Sunday, October 25, 2009

Maureen Dowd: the Glen Beck of the New York Times

Maureen Dowd makes Glen Beck look sober, moderate and thoughtful by comparison. In this column she displays monumental ignorance, takes cheap shots at the pope that would not be out of place in a Chick Publications tract, speculates about "right-wing" Anglicans coming into the Church as part of some sort of plot instead of an ecumenical initiative and then tops it all off by suggesting that the Church hates women and wants American nuns to go back into the cloister.

Charles Lewis has written a calm and reasonable piece in the National Post that puts Dowd's apocalyptic rantings in perspective and answers some of her base accusations arising out of anti-Catholic prejudice and hate. He concludes as follows:
"By all means, Ms. Dowd, be angry if you feel that is warranted. But somehow
your readers deserve something more than Dan Brown paranoia hiding behind the
name of a prestigious newspaper."

Memo to M. Dowd: When someone associates you with Dan Brown, that is not a compliment.

Where in the world does the New York Times dig up such people to write opinion columns? Whys is someone as ignorant of the subject of religion allowed to spout off on theological and ecumenical issues she does not understand? Why is it OK to reduce the complexities of life to a straight-forward Feminst/Marxist, good versus evil, innocent female dominated by angry patriarchialist analysis where everything, especially theology, is merely a function of feminist ideology? And if that is OK, how is Glenn Beck worse, except that his views are the opposite of the liberal establishment? And, finally, is it any wonder the New York Times is sinking below the waves?

The newspaper of record sets new records for narrow-minded, ideological-motivated, fatually innaccurate drivel.

Father Z. gives Dowd's hit-piece the fisking it deserves here.


Peter Dunn said...

It strikes me that you take for granted that your readers will think that Glen Beck is an extremist of some sort. I've watched a couple of Beck shows (I don't have TV so I have to watch this on purpose on the youtube). He is, to be sure, emotional and opinionated. But he seems pretty mainstream to me, at least for the US--I grew up in the US, so perhaps for Canadian, he seems too over the top. The Jack Chick comparison is a bit more apt.

Consider this: Beck's attack on Anita Dunn (thankfully, no relation to me that I know of) has been proportionate to the outrageous things that she said, Mao being coupled with Mother Theresa as her two favorite political philosophers!! Where on earth does Obama find these people!

Stephen said...

Beck is a racist, homophobic, xenophobe of the most disgusting kind.

Peter Dunn said...

Stephen: Such ad hominem attacks have no value in discussion. You have done nothing to change my view of Beck, and your outburst has the effect of destroying the usefulness of this dialogue.

Stephen said...

Ad hominem was used by Jesus and Paul for the most disgusting of people. I'll use it too. Glen Beck is a viper.

Craig Carter said...

Glenn Beck seems to be pretty as much far right as you can get and my point was only that the NYT is as far from the center as he is. To think of the NYT as a balanced news source and Fox as extreme is to have a curiously slanted view of the world. That was my point.

On the other hand, I have no particular interest in attacking Glenn Beck. I do believe that the reason he has been targeted by the Left is that he has exposed the loony left radicals in the Obama administration and thus embarrassed the left. More power to him on that front.

Some conservatives think (overly defensively) that it is a terrible thing to have an element of the conservative movement that is extreme, but the alternative is for the mainstream of conservativism to be regarded as extreme. The hand wringing by the Rod Drehers and David Frums of the world over talk radio and Glenn Beck making all conservatives look bad is a bit silly, in my view. Obama and Clinton seem to survive even with the Al Sharptons and Keith Olbermann of the world making the left look loony. In fact, they (the loons) give the more "moderate" leftists room to be mainstream (my earlier point in reverse.)

So I neither believe everything Glenn Beck ill, not do I wish that he were silenced. When populism is stomped out as a political force, the results will be negative for society as a whole.

Peter Dunn said...

Stephen: Paul and Jesus did not simply name call, but they gave well-reasoned arguments for their positions. Your response is reflexive and without support. I brought up a single point in defense of Glen Beck: he was critical of Anita Dunn because she is a great fan of Mao, a man responsible for killing between 30,000,000-60,000,000 Chinese citizens. Mao also fought a war against the US in which over 50,000 Americans perished. I prefer the white guy who would defend Asians as having a right to life, over the white woman who does not seem to be at all moved by the death of millions of Asians.

Craig: Thanks for the clarifications.

Mo MoDo said...

Maureen Dowd is reporter and columnist who has won a Pulitzer Prize. There is nothing factually incorrect in her column. That she feels the Catholic Church, of which she is a life-long member, marginalizes the roles of women seems like a perfectly defensible opinion.

Glenn (two n's) Beck on the other hand is a former disc jockey turned demagogue who has never denied raping and killing a young girl in 1990. Not that I believe he really did it. He has just never rebutted the charge.

Peter Dunn said...

Pulitzer Prize is a liberal award given to liberal journalists for writing liberal articles; no conservatives need apply. This is also true of the Nobel Peace Prize. To accuse falsely a person of a crime is called libel and it is actionable. The libelous line from MoDo should be removed.