question for professed Christians: Do you think it is an accident that the Roman Catholic Church is primary target of the secular media? And if it is not what does that say about the Church as opposed to other denominations that do not seem so worthy of their scorn?

Although I have and will continue to hit back at those maliciously attacking the Church in General and the Pope in particular, none of this changes our obligation to pray for these people and to keep them in our prayers.

If we fail to do so, we fail as Christians in general and Catholics in particular

I would really like to see what “experts” are saying the Catholic Church is in turmoil. It is not for nothing that the story has a big correction at its head.

I submit that cafeteria Catholics and the media are seeing and trying to make turmoil where it doesn’t exist. As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio… said

called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”

Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”

via Brutally Honest.

If the media bothered to look they would notice the huge attendance at events like the Catholic men’s conference among Catholics who actually believe and attend mass.

If Catholicism is so weak why was such a fuss made when dissenting nuns supported it? If Catholic opinion doesn’t matter why fund pseudo Catholic groups? In my opinion it is no coincidence that the scandals that struck the church were at their height as the church walked away from traditional practices.

I would suggest going to the Anchoress site and reading the whole thing as opposed to say Morning Joe trumpeting the BS class action case against the pope is a great example of this nonsense propagating the “big lie“:

Which brings us to Crimen sollicitationis. The document was crafted to ensure that if a Catholic were solicited to commit a sexual sin by a priest while going to confession, he or she could denounce that priest without being exposed to public scandal. Sinead O’Connor (and many, many others who have been flogging this particular Big Lie) have it precisely backwards. Crimen sollicitationis was not written to protect sexually abusive priests from punishment; it was written to enable the Church to get to the truth about predatory priests without embarrassing their victims or breaking the seal of confession. In fact, the protections required by Crimen sollicitationis encouraged victims of abuse to come forward. By requiring secrecy of the bishop and priests who handled any complaint about a priest-confessor who was a sexual predator, the Church tried to protect the confidentiality of the confessional and the privacy of the victim, not to prevent the crime from being reported to the police by the victim, who was never under any obligation of secrecy. The appropriate analogy is not to some Mafia-like international criminal conspiracy, but to the secrecy of those newspapers that choose not to print the names of rape victims.

The ignorance of American Catholics concerning their own faith in criminal, ironically foes of the church are using that ignorance to allow the former Bishops in Milwaukee to pass onto the pope their responsibility for turning a blind eye to their own problems.

Any Catholic who uses the New York Times in general and Maureen Dowd in particular as a source for their opinion of their church has real problems. Perhaps if they talked to the actual priest who served as the Judicial Vicar in the Milwaukee case they might learn something, oh sorry the NYT didn’t bother to even ask for an interview.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My suggestion to Mika and Barnicle is to read the whole thing until they have done so their comments on the case are simply uninformed gibberish. Perhaps they should try talking to or interviewing Fr. Thomas Brundage themselves before they jump on the Dowd bandwagon.

Update: I of course meant the “Dowd” bandwagon rather than the “Down” in the last sentence. I’ve corrected it.

…something we mentioned last night at the Twin City Tea Party:

* 1) Do not allow yourself or another Tea Partier to be taunted or provoked into saying or doing anything that could be interpreted as racist or violent. Always be civil and act intelligently. You never know when you are being recorded.
* 2) Take a video camera with you and record the faces of anyone instigating or participating in any such incidences so that they can be identified later.

Remember we will be defined by the media by our least flattering picture.