Archbishop Chaput on “Catholics and the Fourth Estate”
An interesting and thought-provoking essay by the Archbishop of Denver on the media. (HT: Deacon’s Bench).
I’ve been watching huge amounts of television lately, confined to a couch or a barco-lounger with a broken ankle. And so I’ve actually seen the hegemony of the Michael Jackson story in real-time. Now, while I’m not one to dismiss pop culture, the all-Michael, all-the-time saturation coverage struck me as excessive –and disturbing, given the other stories that should command our attention.
So, I read the Archbishop’s essay with interest. Here’s what struck me as an important point: the decision of which news to listen to, to whom we should pay attention, is in fact a moral decision.
“Here’s a simple fact: You and I have just begun a relationship. The moment you started listening to me, we struck a deal. You agreed to give me your attention. I agreed to give you my opinions. It’s a pretty common arrangement. But sometimes it can have unhelpful consequences.”
So how do we/should we/ inform ourselves? Whom do we trust for our news, and why?
Archbishop Chaput’s piece is very interesting. One claim, however, brought me up short. The archbishop writes:
“No major news organization would send reporters to cover politics, the military, sports, the economy or world affairs who lacked a good knowledge of their subject. But as the author and veteran journalist Terry Mattingly has argued, that’s exactly what happens, again and again, with news coverage of religion. Most editors and most reporters simply don’t take the religion beat seriously.”
This comes after a paragraph in which the Archbishop notes that only 17% of press professionals attend church services once a week or more. The logic here forces a question: Does one have to attend religious services to have a “good knowledge” of the subject of religion? Does a reporter have to go to Mass to be able to cover Catholicism seriously?
The same questions may be asked in regard to those who teach theology or religious studies in colleges and universities.
“So how do we/should we/ inform ourselves?”
I agree, Cardinal Chaput’s article is interesting and thought-provoking, thanks for posting it. Without directly answering your question, I think a close reading of Chaput reveals how much more difficult it is for the average liberal to develop a truly well-rounded viewpoint. On the other hand, between the mainstream media and the academy, your average conservative can’t help but be aware of the most enlightened liberal views.
I agree with you on that, Paul. I find that Mattingly tends to identify “getting religion” with “favorable coverage of conservative religious groups or people.” So I don’t find the “Get Religion” blog a balanced source of information, but one that must itself be balanced with other points of view.
I’m so glad Mark thinks he has a well rounded view – enlightened too.
So much for bubble thinking.
A major issue, I think, is the difference between news and analysis and the conflation frequently of the two.
I particulaly object to the now common practice of analysis being two sides of an issue being argued in debate fashion.
Underlying that approach is the impossibility of being objective in viewing policies/practices, etc.
There is also the major problem of the decline of print media and thus its ability to heve ever knowlegable staff providing reports.
Instead we have the internet which has much valuable information commingled with all kinds of “stuff”, often put forth by folks who (putatively for privacy reasons) won’t even identify who they are , and, even if they do, will not acknowledge their agenda and maybe who finaces their interest.
So, what does anyone–liberal or conservative–who’s Catholic need to read or watch in order to be well-informed. And (not clear to me if the Apb. is going there) does such a person need NOT to read or watch in order to be well-informed?
Good post and questions. Would suggest that you need to basically approach all news sources with skepticism. Listen to both sides. Then, do research. (how many of us have the time or the werewithal to do that)
Examples – Judge Noonan’s address at ND – how many folks picked up one of his authoritative books and read more deeply into his opinions, thinking foundations, etc. Without that context, you take the speaker at face value.
What about bishops or pastors who make pronouncements – how many folks have the resources or time to be able to study all sides of an issue? It takes time, energy, and a willingness to suspend opinion/judgment until you have done your homework. Most of us take the easy path – if we agree with the speaker; s/he is right; if not, s/he is wrong.
For those of us who studied Thomistic philosophy and theological methods of Rahner, Lonergan – the search for truth is complicated and time consuming.
How many of us are skeptical of church authorities; how many of us trust our own ability to arrive at a decision from our conscience that is basically well-informed?
The daily, current news cycle is reporting on an event that quickly becomes history. As we learn daily, our understanding of history changes – even some of the history of the church changes. (Excellent book by Margaret MacMillan – “Dangerous Games: The uses and misuses of history.”)
That makes the Fourth Estate even more significant as a “vocation” and a responsibility to search for the truth; not sensation. As usual, it will probably take years for truth, process of ethics/morality to catch up to modern technology in terms of Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. News is undergoing such tremendous changes that a few, global conglomerations own and control access to the news – do they pay for truth or sensation? Who pays for the ads – headlines or indepth stories? The same can be applied to Catholic news resources – EWTN, Commonweal, America, NCR (both of them), Wanderer, Ave Maria Press, diocesan papers (mouthpiece for the local bishops); Obsservatore, Il Giorgno, etc. Italian/Vatican church papers (how balanced are they?); catholic ethical institutions; every religious group has its own publication.
