Case in point: This week's issue of Cardinal Mahony's mouthpiece The Tidings takes a heavy-handed swipe (click on this post's title) at Cardinal McIntyre. The Tidings takes a book about nuns and the hierarchy in the 60s, which mentions Cardinal McIntyre and the revolt of some Immaculate Heart sisters -- and assigns as the reviewer one Anita Caspary, who by sheer coincidence just happens to have been an IHM nemesis of Cardinal McIntyre.
Sorry, Tidings, but journalistic objectivity (admittedly a dated concept in this universal era of propagandize-your-readers "advocacy journalism") dictates that when you have a book about a dispute, any dispute, you assign the review to a third party, not to one of the disputants, and that you fully identify the role of any disputant you do let review a book about said dispute.
The book sounds wrong anyway; it seems to blame the vast and sudden exodus from the U.S. sisterhood in the 60s and 70's not on crazed radical feminism and Spirit of VatII-ism but on good prelates such as Cardinal McIntyre, who had the good of the sisters' souls in mind.
Anita Caspary's Tidings book review does accomplish one thing, though; it gives us a new liberal euphemism. She says, "more flexibility in the understanding of obedience." I think we all recognize that "flexibility" for what it is: Disobedience.