New York Magazine (mildly) critiqued the journalism of the Times for its anti-Vatican vendetta journalism. Because Cardinal Levada bashed the Times for its dishonest and malicious attacks on the Holy Father, the Times turned its cheeky ire on His Eminence, deciding to give him a slap, too. But the slap was bit spastic:
Still, the article features a couple of vague sentences coming from the Times (and not sources) like this: “Cardinal Levada often did not act as assertively as he could have on abuse cases.” That sounds like an editorial value judgment (in addition to being a meaningless sentence — Marines at war could be described as “not acting as assertively as they could have”). It’s a sense that is heightened by bitchy asides like this: “Cardinal Levada did not respond to requests for comment. Jeffrey Lena, a lawyer in Berkeley, Calif., who is representing the Holy See in lawsuits, said the cardinal had not been given enough time to respond to a list of questions submitted to him 10 days ago.” And that’s on top of the “What, me worry?” candid picture of Levada that the paper is running on their website. When the Times has been repeatedly accused of bias by the Vatican, it might be better to take extra care to avoid little indulgences like these.