End with two other points:
a) Chaput does not apply any of his points to the “Catholic” Fourth Estate – that may have been intentional; his focus was the international/national press?
b) apply his same points about vocation, responsibility, search for truth in terms of the USCCB and individual bishops – do they apply the same, suggested rules to themselves?
The Chaput piece was two or three times as long as it could have been, in my opinion, and almost devoid of concrete examples.
Chaput seems to think there was a golden age of news coverage sometime in the past, and that we’re in a bad way now. Oddly, he quotes Oscar Wilde, who died over a century ago, to support his case. Regarding the Federalist Papers, no one can question their importance, but on the other hand, by contemporary standards, “news” coverage before and after the American Revolution was appalling. Here’s the booklist review of Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism by Eric Burns:
To get a broader view I often pick up foreign papers. Unfortunately they are also filled with saturation coverage of Obama and Michael Jackson.
Today’s (left wing) La Repubblica from Rome has an article summarizing the US coverage of Obama’s meeting with the Pope. It finds the front page photo the NY Times chose to run, not of the two protagonists, as appeared everywhere else, but one of Malia stretching her feet in the back of the Presidential van, to be more than a bit odd. La Repubblica further puzzled over the “helpful” caption, “She Wasn’t Barefoot When She Met the Pope.”
But it thought Murdoch’s NY Post front page headline, “From Peep Show to Pope Show” along with the pictures
http://www.nypost.com/photos/galleries/covers/index.htm?date=07112009
to be positively irreverent.
They had nothing to say about “Obama’s Eye” or “When Benny Met Barry” at dotCom.
The traditional liberal defence of a free press and analogous sources of information is the “market place of ideas” concept. Let all say what they will and then truth will prevail over error in the long run because most of us do not really want to be misinformed. This assumes a discerning and attentive public, eager for truth. Despite the shortcomings, recently made evident to most of us, of the concept of markets as self-regulating, it is difficult to see how we can dispense with free speech. Contending truths and falsehoods are better than any monolithic view. Even the Church now seems resigned to free media, provided the Church is as free a any other player in the marketplace to present its case.
So how do we/should we/ inform ourselves? Whom do we trust for our news, and why?
The News Hour with Jim Lehrer
Washington Week in Review
This Week with George Stephanopoulos
Meet the Press
(for these two, watch just the roundtables if you like)
Paul Krugman in the Times
Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post
From the New York Ties
David Brooks
Ross Douthat
Paul Krugman
From the Washington Post
Anne Applebaum
Richard Cohen
E.J. Dionne
David Ignatius
Michael Kinsley
Charles Krauthammer
Eugene Robinson
Robert Samuelson
George Will
Fareed Zakaria
Good books, which generally will exclude anything written by very liberal or very conservative authors that soars to the top of the bestseller list .
For coverage of religion, I would recommend my own messages on dotCommonweal and Vox Nova. :-P
My Father, who wrote a thesis for one of his Masters on communication in the age of television, understood that the media could be used as a source of great Good depending on the content and quality of the information being conveyed.He felt the consumer, as well as the media outlet, had an obligation to make sure the information being conveyed was grounded in the truth. I think, if he were here today, he would probably say that the problem of the tabloid media today is not so much the speed in which we receive our information, but rather the quality of the content of the material to begin with.
“-the search for truth is complicated and time consuming.”
Bill, let me help you out. Not only will this help simplify your search, it will save you alot of time. :-) http://www.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Mostly Chaput sounds like he is rehashing the principles of a liberal education. Not a bad thing, but he places the onus on the news media rather than on the reader/student.
There are a couple of other issues that it could be interesting to discuss. Someone has already mentioned the Catholic press. Does the newspaper of Chaput’s diocese meet the standards he sets? Should they? Is it ok if a non-diocesan paper met the same standards for objectivity and information that exist for a diocesan paper?
The other important issue is the ill informed religion reporter. Papers may prefer to avoid religion because it is hard to get someone who will be recognized as well-informed by everyone. In my diocese, the bishop decided to get rid of the union that was in some Catholic schools. Whose Cahtolicism should the reporters know? That of the bishop? That of the priest who wrote in defense of the union, citing Catholic teaching? That of the union members? And if the reporter were well informed on one of these, he would be accused of being ill-informed by the others. Now add in mormons and muslims, buddhists and Sikhs, each with a slew of traditions of their own, and you have a great deal information that should be known.
