The Washington Times and Rev. Moon

Let’s have some fun, shall we? Three days ago I referred to the Washington Times as the Moonie Times. See, the Washington Times is owned by News World Communications, Inc., which also owns United Press International (UPI). News World Communications, Inc. is owned by the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon.

The Moon "coronation" in a Congressional building

So what's the big deal? Well, let me tell you a story about Rev. Moon and how the Moonie Times is his own personal mouthpiece. One of the most amazing things about this story is that it received no coverage from the major media until approximately three months after it happened.

Here is a list of the sources I used regarding the event described herein (in no particular order):

• "The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception;" Washington Post; June 23, 2004.
• "Lawmakers attend Moon ‘coronation’ in Dirksen;" The Hill; June 22, 2004.
• "Rev. Moon holds coronation at Capitol;" World Net Daily; June 14, 2004.
• "Moon Over Washington;" The Gadflyer; June 9, 2004.
• "A Moon for the Misbegotten;" Pittsburgh Post Gazette; June 27, 2004.
• "Religious Leaders Defend Moon's Capitol Hill Coronation As 'King of Peace';" Cybercast News Sevice, July 1, 2004.
  

The date was March 23, 2004. The place was the Dirksen Senate Office Building--that is the office building for the U.S. Senate. The event was an awards ceremony sponsored by the International Interreligious Federation for World Peace (founded by Moon) and the Washington Times Foundation. Among those present for all or part of the ceremony were Congressmen Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Sen. Mark Dayton (R-Minn.). The invitation listed Davis, Weldon and Bartlett and Congressmen Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Chris Cannon (R-Utah) and Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) as “Congressional Co-Chairs.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), House members Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Phil Crane (R-Ill.) and GOP consultant Charlie Black were listed as members of the “Host Committee.”

One hundred honorees were given "national peace awards," and two people received an "international crown of peace award"--Moon and his wife.

And now the fun begins...

After the "national peace awards" were announced, the ceremony began in earnest. John Gorenfeld provided a good description:

Eyes downcast, a man identified as Congressman Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) is bringing a crown, atop a velvety purple cushion, to a figure who stands waiting austerely with his wife. Now Moon is wearing robes that Louis XIV would have appreciated. All of this has quickly been spliced into a promo reel by Moon's movement, which implies to its followers that the U.S. Congress itself has crowned the Washington Times owner.

That's right--Rev. Sun Myung Moon was crowned in a U.S. Senate building by a U.S. Congressman. Oh, but we are just getting warmed up, boys and girls...

After the crowning, Moon gave a lengthy speech. Here are some highlights:

• Moon said that “Hitler and Stalin have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons.”
• Moon said that he has been "sent to Earth...to save the world's six billion people[.]"
• He also declared that "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

Well, I guess if Moon saved and redeemed Hitler and Stalin, he must be the true Messiah...and monkeys are at this very moment flying out of my butt.

The response as reported by the Washington Times

And how did the Washington Times respond to questions about this event? It published an article on July 1, 2004, which was a report of a news conference held by Moon's supporters. In particular, they tried to clarify what "Messiah" meant:

Several of the religious figures further defended Rev. Moon's use of the term "Messiah" to describe himself. They said he should be judged based on his efforts to promote peace.

"The term 'Messiah' is relative," said the Rev. George A. Stallings, the archbishop of the Imani Temple African-American Catholic Congregation in the District. "It depends on your particular religious persuasion. Ultimately, we must judge Reverend Moon not by what he says but by what he does."

The Rev. Michael Jenkins, co-chairman of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, a Unification Church affiliate, was one of several speakers who compared Rev. Moon to Martin Luther King, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jesus Christ. He said Rev. Moon has not claimed to be God.

*******

Archbishop Stallings offered his explanation of those remarks yesterday.

"He does not mean 'Messiah' in the context that a traditional Christian means Messiah," he said. "He is not God. He is the Messiah, namely, the one who has been given the mission by Jesus to bring the world to restoration, to return it to God's original ideals for men and women."

(emphasis added). Oh, really? Let's look one more time at what Moon said: "Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." As far as I am concerned, "Returning Lord" is the term that totally contradicts everything quoted above from the Washington Times article. Furthermore, Moon his ownself did not provide any of those explanations or qualifiers.

