In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama observed that the media simplify and amplify. This is independent of any particular bias. But any over-simplification or amplification of a negative story-line would have the same effect as bias, regardless of the intent of the media.

Beyond being totally morally un-equivalent and historically foolish, comparing any anti-Catholic media bias there might be to anti-Semitism is just stupid, stupid PR, and further evidence of how little the RCC gets it.
It doesn’t matter if there is bias or not. The abuses were real, the cover-up was real and widespread, the knee-jerk defensiveness and changing the subject is real, and as Archbishop Martin said, “The response was hopelessly inadequate.”
The appropriate response at this point is confession and repentance.

Instead of worrying so much about the “vile anti-Catholic media,” the RCC should be more concerned about vile, pedophile priests.

Complete agree with Travis.
My intuition is that if you constructed a similar hypothetical scenario involving another organization (Boy Scouts, public schools, etc.), both the media’s coverage and the public reaction would be more severe, not less severe, than it has been regarding this story. It certainly wouldn’t be any less intense.

“the media” is a bit of a broad stroke. It’s hard to even answer a question like that when a phrase like “the media” is used becuase it covers such a massive conglomerate of organizations and people.

I’m curious: does anybody know how many cases of pedophilia have been confirmed? One would be bad enough, but I’m just curious as to how many suits have been filed, and how many cases have been confirmed.
I don’t know if there is a bias or not, but I strongly suspect that there is one. The popular media in general finds the RCC archaic, out-of-touch, and hypocritical, and I think that this is rather obvious. Some of it is deserved, some of it is just sensational (and as Dan Brown and the New Atheism have found, good for book sales). I personally don’t like it, but without a public confession or any visible change (that I know of) in the filtering of priests, who can really be blamed for criticizing. The fact is: any instance of pedophilia is a tragedy, and it instantly raises outrage. All the more if the people who are guilty have taken a vow of celibacy, teach sexual purity, and are ordained to preach God’s word.

Taylor @ #5: I think “the media,” even in a general sense- be it cartoon shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons, books like The God Delusion or The Da Vinci Code (and the movies that followed), or newspapers and news agencies might all to varying degrees be guilty of bias (might be- again, I don’t know if I can say with any certainty). The media is a reflection of the broader culture, and an expression of that culture. The question is, whether through personal experience or objective observation, do you see this bias in society today, with its most pertinent and powerful expression in “the media”? It is a broad stroke as the media is a broad coalition of television, books, magazines and newspapers, but does that make it an ineffective “brush stroke”? Can possible bias not be seen in all of the agencies? I think in the Western World in general, and the United States in particular, such an observation, however sweeping, is a very real possibility.

“The media is a reflection of the broader culture” …true, good clarification.
And as someone who is very Catholic friendly, I’ll say I don’t think there is a bias. I think some individuals have it, but on the whole, I don’t see a deliberate, conscience effort to discredit the Catholic Church by the broader culture.

He is obviously taking cues from Obama and the his administration, trying to reflect criticism by lashing out at his critics and not addressing the real issue.

He is obviously taking cues from Obama and the rest of the left, trying to reflect criticism by lashing out at his critics, instead of dealing with the real issue.

This is something hard to objectively answer. One would have to have a full view of the possible stories and quantify the types of stories that the media carries. However, the media bias has been so blatantly obvious in other areas. It is entirely pro-gay. Negative portraits of gays are rarely seen while negative Christian characterizations are legion.
While violence against gays is heralded, anti-Christian violence and intimidation perpetrated by gays hardly receives a word. I’m just afraid to see what the media will make of a Christian who assaults a gay — quite a double-standard.
I would assume that this same bias plays out against the RCC.

Taylor, fair answer, but I personally do believe there’s a bias, whether it’s conscious or deliberate is a whole other story.
Laura, agreed. One reason it’s hard to side with the RCC is that they haven’t been addressing the issues and, more importantly, there hasn’t been any sort of action done. If there has, it hasn’t been good enough that anybody has taken notice; if the RCC apologized sincerely and made the necessary changes in how they screen priests and hold them accountable, I think that we would have heard about it by now. And, like Taylor, I am very “Catholic friendly,” and generally hold the RCC in high regard.

The reason the media spotlight won’t stop is because the church has been caught in a big lie, a new lie, almost every week, or more, for several years now. That’s blood in the water to a journalist, as well it should be. The strategy used by Vatican apologists lately is akin to a serial killer complaining about unfair media scrutiny after the 15th skeleton comes out of the basement with no end in sight. “The media just hates middle aged white guys, and besides, it’s not like I’m the only one doing this.” The fact that they can make such an argument, and the fact that they honestly believe they, and not children are the aggrieved party in this, is evidence of complete moral bankruptcy.

“How would you advise the pope?”
I’d advise him not to read the front page of tomorrow’s paper, which will surely have the AP story about how he, when a cardinal, sat on a California abuse case for years:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse

“but I personally do believe there’s a bias”
I think there’s a bias in our culture against hierarchies of almost any kind. We immediately distrust any kind of hierarchy, and the RC church is an unrepentant hierarchy, going up to one person who expects deference and claims the right of pretty much absolute secrecy. My parents would have been ok with that — the head of General Motors was not so different.
Back in the ’90s, I was a computer engineer in two computer labs that were visited by the heads of Fortune 100 companies — in both cases, the CEOs came in tie-less, and said, “call me John.” That would have been very unusual behavior 20 years before. Nobody in this country wants to be seen as head of a hierarchy. We just don’t accept that kind of thing (which is why the President gets catcalls at the State of the Union now), and assume they’re covering up misdeeds. (As indeed they may be, but we’d mistrust them even if they weren’t).
I think this is the root of the journalistic bias, not religious bigotry.

I think there is some sort of bias against the RCC, though the kind of bias I see is more anti-institutional bias, though I’m sure some of it is anti-religious.
E.J. Dionne from the Washington Post had this to recommend for the RCC, and I don’t think it is anti-RCC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502676.html
Not all are biased, but some are very angry and disillusioned and disappointed, and this might fuel some of the perceived anti-RCC sentiments too.

The bias has been exquisitely documented, Scot. I gave you the links you asked for. I’m sorry, but posting this shallow “he said, she said,” piece evades the issue.
The NYTimes’s Laurie Goodstein depended on a Yahoo computer translation of a key Italian document.
Not once did they contact Fr. Brundage, the Milwaukee judge handling the 1996 case.
They posted forged documents on their website.
They repeatedly leave out crucial context, including comparisons of how these matters were/are handled/mishandled in other organizations.
I’ll go further, Scot. You are biased against Catholicism and you won’t recognize it. You are quick to believe accounts on this topic that you would treat with far more suspicion if they had to do with some other institution.
Anyone with any critical sense of the media world today knows that the NYTimes and Newsweek and the Washington Post has it in for Benedict XVI and the Catholic church over sexual issues.
There is plenty to criticise in the Catholic Church in the 1970s and 1980s on the diocesan level. There’s some things to criticize about the attitude in the Vatican before 2001. But the effort to finger one man and one man alone on this is plainly not supported by the facts and the NYTimes has twisted the facts in such a way that the uninformed are led to believe that Ratzinger himself covered things up and enabled abuse. Anyone with reasonable knowledge of Vatican structure and of propaganda and demagogic techniques can immediately see what they are doing.
The refutations are out there by the dozens–I gave you links to only a small handful.
Why do you then post this piece? Frankly, it angers me because you would never be so credulous about WaPo or NYT on issues closer to home.

Can’t say it better than Travis. Amen and amen.

Here’s the problem for the church: these same conversations, pretty much word for word, took place 15 years ago. “There’s no story here!” “See — that just shows, all those reporters are anti-religious”. People of good faith said, “it must be true — those horrible reporters at the Boston Globe are persecuting the church.” And, if the reporters had just been reasonable, that nice Mr. Law would still be cardinal in Boston, and Maciel would be on his way to sainthood.
Mothers, tell your children — this is why your good name is the most valuable thing you have. Once you’ve lost it, you have no defense against people believing the worst.

In general the ‘news’ media is now primarily motivated by ‘catching a headline’ instead of balanced journalism. Sadly, the media’s bias is towards self promotion and profits and journalists participate in this for their own self interests. My bias is against the media .

The media is not the problem.
it is extremely painful to be Catholic right now. All of the wounds are self inflicted.
My advice to the Pope:
1. Dissolve the Curia. It does more harm than good.
2. Dissolve all de facto and actual personal prelatures like the Leigionaries who have “purchased influence” [bribed] the Vatican.
3. Appoint an imparital “internal affairs committee” which has unlimited power and standing to ivestigate all accusations of corruption or clergy sex abuse. All reports of the committeee are in writing and published. thePope, being the Pope has full discretion to ingore or act on the reports.
4. Appoint another committee to investigate and determine worldwide whether celibacy is obverved at all and to what extent. Publish the results.
5. Get new PR people with two feet to stand on. The cuurent ones have shot both feet off.

In response to Phil Atley,
It appears Fr. Brundage has changed his story. Yet again.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/priest-who-oversaw-church-trial-in-wisconsin-abuse-case-admits-error/#preview

I am not really sure what all the anger is about in the last few posts. He is simply asking how we would suggest the Pope handle this situation. We all know there has been some mishandling of these situations in the Pope’s past and I think this is a fair question.
I do like the idea of appointing an internal affairs committee to make sure these situations are handled correctly. It is always good to have checks and balances.
Look, the RC church is the oldest and most united church in the world. I know it seems like it could never happen, but lets not have these situations tear this sacred institution apart.
Besides, the media, especially in the US, probably does have an anti-RC bias. We don’t like Catholicism here very much. There is too much structure and not enough freedom to be individuals for us Americans. I am saying this as a Protestant.

How would I advise the pope?
1) Pray. Pray often for wisdom, strength and clarity.
2) Be prepared for some difficult decisions.
3) Form a separate council, of men and women from different countries, to review the current procedures, and offer the pope alternatives for moving forward.
4) Require all priests to comply with the laws of the counties in which they live regarding sexual abuse.
5) Consider how transparency and full disclosure might help to heal the wounds of victims, and bring criminals to justice.
6) Pray
Based on what I have read in the media, the pope is doing most of the items listed already.

I think I’d also advise him to start contesting the suits in court. The whole thing started when it became known that the Church would pay up with no questions asked. It was probably a combination of compassion and damage control, but it also brought out the fakes. The feeding frenzy of lawsuits has obscured those who really were harmed by priests.
(Incidentally, I’m both a Papist and a newspaperman. Just so my own biases are clear.)
There is plenty to criticise in the Catholic Church in the 1970s and 1980s on the diocesan level. There’s some things to criticize about the attitude in the Vatican before 2001.
Phil, you hit it on the head. Almost all of the cases took place before there was any sort of policy on how to handle child molesters. I was a kid in the 70s, and I didn’t get the kind of education in the ways of perverts that today’s kids get. Vague warnings about strangers and public men’s rooms were as much information as we ever got. I can’t imagine things were much more open in the decades prior. Yet the response in the media is to judge the Church by today’s much more open standards.
Finally, I’d advise His Holiness to clean out the homosexual cliques in the seminaries. The vast majority of these cases were homosexual men making overtures (or worse) toward teenage boys. I can’t imagine it’s a coincidence (as the news media would have us believe) that so many of these cases took place during a time when closets were emptying and “queer” was morphing into “gay.”