Edit: some things that don't make the coverage on this issue:
1. The sexual proclivities of the offenders. The overwhelming majority of offenders are everybody's current favorite victim class.
2. The political and religious inclination of the offenders. (Most are not orthodox to begin with.)
3. Media pets in the hierarchy are actually protected or their complicity in sexual abuse is ignored or downplayed: see Pope Francis' record in Buenos Aires, it's not pretty, or Cardinal Mahony's handling of sexual abuse, which did lead to his resignation at 75, but he by no means gets the same lurid coverage that the Boston Globe is unjustly praised for attacking the bumbling but mostly Pro-Life Cardinal Law.
4. The Boston Globe has been an anti-Catholic and anti-Irish paper from the beginning, no surprise that it's following the lead of similarly leftist papers like La Stampa (which has its own hit-man in Andrea Tornielli) by spawning Crux with its own Old Liberal ecclesiastical perspective.
Old Liberals love the abuse crisis, because it allows them to settle scores with orthodox or neoconservative clergy by employing the weapons of popular opinion, which as we've seen with this pope especially, are very important in the way he governs his Church.
What's especially sickening is to see such uncritical and cowardly praise for Boston Globe which has confused and muddled the situation more than anything else, leading to the public perception that sexual abuse is first and foremost, a Catholic problem when all too many of the perpetrators, even where they wear cassocks, are no more Catholic than the evil and luxurious Cardinal Marx.
[Guardian] The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has praised the 2016 best picture Oscar winner Spotlight for its convincing attempt to show abuse and cover-ups in the Catholic church.
The newspaper published a front-page editorial on Monday hailing Tom McCarthy’s film and calling it “not anti-Catholic”. The editorial said Spotlight, which centres on the work of a group of Boston Globe reporters to uncover abuse by Roman Catholic priests, faithfully presented the church’s attempts to defend itself in the face of “horrendous realities”.
“Not all monsters wear cassocks. Paedophilia [Most of them, however, are aberrosexuals, others are from Hollywood itself and quite a few wear yarmulkes.] does not necessarily arise from the vow of chastity,” wrote the editorial’s author, Lucetta Scaraffia. “However, it has become clear that in the Church some are more preoccupied with the image of the institution than of the seriousness of the act.”
How would Osservatore Romano be counted upon to know an anti-Catholic film when it itself is demonstrably anti-Catholic? How much does Hollywood pay them to promote their films?