And then there are other things that Moon has said in the past that show that his defenders are wrong.

[C]onsider the day in April 2002 when he received the latest in a long series of earthshattering religious visions. This one was especially noteworthy. In it, Moon learned that he had been selected as "the Savior, Messiah and King of Kings of all of humanity" by God. Also on the selection committee: Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and Buddha (in addition to several others, including the godless Communists Marx and Stalin for some mysterious reason).

Anyway, that's how Moon described it in his full-page newspaper ad, which ran in papers all across the U.S. (including the Los Angeles Times). It was a $720,000 print run, but it was worth every penny. Finally middle America would get the word and rally behind their messiah. Except it was a bit of a reach. Moon's captive congregation is accustomed to his indefatigable hubris, but the general public who have yet to send their mind through the laundry just find it repugnant.

But he can't help it. Moon has been claiming for decades (like The Beatles before him) that he is bigger than Christ. In a 1990 sermon, he reiterated this belief (note that Moon always addresses himself in the third person, usually as "Father"):

"Jesus never achieved a thousandth of what Father has done. In his two years and eight months of public ministry, [Jesus] didn't even establish the national foundation. Now, Father has established a foundation of worldwide power that is unprecedented in history."

Moon has a bad habit of comparing himself favorably to his predecessor, proclaiming that he will succeed where Jesus has failed, and so on.

(emphasis added). You might think that with statements like that, the religious right would be coming out against Moon. Well, think again, as I will show in a subsequent post. For now, just consider that the Washington Times is owned by a guy who thinks he is better than Jesus.

Does Moon control the content?

Then consider that while people at the Washington Times insist that Moon does not control or influence the content of the paper, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

• Statements by Moon
  

In a June 23, 1996 speech, Moon said

Since coming to America, Reverend Moon has been the leading force to unite all the various ideologies, in particular, the various denominations of Christianity. Reverend Moon created The Washington Times and the University of Bridgeport in order to lead the media and academic fields. By doing so, Reverend Moon has truly devoted so much for the sake of saving America. Now all those brilliant Americans will naturally follow and respect him.

(emphasis added). So Moon wants to save America, and he created the Washington Times expressly for the purpose of leading the media in that effort--and yet he has no influence over the paper. And the monkeys are still flying out of my butt. Moon went on to say in the same speech that

Since establishing the Washington Times Foundation Reverend Moon has enough strings to pull among influential people.

The Washington Times has become the focal point of the conservative based media of the world through the Internet. The entire world is now subscribing to the Washington Times through the Internet.

(emphasis added). According to an April 2001 story in Brill's Content, Moon said in January 1999 that "In 1982, in accordance with the will of God, I founded The Washington Times....Ever since then, this newspaper has led American public opinion as a conservative news medium showing the path that America must follow." Okay...Moon has declared himself the Returning Lord, and he feels that the Washington Times is following God's will by showing them the path that must be followed in order for him (Moon) to save America--and yet he has no influence over the paper. And the monkeys are still flying out of my butt. Need more evidence? Then check out this statement from a December 23, 1991, speech by Moon: "Look at the Washington Times. No one in America helped to create that. Without Father's guidance for the Washington Times, this country couldn't have found a direction." Still not convinced? On September 12, 2002, Moon said, "I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities.

• The financial factor
  

The Washington Times started in 1982. In the December 23, 1991, speech cited above, Moon said, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times." An article in the September/October 2002 issue of the Cloumbia Journalism Review said, "Exact numbers on the privately owned paper are hard to get, but published reports indicate Moon has sunk nearly $2 billion into the Times." That's approximately $2 billion in 20 years, for an average of $100 million per year. Based on the foregoing, I will assume that through 2004, Moon spent $2.2 billion.

In an interview in July 1990 with the Washington Post (the article is available only through the paper's archives), Moon deputy and then president of the Washington Times Bo Hi Pak "said that the newspaper has lost about $250 million since its founding eight years ago, and he estimated that it continues to lose about $35 million a year." In other words, the paper lost money. $250 million over eight years is $31, 250,000 per year, which means that the paper's losses increased after eight years (to $35 million). A June 18, 2004, column in the Washington Post said that one source estimated the losses at the Washington Times to be $20 million per year. The same column cited "several sources" putting the total losses for 22 years at $1 billion.

