I Had to Chuckle at Howard Kurtz 's Knowledge of the Vatican

Oh goodness. See Vatican's blame-the-media mode

He starts out:

I had to chuckle when a top Vatican official accused the New York Times of being in "attack mode" against Pope Benedict. I believe the proper term is reporting.

Then he says later

The Vatican has been in a bubble for so long that ordinary journalistic scrutiny feels like a smear. I believe the media in general have treated the Pope with appropriate respect, even as they raise troubling questions about his lack of past action against pedophile priests. When you carefully examine stories like those in the Times, they are carefully written and based on documents and interviews. They don't conclude that then-Cardinal Ratzinger looked the other way while abusive priests were transferred or went unpunished; the articles simply examine the circumstantial evidence, including correspondence sent to his office. ................

Rather than express remorse for these horrifying lapses, the church has adopted a blame-the-media strategy that has backfired and perpetuated the story. These news accounts are not "petty gossip"; they are deadly serious. .............

I like Kurtz but his beat is mostly politics not reporting on religious affairs. I have no idea about this bubble Kurtz is talking about . Outside the Beltway (yes there is a world outside it) in Italy the Vatican has to constantly deal with a very aggressive Italian Press. Yes there is a Press besides the Washington Post and the NYTs. In Italy the Vatican beat is huge and needless to say it is not all sunshine for the Vatican.

It does seem that many journalists are shocked that the Vatican fought back against two very misleading stories. It offered a defense. The Vatican also correctly called out the Press on NYT times story because it created in people's mind a false narrative.

Serious journalism does not do this. Serious newspapers do not have the snarky Maureen Dowd publish the screeds she did if they viewed this a serious issue.

Serious journalism in a major NYT Op-Ed that ran the same day does not SLANDER Cardinal Egan with no evidence.

Serious journalism does not have at the Washington Post a controversial singer give the main Op Ed on this issue.

The Church needs the scrutiny. But there is a difference in that and what the NYT did last week.