David C. Stolinsky
Friday, March 29, 2002

But if I write murder mysteries, it's more likely that my fantasy life runs in a different direction. Clearly this doesn't mean that I am violent myself, but it does suggest that my imagination tends toward violent images. It does reveal something about my thought processes.

But what about those who write nonfiction – or at least what is alleged to be nonfiction? What about those who report the news – or at least what they claim is the news? Does how they express themselves reveal something about their thought processes?

Some time ago, a leading paper reported a tragic accident under the headline "10 People, Baby Die When Van Hits Truck." When I phoned an editor, he saw no reason to reword the headline as "11 People Including Baby Die." To him, a 1-year-old wasn't a "person." Indeed, he failed to see what I was upset about.

The editor also failed to see that he was revealing much about his own attitude toward human life. Perhaps his ardent support of abortion-on-demand had caused him to devalue the unborn, so that the newborn were also of little value, and even 1-year-olds weren't full human beings.

When I asked him at precisely what age a child becomes a "person," he was unable to answer, and he found the question uninteresting.

That is, the editor didn't realize how revealing his choice of words was, and what's more he didn't care. He was so sure he was right that my questions left him unashamedly bored. But I cared, and I found the episode quite educational.

There are many other examples. The same paper, like most papers, takes great care to refer to anyone who has not yet been convicted of a crime as an "alleged" or "accused" murderer or rapist. This wording avoids lawsuits, and more importantly, it follows the American tradition that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

So why is it that this paper began a story about child abuse in the Catholic Church with the front-page headline "Mahony Won't Name Abusers." Not one of these priests had been charged with a crime, much less convicted, or their names would already be a matter of public record.

But those Cardinal Mahony didn't name were not referred to as "alleged" abusers. Somehow the fear of lawsuits, and the devotion to civil liberties, were forgotten in the rush to condemn the Catholic Church – and, by extension, Christianity in general.

Accused murderers and rapists in jail awaiting trial are "alleged," but priests not formally charged with anything are "abusers." How inconsistent. But how revealing.

Also revealing is the fact that the kids allegedly abused are referred to as "victims," "accusers," "teens," "youths," and other terms that leave us to guess their sex. The word "boys" is rarely used. If the sex of the alleged victims had been reported, we could judge the truth of the claim that 90 percent of them were boys.

But as it is, we can only wonder whether that claim is correct. And we can wonder whether the reluctance to report the sex of the victims is due to a reluctance to offend gays. Perhaps the 90 percent figure is incorrect. Perhaps there is no bias in favor of the gay agenda.

But the incomplete reporting lends credence to our suspicions. Can't reporters and editors see this? Or don't they care? Like the editor of the "10 People and a Baby" story, they may be so sure of their own rightness that our opinions don't matter to them.

Almost everyone is aware that false charges of child abuse are sometimes concocted by angry spouses in bitter divorces. Consider the Woody Allen case, where years later we are still uncertain of the truth.

Monetary gain may also be a motive. Allegations of child abuse can increase alimony payments or bring in large settlements in lawsuits. But several accused abusers were freed after the prosecution's case collapsed.

In one highly publicized case, preschool kids alleged abuse by a group of teachers. But it was revealed that the kids made fantastic charges that famous people had participated in the abuse, people who weren't in town at the time, and even absurd claims that large animals were present. As a result, all the accused were found not guilty.

Since child-abuse charges are sometimes false, why are all allegations against the Catholic Church assumed to be true? Does this reflect the particularly vile nature of abuse by those who were trusted the most?

Or does it reveal a bias against the church, and against churches in general? Would charges of abuse by a Muslim cleric appear in the paper without the adjective "alleged"? If not, why the difference?

Even scientific publications are not exempt from the effects of bias. A leading medical journal in Britain used a Nov. 17 editorial to accuse Americans of "bioterrorism" because they produce greenhouse gases that allegedly cause global warming. But note the timing. Soon after 9-11, the editor calls all Americans "terrorists."

Was this meant to justify 9-11 and to equate us with our attackers? Or was it merely a coincidence? Apparently the editor didn't care enough about our suffering to delay his outburst a few months. Apparently his dislike for America overcame his physician's duty to relieve suffering rather than increase it.

What is true for news media is also true for entertainment media. In the recent film "Pearl Harbor," Jon Voigt gives a superb performance as President Roosevelt asking Congress for a declaration of war in the famous "Day of Infamy" speech.

The movie speech concludes by stating that we will eventually triumph. But omitted is Roosevelt's final phrase, "So help us God!" (See http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/infamy.html for the actual speech.)

What we omit may be as revealing as what we include. The screenwriters and director omitted a crucial and dramatic phrase. Why? Was a respected president asking for God's help in a dangerous hour incompatible with their notion of the "wall of separation" between church and state? If so, did that justify altering history?

Then, of course, we have the film "JFK," in which Oliver Stone has Lyndon Johnson conspiring to kill President Kennedy in a wholly invented scene. This is merely the most blatant example of a generation of films depicting our leaders as evil schemers and our military as crazed would-be Nazis.

Despite all our supposed psychological sophistication, many people seem utterly unaware that what they say – or don't say – can reveal a lot about their own thought processes and hidden motivations.

The "10 People and a Baby" editor didn't grasp that he was revealing his contempt for young life. But he was.

The "Mahony Won't Name Abusers" reporter didn't understand that he was revealing his disdain for the Catholic Church and for churches in general. But he was.

The editors and reporters who repeatedly omit the sex of alleged abuse victims don't comprehend that they are revealing that they favor the gay agenda. But on a deeper level, they may be revealing homophobia – they believe gays are more likely to be molesters, so they fear to publish the data. In reality, most child abuse (not specifically in churches) is committed by heterosexuals.

The editor of the scientific journal who called Americans "bioterrorists" didn't perceive that he was revealing a blatant anti-American prejudice. But he was.

The director and screenwriters of "Pearl Harbor" didn't conceive that their omission of the phrase "So help us God!" not only diminished the dramatic effect they desired, but also revealed their anti-religious bias. But it did.

Those responsible for a generation of anti-American and anti-military films didn't recognize that they were portraying their homeland as loathsome for all the world to see, thus possibly contributing to anti-American terrorism. They also didn’t realize they were revealing hatred of their own country. But they were.

People, especially those with a public platform, should be careful of what they say and how they say it. Otherwise, they may reveal unpleasant things about themselves.

Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias

A product that might interest you:
Find out the truth about communists in America
Free E-mail Alerts From NewsMax.com