Based on the previous paragraph, I will calculate a range of losses. First the low range...Pak said $250 million for the first eight years and $35 million per year after that. I will use that figure for two years, which brings the 10-year total to $320 million. For the next 12 years, I will use the $20 million per year figure, which brings the total to $560 million. The high range is $1 billion.

Now do you think that someone who is willing to spend $2.2 billion and just throw away $560 million to $1 billion on an enterprise is not to going to have any control or influence over that enterprise? Boy, this room is getting crowded with flying monkeys...

• Complaints from editors and examples of following orders
  

The first managing editor of the Washington Times was James Whalen. A March 17, 1992 article in the Napa Sentinel described Whalen's tenure and some of what happened afterwards:

"When we started the paper, there was never any question that it would, in any fashion, project the views or the agenda of Moon or the Unification Church. All to the contrary. We said, look, we're going to put a high wall in place It's going to be a sturdy wall, and it will divide us from you," Whalen said. But Whalen's wall of editorial independence was often breached. "Moon, himself, gave direct instructions to the editors...Ultimately, Moon calls all the shots. The Washington Times has become a Moonie newspaper," Whalen said.

The Washington Times is quoted virtually every hour on the hour by Voice of America and on the BBC. When Whalen resigned, Arneau de Borgrave took over. He maintains that the editorial department has complete freedom. But no way, says William Chester. "I protested to Mr. de Borgrave and I was honest when I saw this happening, telling him that this was unethical, improper, unprofessional, and ought to stop. And I also said it was dumb." Chester and four other editors resigned after de Borgrave ordered an about-face on an editorial critical of the South Korean government.

That was then, so what about more recent times? On August 6, 2004, Gorenfeld was interviewed on NPR's "On the Media." He was asked to give an example of Moon influence on content, and he said

As recently as last year, the Washington Times devoted some space to promoting one of Reverend Moon's ideas for what he calls the Interreligious International Peace Council, with him in charge of it. This is something that the United Nations has not actually considered adopting, and yet the Washington Times, as well as UPI Wire Service, which Reverend Moon bought in 2000, have run articles suggesting that people think it's a good idea.

You can read one such article from the Washington Times here.

• On the other hand...
  

The June 17, 2004, Washington Post column cited above describes a brewing battle at the Washington Times between Moon's group and Wes Pruden, the current editor of the paper.

Insiders say the church's new line is that with the end of the Cold War, it's important to support international organizations such as the United Nations and to campaign for world peace and interfaith understanding. That stance would be awkward for the Times's hard-line editor in chief, Wesley Pruden, and its stable of neoconservative columnists.

*******

Pruden responded yesterday to the reports of friction between the paper and the church over foreign policy: "What you're saying confirms that we operate independently," he said. "They've never told me to put anything in the paper or keep anything out." He added: "I would resist any effort to change the fundamental vision under which the paper was founded."

Coverage of the Korean Peninsula has been an especially delicate issue. The paper's stance has been aggressively anti-Pyongyang. But the church has embraced a conciliatory line, including investment in North Korea. Moon has bankrolled Pyonghwa Motors, which plans to produce cars in the North, along with a hotel, a park and a church there. A senior church official, Ahn Ho Yeol, told a South Korean newspaper last year: "It is our principle to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula by promoting mutual prosperity." Again, that's a dovish sentiment you won't often read in the Times.

*******

Pruden won't give up control of the Times without a fight. And he has powerful Republican friends on Capitol Hill and in the administration who would probably back a campaign to maintain the paper's editorial line and fend off meddling by its owners. What's clear from the Times-Moon dust-up is that the battle for the soul of conservatism has a new front.

So perhaps now the Washington Times is showing that it is independent from Moon's church and policies. However, unless Pruden's "powerful Republican friends" are willing to put up the massive amounts of cash needed to keep the paper going, I find it unlikely that Pruden will win this battle.

Some of you wingers are probably thinking that if the Washington Times follows Moon and veers away from Bush's policies, that will prove that the paper is not a major influence on the GOP. I caution you not to make such an argument until you know more about all the Republicans and religious leaders (such as Jerry Falwell) who support Moon and have accepted big chunks of money from him. You also need to know about the connections between the Bush family and W's administration and Moon.

Details to follow...