I don’t know if I should be ashamed to admit it, but I get all my news online now at Google (and New Scientist’s science news), and for religious info, check various blogs and sites like Reuters’ FaithWorld, US News’ God & Country, the Episcopal Cafe, the TimesOnline, the Insight Scoop, Independent Catholic News, Clerical Whispers, etc. and research further whatever’s interesting.
I found it interesting that Archbishop Chaput stated:
“All smart leaders try to use the news media to advance their agendas. And depending on who the leader is – John F. Kennedy comes to mind, but I could easily name others — media professionals can be very eager to help. America’s news media have enormous opinion-shaping power. Therefore it’s vital for Catholics to understand how the media work, and especially how they work on us.”
While I can believe that Archbishop Chaput may understand how the media works—I’m not so sure that a goodly number of his brother archbishops/bishops do. I don’t believe that many comprehend how they appear to average Catholics or to other Americans. I don’t believe that they are aware of the speed of electronic media. They seem to be more at home with the slower forms (and I agree with the Archbishop—we do need time to reflect). But being aware of the great numbers of people being formed and informed by the media (one way or the other), is a concept and skill that was not taught in the “Bishop 101″ Class”.
The USCCB does not always appear (in the media) to be united, or speaking as a unifying voice. And unlike centuries ago, when messages from the pope or bishops took awhile to get over the mountains, hills or across the rivers—what they say has barely left their lips when an anaylsis of it has been produced and placed on line, or that opinions are occuring on twitter.
Not only do Catholics need to be discerning as to what they take in as worthy sources of information, but the Bishops need to be aware that the media can hurt or help in their role as shepherds. Modern Media 101 for our Bishops—-any takers?
“A liberal Democrat can do the same with MSNBC, CNN, NPR, Air America, the New York Times, and the Daily Kos.”
CNN is a left-wing news source? oy. BTW, this list has the air of a proscription, especially when paired with the story about a NY Times reporter who was unfamiliar with Matt. 7:4.
The reporter wasn’t covering a scriptural history conference, but a campaign stop.
Maybe the reporter wasn’t Christian – clearly not a thought that occurred that Chaput.
The tone of ‘besserwissen’ rings throughout his piece – “wanna know why it’s called the fourth estate?” Why are newsrooms liberal-leaning? Because from lowly pamphleteering to the genteel Republic of Letters, journalism is a liberal enterprise.
“The USCCB does not always appear (in the media) to be united, or speaking as a unifying voice.” This is true, for example, why hasn’t the media reported this:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-144.shtml
It does make you wonder whether the media wants it to appear as if the Bishops are not always speaking in a unified voice.
Nancy — I like your phrase “tabloid media” very much. It describes such alarmist-exaggerator-tunnel visioned TV “reporters” like Sean Hannity.
Jim Mc — I can understand a bishop’s claim that he has not just a right but also a duty to say exactly what he things in his diocesan paper. But it would be a lot healthier for the American Church if, like the Wall Street Journal, the bishops’ conservaitve editorializing were balanced by some ecellent reprting I have always felt that the reporting in the journal serves to makes the inanity of the editorial page even clearer
:-)
It also seems to me that American journalism is too concentrated in New York City. Granted, the journalists there are from all over the country, but I suspect that it is easy to lose one’s local expertise and outlook, just as politicians within the Washington D. C. beltway sometimes become out of touch with thier constituents.i
I think the main problemwith American journalism is the journalism programs in U. S. colleges. I know that a few years some in the profession were alarmed at the way journalism majors were simultaneously being prepared to to into advertising and public relations persons. Scary.
It is a thoughtful article. To pick up on Paul Lauritzen’s comment, I can’t agree that “No major news organization would send reporters to cover politics, the military, sports, the economy or world affairs who lacked a good knowledge of their subject.” Reporters spend a lot of time covering subjects they don’t know much about. I know I had to learn very quickly about politics, law, business, government finance and many other subjects when I was a daily reporter. And even if I started the religion beat with some grounding in Catholicism, I didn’t know anything about, say, Hinduism or Sikhism.
The archbishop’s point about the low level of religious literacy in newsrooms is certainly valid. But I do think it is possible to be a good religion journalist without being religious. Terry Mattingly, whom Archbishop Chaput mentions, has that view also, if I recall correctly from the recent book “Blind Spot.”
I think the archbishop makes a good point in seeing journalists as individuals rather than as a single, suspect entity, “the media.”
Ann said: I think the main problem with American journalism is the journalism programs in U.S. colleges. I know that a few years some in the profession were alarmed at the way journalism majors were simultaneously being prepared to to into advertising and public relations persons. Scary.
Jean replies: It would be scary if it were true. Most accredited J-schools try to help students understand how PR and “advocacy journalism” (which is what your diocesan paper is all about) differ from their own professions.
