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.)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.


















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Way to go!
June 15, 2007 - 07:37 ET by goldenthroatGreat job, LAT! Another fine example of left-coast, liberal yellow journalism!
The slogan of the LAT: "Our minds are made up - don't confuse us with the facts!"
Help control the game show host population by having Bob Barker spayed or neutered.
Endless examples... and yet
June 15, 2007 - 07:44 ET by Sergeant ROCKEndless examples... and yet the rabid left refers to FNC as faux news? Talk about projecting...
ROCK
June 15, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Six String SpiffROCK, Thats because the left are only capable of childish schoolyard BS. They are the ultimate hypocrites. If didn't know any better, I'd say there is a MSSM melt down coming very quickly. People are not going to tolerate being LIED to on a regular basis for much longer.
Ahhh... I understand the gi
June 15, 2007 - 08:35 ET by Sergeant ROCKAhhh... I understand the gist of your argument, BUT.. I would argue that the left prefers to be lied too! They are still in denial that's a left-wing bias and they prefer it that way. Trying to get a liberal to hear the truth and you always get the hands over the ears and the 'LA! LA! LA! LA!... I can't hear you!
How can you possibly blame th
June 15, 2007 - 08:51 ET by Mica the MagnificentHow can you possibly blame the LA Times for the fact that Cardinal Mahony wasn't archbishop in the '70's? Perhaps he was too young? - - - Joint liberal statement released with pride
LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!...
June 15, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Sergeant ROCKLA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!... I can't hear you!!!
Mahoney
June 15, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe they are implying he was a teacher.
Typical guilt by association from the left
June 15, 2007 - 10:32 ET by c5thenAlong with the false historical lie by implication. The goal is to tarnish anyone who has a different opinion than the left will tollerate (meaning other than their's) even if that means publishing false information.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic