‘Nothing to See Here!’: Investigation Finds 15 Mass. Educators Each Year Suspended For Sex Abuse, Boston Globe In Hiding

Boston Globe hypocrisy

The Boston Globe hypocrisy meter

Just last week, Boston television network WCVB unleashed a startling revelation on its evening news:

"[WCVB] found in recent years, on average, the licenses of 15 Massachusetts educators are suspended or revoked each year for sexual misconduct. But there aren't always charges."

15 teachers. Each and every year in Massachusetts schools. Suspended for sexual misconduct. And almost all of these cases never see the inside of a courtroom.

Compare this with the Archdiocese of Boston, where the last time a priest was publicly accused of contemporaneous abuse of a minor was in January 2002, thirteen years ago. So according to the findings of WCVB's investigation, there has been nearly 200 public school educators found to have abused students in Massachusetts since the last time a priest was publicly accused.

Missing in Action

So where is the Boston Globe on this explosive story? It has not published a single syllable about WCVB's stunner. The paper and its crack "Spotlight" team are nowhere to be found.

Instead, the Globe simply continues to promote itself ad nauseum with article after article about the new Spotlight movie, in which Hollywood predictably does violence to the truth in its attempt to bash the Church.

However, it is not as if we should be surprised at the Globe for turning a blind eye to the issue of child sex abuse. We have previously noted that this has been the paper's practice. And his new book Sins of the Press, TheMediaReport.com's Dave Pierre details how the Globe has for decades ignored child sex abuse and indeed has nearly promoted it in institutions other than the Catholic Church.

The Boston Globe's deliberate ignoring of abuse in the Catholic Church is glaring – glaring to the point of comical. In fact, the Globe's flagrant disregard for the abominable crimes happening around it reminds us of a hilarious scene from the comedy movie The Naked Gun (1988), starring Leslie Nielsen:

Comments

  1. Jim Robertson says:

    Dave You're comparing apples to oranges again. It's not the fact you had abusors in the ranks. It was the coverups and transfers. That priests were more important than catholic children.

  2. David says:

    If you simply google "boston globe, teacher sex abuse" I think you will be pleasantly surprised to see how many stories they have done on the subject. For you to claim the paper has turned a blind eye to the issue of sexual abuse of children, wherever it occurs, is a lie. That they didn't report on another media outlets story is not evidence.

    • Rege says:

      Thanks, I did google those terms and in 5 pages of results, I found only two articles in the Boston Globe reporting on abuse by teachers.  There was also one article about a former Catholic school principal suing the Boston Archdiocese for firing her after a janitor was reported for using a student restroom.  It seems that in the Boston Globe, there is about one article for 100 abuse cases in non-Catholic institutions, vs. about the opposite ratio for Catholic institutions.  I guess that's proportional, albeit inversely …

  3. malcolm harris says:

    Have heard it said that 'laughter is the best medicine'. Well sure did get a good laugh out of that "Naked Gun" footage. Can recall that whole  movie  was a welcome safety valve, because it frequently demonstrated  the absurdity of modern-day political correctness. 

    "Nothing to see here. folks"…it sure sums up the selective reporting of the Boston Globe. Ironically I once heard a media billionaire say…"we only hold up a mirror to society….we just reflect what is already out there"

    Had to admire his effort to keep a straight face when he said it. So it's all the fault of the mirror. Nothing to do with 'advocacy journalism',… all that is just my imagination…hmmm.

    Nice one….Dave.

     

     

  4. TruCatholic says:

    But the school system reports them. The Catholic Church lies, and palys dumb. In Minnesota, once the statute was lifted. We found out they covered up two dozen child-rapers. Why ? Because the previous leader felt it was "unnecessary". And "None of them had been arrested, or convicted." Therefore, we kept the out of court settlement agreements. But never told the police. And lied to the parishoners.

  5. drwho13 says:

    Bash the Church because the Church deserves bashing.  I was once in a religious order; and when there was immoral conduct taking placed, I reported it to numerous cardinals and bishops.  They did nothing.  The movie is called Spotlight because it focuses on one theme, one institution, as it should.  There were filthy bishops back then, and there are filthy bishops in power now.  If the Boston Globe did not publish the true, why did Cardinal Law flee to Rome?  Why doesn't Law come back to the States and set the record straight?  Why does the RCC protect Law?  I believe that Law knows a lot more about the filth within the Church.  If the Holy See were to lay a glove on him, he could tell the world where all the "bodies are buried."  As a result, Law will spend the rest of his life living in affluence and leisure.  The "Spotlight" is focused like a laser beam.  No one will be able to make that light more diffuse by attempting to diverting attention to a school system, or any other institution.

    • drwho13 says:

      I commend you for posting opposing points of view.  To my knowledge this has been your policy for a long time, truely "fair and balanced."  Thank you. 

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    The movie is called Spotlight because the news division at the Globe who broke the story was called Spotlight. FYi

    • drwho13 says:

      Thanks Jim.  I knew what "Spotlight" was at it relates to the movie.  I was trying to use the word in a metaphorical sense to enhance the point I was trying to make.

  7. Publion says:

    And lastly, in regard to what the Church knew to be a civil crime, there remains the fact that the then-culture and even the police/courts were not predisposed to consider spending resources on sexual allegations involving – if we consider the Jay Reports’ compilations – matters far less grave than outright sodomization and rape (which is not, of course, to deny that some priests were guilty of those extreme acts). 

  8. another Mark says:

    So David, since you like comparisons, can you tell us ACCURATELY how many teachers there are in the State of Massachusettes to the number of priests?  So since there are far more teachers wouldn't that make sense there would be more offenders?

    Fact 1 in 6 boys and 1 in 4 girls will be the victim of unwanted sexual contact before the age of 18.  You would have us believe that priests have simply stopped molesting children yet every other profession in society does, teachers, counselors, scout masters, coaches, movie stars etc….  A very dangerous conclusion for certain.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The issue is the cover up. Why is everyone covering up the cover up which IS the  scandal?

  9. Derek says:

    Just saw this Spotlight.  Utter nonsense.

     

     

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    Dave, Did you shoot a picture of P's eyes for the top of this post?

  11. Jim Robertson says:
  12. Jim Robertson says:

    Would that it were "lastly"; But boy you're going nowhere you've got lots more lyin' to do.

  13. Publion says:

    A pre-note : my comment that appears on this thread dated the 18th at 647PM was actually intended for the prior thread and accidentally wound up on this thread.

    Now to business at hand.

    Boston’s other paper (the ‘Boston Herald’) reports today (November 23rd, page 9 in the print edition, entitled “’Spotlight’ injustices claimed”) that four persons portrayed in the film are disputing the accuracy of their portrayals, saying that the film “put false words in their mouths”.

    Among them are a former ‘Globe’ reporter, a former ‘Globe’ publisher, the current public affairs director for Boston College, and – a bit curiously – a local tort-attorney whose practice made millions representing allegants.

     

    According to the article, the general gist of all of their complaints is that “their actions were misrepresented in a way that casts them in a negative light, apparently in an effort to add drama to the film”.

    On the immediately previous thread here, I had discussed the dynamics that would render this type of mis-representation almost inevitable in putting together a commercial film script, especially in light of the prior track record of the ‘Spotlight’ screenwriter, whose prior scripts for other films received that same precise criticism.

    The then-‘Globe’ reporter objects to his being represented as initially skeptical or “dismissive” of what the article refers to as “a key tipster”. His concern is professional, since the script’s portrayal of him now impeaches his reputation as a professional journalist. He has not yet said whether he will take legal action.

    The former publisher complains that he is portrayed as having reservations that he never actually had. (Such a mis-portrayal, I think, would have well-served the film-makers’ desire to portray the editor who initiated the January 2002 ‘Globe’ series, one Mr. Baron, as being the heroic “new gunslinger in town”.)

    He is concerned because “The movie is dealing with real people with real names with real reputations” and “injustices are done”.

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of the 23rd at  519PM:

    The tort-attorney’s plaint is even more curious and revealing.

    In the script, a ‘Spotlight’ team reporter threatens the tort-attorney with having his “’cottage industry’ of settlements” ended. This clearly demonstrates that there was indeed a  tort-attorney “cottage industry” element to what I have called the Stampede that was given so powerful a kinetic push by the ‘Globe’s efforts in early 2002.

    Most curiously, however, while the local tortie denies that any such conversation occurred, he yet “praises the film” and has quickly defended the film by declaring that the film’s makers were in no way “required to clear their portrayal of my character with me”. For people who possess as acute a sense of potential litigation as do well-heeled tort attorneys, this sudden self-blocking of any possible consequent legal action is indeed a surprise. This is, to borrow a trope from Conan Doyle, an instance of the whiskers that didn’t twitch.

    The current public affairs director at Boston College – who back then was apparently filling that position at a local high school – says that he wants the film-makers to “admit that they fabricated the dialogue to accommodate the narrative of the movie” and that “they manufactured dialogue because the needed a villain”, which – again – is precisely the type of gambit to be expected when making this type of film, trying to squeeze realities into a Good Guy/Bad Guy type of standard script template.

    He further says that the dialogue line assigned to him in the script demonstrates “just how much reckless shifting and disregard for the facts the screenwriters had”, since what he actually said was “portrayed in the exact opposite manner” for purposes of the script’s and the film-makers’ objectives.

    This gentleman has already retained counsel, who – the article reports – have already sent a letter asking that a scene be removed. Further legal action has not been ruled out.

    Who can be surprised, really? I would say that the film simply repeats the type of tactics and stratagems that were built into the whole Matter to begin with all those years ago. The spotlight needs to be turned around and beamed at the ‘Spotlighters’.

  15. malcolm harris says:

    On the 18th at 6.47 pm, Publion makes a very good point regarding how….the  then-culture and even the police/courts were not predisposed to consider spending resources on sexual allegations involving those things far less grave than outright sodomization and rape. By inference then the Bishops only did what the courts themselves would have done…sent the perps for psychological treatment. That being the conventional wisdom at the time.

    Can recall two books that should have been compulsory reading in all schools. The first was called "The Past is a Foreign Country" and the other was called "Logic and Reason" The author of the first book expertly demonstrated that we should be wary about spotlighting people of the past, and condemning their decisions by our standards prevailing today.

    The second book devoted a entire chapter to explaining that the word "some" is quite different to the ball-park term of "all". Publion is right in ackowledging that some priests were guilty of the very worst offences against minors.

    But of course there are many who have a vested interest in persuading the general public that the "some' is basically representative of the "all". Thus discrediting the Catholic Church, in the court of public opinion.

    This campaign being blatantly facilitated by much of the mainstream media.

     

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You are so right Malcolm. We cannot compare say Hitler or Vlad the Impaler or Nero or Caligula or Pol Pot or Harry Truman to our standards today.  What sheer idiocy!!!!

      I wonder if either you or P were every sexually touched by a priest or anyone else when you were children. Hopefully not; but I doubt that you were or you might show a little bit of empathy to those of us who were. Ah! but sociopaths never feel empathy.

  16. Mr. Robertson should get his own blog.  It is irksome that he hijacks every thread but merely nettlesome so many resond to him. Unsolicited advice?  Let him post but ignore him. 

     

     

     

     

    • Jim Robertson says:

      This is my own blog :^)

    • Publion says:

      Daniel Patrick Moynihan once observed that people are entitled to their own interpretations but not to their own facts.

      On the 26th at 1131AM we see a comment that demonstrates just how much Moynihan’s acute and accurate observation does not hold true for various types.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    Moynihan? "Benign Neglect" Moynihan? The man who destroyed the poorest black families in America by demanding that welfare could only be given to the poor if the man was out of the house? That Moynihan? Wonderful!

  18. Theo says:

    Dave you forget a monumental difference, namely, that these educators actually are being suspended or having their licenses revoked. For too many years the archdioce transferred known abusers to unsuspecting parishes. The archdiocese negligence & disregard for public safety allowed for the creation of so called super predators like Father John Geoghan, whom the archdiocese concedes abused, to varying degrees, over 75 children in 30+ disgraceful

    years as a priest. Archdiocesan records show that they received complaints about Geoghan as

    early as 1979, yet he wasn't removed from active ministry till 1993. You also forget (or perhaps

    never heard) about the priest retirement fund scandal of 2012. The Globe barely wrote about it,

    yet The Economist magazine wrote: "

    Some dioceses have, in effect, raided priests’ pension funds to cover settlements and other losses. The church regularly collects money in the name of priests’ retirement. But in the dioceses that have gone bust lawyers and judges confirm that those funds are commingled with other investments, which makes them easily diverted to other uses. Under Cardinal Bernard Law, the archdiocese of Boston contributed nothing to its clergy retirement fund between 1986 and 2002, despite receiving an estimated $70m-90m in Easter and Christmas offerings that many parishioners believed would benefit retired priests.

    Church officials denied the money it had collected was improperly diverted. By 2008 the unfunded liability had reached $114m. Joseph D’Arrigo, a benefits specialist, was brought in to turn things round. In 2010 the retirement fund was turned into an independent trust to ensure it could not be used for other purposes—a first for an American diocese, reckons Mr D’Arrigo.

     

  19. 1993 Victim says:

    This piece borders on the ridiculous.  The Spotlight investigation wasn't about the fact that there were some bad apples, some sick men and women who did terrible things.  It was about the extensive institutional cover up.  The WCVB article clearly says that the reason most of the educator sexual misconduct issues don't go to court is that they are not crimes under Massachusetts law.  If you can show that the educational system in Massachusetts, from the top down, has a history of silencing victims, paying them those quietly, and moving abusive teachers from school to school for decades with no restrictions, then this will be a valid discussion.

    Most importantly, how does the Globe's failure to duplicate another media outlet's story signify that the Spotlight investigations were false?  It's like saying, "Well the Globe didn't cover this story of violence over here, so that means the Globe's reporting about 9/11 is invalid or not trustworthy."  

    I'm open to hearing of some actual points that are valid and important.  Since this issue impacts me and my family for my whole life I would like to understand it for real.  However, it's very clear that this website's agenda prevents it from presenting logical, rational arguments.

    What are you people so angry about?  You're more angry about the fact that there were likely some innevitable inaccuracies in the 600+ articles published by the Spotlight team than by the fact that so many innocent kids were victimized?  The fact that there might have been a little extra tarnish on the Church's reputation is a greater travesty than the victims who lost their lives to suicide, alcoholism, or drug abuse?  Are you sure you want to go down this path?

    You are obviously religious people who care deeply about your faith, and that's great if it works for you.  Ask yourself an important question- what would Jesus be more concerned with in this case?  Where would Jesus want you to put your energy?  Into revictimizing those who have already been burned by the Church?  Into trying to defend the indefensible?  I don't believe so.  Your energy would be better spent on trying to help the Church heal and trying to help the Church to do good.  Don't worry.  Your Church has survived for centuries and will not be lost because of this.  The Church can earn back some, though not all, of its former good reputation by doing more good in the world.  Help them do that.

    My heart hurts for everyone who has worked on establishing this page.  You are so full of anger and resentment to the point that it blinds you from what is actually important.  It doesn't matter if a Cardinal Law quote gets twisted out of context a little or if the reporters missed something.  Children matter.  I don't know if your God exists, but I know that you can't truly feel his love until you open your hearts.  Blaming those who exposed the turth is pointless.

    Your God says that when you do something wrong you are supposed to ask for forgiveness and make it right.  That god doesn't say that you should argue, try to find minor technicalities, whine, and act like you are being persecuted.  Have you ever tried talking to a victim of this crisis?  I would bet not.  Talking to us and trying to understand what happened is more godly than creating this unbelievably misguided website.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] The Hypocrisy of the Boston Globe Sex Abuse Coverup – David F. Pierre Jr., TheMediaReport.com [...]