The New York Times And The Gospel Truth
By Robert Knight
February 22, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Are there any editors at The New York Times who still insist on checking facts? Rosen should apologize not only to Concerned Women for America but to the Times editors who trusted him enough to run his piece.
My guess is that most Times editors wouldn't think of challenging Rosen's assertion because they share his prejudices. It probably made perfect sense to them. Conservative Christians did not become "stock characters" because of balanced coverage.
Rosen's main thesis is that everybody should run to the center, and stop worrying so much about nasty issues like abortion and gay rights. He cites several conservatives that he says "have performed a service lately by denouncing the GOP's pact with such authoritarian bullies."
Those sweet CWA ladies sure are scary. By the way, one of those "observers on the right" that Rosen names is Andrew Sullivan, the blogger/activist who insists that God approves of promiscuous homosexual behavior, all evidence aside.
Rosen takes some leftists to task for insisting on their own orthodoxies, but in his list of "luminaries" he includes Peter Singer of Princeton, who argues that parents should have a week to decide whether they want to kill a baby after it is born. Singer is also floating the idea that it's perfectly moral for humans to have sex with animals.
Remember, it isn't the Singers of this world we're supposed to fear, it's the CWA ladies. We know because we saw it in The New York Times.
----------
Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute (www.cultureandmediainstitute.org), a division of the Media Research Center.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA. >> Back -- Page 1 2
++ Discuss this topic in The Forum
Current rating:  2.5 out of 5.0 (4 total votes)
| 
