Anderson writes from a perspective of pure paranoia, and tries only to inspire hatred. I'm not sure that that's better reporting than the Times offers. Consider these: "Mahony is a professional at this kind of manipulation..." "Los Angeles, where many powerful lawyers and judges belong to a political arm of the Catholic Church"... "His plan has exploited weakness in his opponents, the media and the court..." "more troubling are the judges who have protected both the Catholic Church..."

It would appear in Anderson's world that all of Los Angeles is one vast and well-organized Catholic conspiracy, where court and media and Church work in lockstep. Yet the Times and all other local media print Catholic-defamatory articles nearly every issue. Pretty funny how blind Anderson's axgrinding has made him to this fact.

The Times sidebar is mere gratuitous window-dressing. How much deeply probative reporting do you see on any religion in the Saturday paper? Even Moonies and Scientologists get a break on Saturday in most papers. But it is obvious that Anderson's primary beef is not with the Times, but with the faith itself. Catholicism to him is apparently not entitled to utilize PR firms and attorneys and other worldly trappings to defend itself from claims valid and spurious. Catholicism to him is not entitled to what all other religions, regardless of their peccadillos or their nuttiness, are entitled to: an occasionally sympathetic ear at the local fishwrap.

Reading Anderson, you would think the Catholic Church was not a hierarchical organization at all, but rather an in-power political party, a lawmaker that had actual police power in society and could effectuate any result it wanted. If that were remotely true, I doubt we'd have heard much about this scandal.

Make no mistake about it: those of us who are culturally Catholic were outraged by the extent of the practice of pedophilia in the Church, which was red meat for the media in 2002 and 2003, and carved up as such. But now two years later we are becoming more concerned about the ongoing open Catholic-bashing that angry, lapsed, or bigoted journalists continue to promulgate about the faith.

Just a semantic note: "now-defunct New Times" is not technically correct. If New Times is defunct, where do my paychecks come from?

The correct thing to say would be "now-defunct New Times Los Angeles." The New Times corporation is alive and well.

A nit-picky point, but if it were consistently correct I wouldn't have to explain this every time someone asks me what my job is.

Anderson seems to place great weight on a passage from a Mahoney e-mail which quotes Stammer as saying that "a lot of good has been done with the press and the media by doing the interview, and that he stands ready to help if we have a story we want to get out."

In my experience, cajoling and stroking the subject of a story in this way is commonplace. You want the subject to talk and you say things to encourage him to do so. I hear this kind of thing from reporters all the time, and I would be extremely surprised to learn that Anderson has never employed such tactics himself.

However, as evidence of a supposed bias on Stammer's part or intent to go soft on the Cardinal, the quoted remark strikes me as completely worthless.