Tag Archives: Anderson Cooper

A Reply to Journalist Michael Voris


This piece is a response to an article written by journalist and Catholic Michael Voris on the website churchmilitant.com, so it would be well to read his writing first. The link to his article lies below:


I’m not sure how to take your article, Mr. Voris. I get the basic question: Why isn’t Raymond Arroyo reporting on the Catholic establishment’s partiality in the presidential election? Is it a sign that Arroyo is beholden to them and can’t or won’t?

As a veteran journalist, however, you should be aware of the tensions involved in reporting, the personal dimension journalists have and their right to act within it, and the process and techniques of developing a story.

Besides, your own story is unsourced. Were you there? Did you see and hear the things of which you wrote? You made no mention of that.

Is it possible that Mr. Arroyo is working on just such a story about a cabal of clattering clerics who were out to derail the Donald Trump train? Is it possible he does not have enough evidence yet that he can use? In another vein, don’t journalists agree to embargo information or to listen to sources off the record some of the time as they build their stories?

Journalists assume different roles within the profession. Some are field reporters; others, anchors. Some write features, entertainment, sports, business, tech, general assignment, etc., and some assume the role of investigative journalist. Working at EWTN (itself a bit rogue and not friendly to some of the new, dissolute theology of the church), Mr. Arroyo has become a jack-of-all-trades for the network in news and probably mixes in a fair amount of tact with his reportorial frankness.

Mr. Arroyo’s situation does not differ from that of any other journalist in the business. There is a balance to be found and maintained between what the journalist as professional deems worthy of pursuit and what his editors or the ownership of the organ for which he works deems worthy of pursuit.

Perhaps in a perfect world, these pursuits would be congruent; in today’s factious and truculent times, they loom nigh impossible.

So you’re right, Mr. Voris. It’s tough to report on your bosses, and Mr. Arroyo would not be anywhere near the first journalist to encounter that wall (hhhmmm… think about that, Francis). I have not watched Mr. Arroyo enough (though I did watch his Trump interview and the wonderful “bigly” or “big league” finish) to grade him on how well he has done. I did watch some of his coverage of the process by which Pope Francis was elected, etc., and thought he did well to identify different factions within the church and how they were jostling for position and controlling the flow of information.

This is what I would contend, Mr. Voris: You have a much deeper problem in journalism and in the church than you have in your elementary rebuke of Mr. Arroyo.

At one time, the facts may have reigned supreme. Today, message reigns supreme, and people, including journalists, cannot get out of the way of facts fast enough so they can write and speak their stories. The message is no longer tailored to the facts; the facts are tailored to the message, and when those facts are inconvenient, they are simply tossed into the rubbish and replaced with labels, vague ideas like “dangerous”, divisive”, and “xenophobic”.

In that light, Mr. Arroyo may not have fared as badly as you suggest.

That the Catholic hierarchy stood against Mr. Trump does not surprise me much. It seems a number of bishops and priests, not to mention Francis himself, have long derogated Mr. Trump and the policies he has been supporting, all the while turning a blind eye to faux Catholic Nancy Pelosi and anti-Catholic Hillary Clinton, the proponents and enablers of Molochian policies like baby-killing and draconian policies like sucking the financial life and self-esteem out of American middle class workers they’ve dumped on the unemployment line.

The church has a long and rich spiritual, scriptural, intellectual, and pragmatic tradition. That tradition has been and is being sabotaged by the currently accepted biblical criticism. This criticism, known as “historical criticism”, promotes the idea that each of the New Testament writers cooked up fictitious stories or details to get a message across. It is the message, taken as a vital spiritual truth that only can be ascertained and gleaned and communicated by the Magisterium, that is eternal and truthful, not the facts, er, fictions, used to convey it!

In fact, the vital spiritual truth in the message allows one to alter both the facts and the accepted understanding of the facts and to create new ones!

Thus, eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ isn’t eating and drinking his body and blood so God communicates the power of his grace to believers visibly and tangibly through his son’s unjust torture and execution; it is a community meal of love and warmth and mutuality, blah blah, in which we accept our humanity and the humanity of Jesus.

That same warped principle weaves its way through today’s news reporting and rhetoric in all their ramifications. I don’t know how many news people stated as fact that Mr. Trump said on the Access Hollywood recording that he groped women “against their will.” During the presidential debate he moderated, CNN’s Anderson Cooper claimed that Mr. Trump said he was sexually assaulting women, then asked him if he ever had. Fox News’ Megyn Kelly also used the phrase “against their will” on one of her shows and suggested Mr. Trump was a “sexual predator”, if he had practiced what he talked about on the recording.

On the recording, Mr. Trump states exactly and explicitly that women “let” him grope them because he was a star. “Let” means permission granted, allowed. That’s NOT against their will.

And Megyn Kelly’s use of the legal term “sexual predator” during an exchange with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, later despicably echoed by shill and outgoing Senator Harry Reid, was completely inaccurate and incorrect and unethical. She used the false label as a ploy to grab ratings and create the illusion of toughness. She claimed that if Mr. Trump was a sexual predator, then it was a huge story that should be covered. She then added that she did not know that he was a sexual predator. So she brought up the term, not to cover it because it was a fact, but because it was a conditional, which if it were a fact, would justify coverage. She was covering possibility so she could repeat the term.

It’s nothing more than salacious sensationalism, a message the embittered Kelly wanted to get out (likewise with Clinton surrogate Cooper on the network that gave Clinton debate questions in advance) to harm Mr. Trump and affect the outcome of the election.

Feel free to surf the archives to check for posts about faulty reporting where the message took precedence over the facts. It continues in this post-election frame.

Mr. Voris, please scrutinize the “message” state of affairs in both journalism and the church. Mr. Arroyo is hardly the problem. Some of those bishops and priests might be. What happens to the Catholic Church – what happens to believers – when someone’s message gets propped up by the ultimate justification: the notion of infallibility?

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”


Megyn Kelly Preys on Trump, Fights Newt



Newt Gingrich called out Megyn Kelly for inflammatory and untruthful reporting during a Fox News interview on her show Tuesday, Oct. 25.

A video of the heated exchange can be found at the link below:


Kelly, unable to get past Trump’s put-downs of her during the primaries, zeroed in – again – on the statements the business mogul made during a secret taping prior to an Access Hollywood episode 11 years ago.

She incorrectly stated – as she and others have in the past – that Trump said on the recording that he liked to grope women in their private areas “and kiss them against their will.”

That is false. Megyn Kelly lied. She spoke untruthfully. Trump absolutely never says that on the recording. Yet Kelly relayed as fact something that was and has always been fiction to continue to claw at Trump and to avoid losing a war of words to Newt Gingrich, which she did lose.

What does the recording say? What does The New York Times transcript of the recording say?

And when you’re a star, they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Does everyone see the word “let”? Does everyone know what the word “let” means?

In other words, the women to whom Trump refers allowed, permitted, gave consent to him to do that – much in the same way groupies consent to have sex with the groups they follow – if, in fact, he actually ever tried to grope and kiss anyone and was not simply sticking his male chest out and thumping on it.

What’s more, what actually happens in the recording? What actually happens when the Access Hollywood bus arrives and Trump and Billy Bush are greeted by the beautiful Arianne Zucker? After just boasting about his actions with women, does Trump try it with beautiful Arianne in front of his friend to whom he boasted?

No. He doesn’t.

In fact, Trump only gives a verbal greeting to Zucker at first. He hugs her only after Bush suggests Arianne give Trump a hug. Then, with his own beautiful wife on his mind, Trump gives the hug saying, it’s okay with Melania! He was telling Arianne the only reason he is hugging her is because it’s okay with Melania!

The mendacity of mendacious Megyn Kelly would be astounding in any other context if it were not for the fact that she is just one of many of the mendacious, such as lying, cowardly, won’t-stand-up-for-gays Anderson Cooper.

She wanted to stand out as the filthiest of the filth, so Kelly went further by suggesting that Donald Trump might be “a sexual predator”. Below lie her exact, dissembling words:

What I said was, if Trump is a sexual predator, then it’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will.”

Do a DuckDuckGo search for The New York Times Access Hollywood transcript and read the whole thing. Nowhere does Trump speak about doing anything to women against their will.

You are a liar, Megyn Kelly, a vicious prevaricator, deceiver, and dissembler who deliberately lied so people would think Trump said it and you would appear to be a relevant, incisive journalist. Like your words, your are utterly lacking in substance.

Further, Megyn Kelly supposedly has legal training. Yet she employed the term “sexual predator”, one of the gravest of designations a court, and only a court, can impose on a convicted defendant. It is a worse designation than “sexual offender”, which itself is a serious designation.

The designation “sexual predator” is usually, if not entirely, applied to those cunning men and women who stalk and violently molest or rape much younger victims, often torturing or killing them. Kelly used the term deliberately to shock voters and viewers, and her unfounded use of it, even in a conditional statement, represents a most grave, ethical breach for a journalist.

Fortunately, she subverted her own “logic” when, just prior to repeating the sexual predator term, she admitted she did not know if Trump was, in fact, a sexual predator.

We can go further. We don’t know that Trump did anything with anyone with their consent, much less against their consent.

Then why was she using the term???

I don’t know that Megyn Kelly is a pervert, but if she is, or if she is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story. Since she keeps using the word, sexual predator, maybe she has sexual predation on her mind. So if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story that must be covered, just like we’re covering it right now by talking about it over and over again.

Please, make sure you tweet and post on Facebook and on any other social media that IF Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator – I don’t know that she is, and I’m not saying that she is, but maybe she is getting defensive if she denies it or takes issue with any talking about it – but if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story, and we will cover it from now until Kingdom Come!

And even if we don’t know that it’s true, we are going to keep doing stories about if it is true. We’re going to keep driving it through your ear holes like a spike into Dracula’s heart!

Gingrich said it best in his righteous reply: “You are fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

Well, if Megyn Kelly is fascinated with sex… .

Uh, never mind!