My own course attempts to help advert/PR majors understand the scrutiny (I hope) journalists will bring to their own messages.
Journalists sometimes end up in advert and PR b/c the pay is better.
When choosing a trustworthy news outlet, i think it’s useful to look at the news values it emphasizes. The seven classic news values are timeliness, impact, magnitude, conflict, oddity, proximity and prominence. The stock in trade of the tabloid media (I like that term, too), are oddity and prominence, aka the weird and the famous, and occasionally the “legitimate news media” goes tabloid-y on a story, like Michael Jackson’s death.
FWIW, The News Hour mentioned Jackson events in its news summary only. The first of the three network newscasts to drop Jackson from the lead story slot was ABC.
I think it’s also helpful to be careful about confusing Objective Truth (which only God knows) and the journalistic effort. Journalists seek to honestly and diligently find out what happened, sometimes as a story unfolds and new facts come to light or contradictory accounts emerge. They also try to help a variety of those affected by events explain their views about it.
OK, back to lurking now.
Jean, I really wish you would break from lurking more often–your comments are invaluable!
Cathy
Would it change the way you read Abp C’s piece if it were an address he gave to Legatus?
No, Chaput did give this speech to Legatus. So what? His very point seems to say that the “truth”, message, etc. should be solid and not change with the audience, ad campaign, ownership of the media source, etc.
Here is a fuller explanation of one section of Chaput’s presentation – per NCR’s Feuerherd, Chaput himself is guilty of misquoting, misreading, and mis-interpreting the incident he describes when Obama met with the catholic media editors. What does that say about Chaput and his points?
Please refer to my last sentences in my post above and compare to the last paragraph of Chaput’s presentation. Over the last 24 months, Chaput’s statements and behavior have been about as partisan as one can be. Link to Feuerherd: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/archbishop-media-analyst
Highlight: “Said Chaput: “The news media, despite their claims of impartiality, and despite the good work they often do accomplish, are just as prone to prejudice, ignorance, bad craftsmanship and tribalism as any other profession. But unlike other professions, the press has constitutional protections.”
All of which is, of course, true. But take a look at those two sentences and substitute “Catholic hierarchy” for “news media” and “the press,” and you’ll see that this is true for another constitutionally-protected estate.”
Bill, Bishop Chaput simply told the truth about President Obama’s positions on abortion and Marriage and the Family. Did you expect him to support these positions even though they are not consistent with Divine Truth? You are not suggesting that the Catholic hierarchy should not speak the truth about The Truth are you?
nancy – here is a link to an address by Bishop Kicanas…..IMHO, it does a much better job at addressing media, communication, truth, objectivity, research, etc. than the Legatus pronouncements of Chaput.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/kicanas-communications-candor
Highlights:
Kicanas discusses his love of theater and draws five “ingredients” necessary for effective communication:
– Those telling the story must themselves be taken up by it;
– The church’s message is best communicated succinctly with emotion and color, and in concrete language people understand and that engages them;
– The church, like theater, faces competing messages, so it must light up its marquee to entice people to come in to hear the story;
– While modern technology must be incorporated, these important tools are not the message nor alone can they deliver the message effectively.
– Finally, in dioceses and parishes it is important to create a “climate of candor.”
That last bullet item, of course, gets the attention. Later in the paper, Kicanas expands on the idea by citing a recent Harvard Business Review article on creating a culture of candor. The authors of that piece, James O’Toole and Warren Bennis, list eight characteristics: tell the truth; encourage people to speak truth to power; reward contrarians; practice having unpleasant conversations; diversify your sources of information; admit your mistakes; build organizational support for transparency; set information free.
Fuereherd’s point above was that many bishops do not meet these criteria in their own diocesan papers; nor in their positions; nor in their teaching role; nor in their presentations.
Bill, I was actually responding to your attack on Bishop Chaput which you clearly have not backed up with any evidence. Why would anyone desire that the Catholic heirarchy NOT speak the truth about THE TRUTH? When you stated that, “over the last 24 months, Chaput’s statements and behavior have been about as partisan as one can be”, you failed to mention to what or whom Bishop Chaput is partisan.
Allow me to quote from John Allen on the situation that exists today in society and the church:
“Both at the grass roots and among the chattering classes, the American church is often described as split between its pro-lifers and its peace-and-justice contingent. More accurately, it’s divided between those who see Catholic teaching as a useful tool to support their partisan preferences, whatever they may be, and those for whom the faith comes first and secular politics second.
Put differently, the real “losers” from Caritas in Veritate are Catholics who operate as chaplains to political parties, cheerleaders for political candidates, and spin doctors for either the Bush or Obama administrations, cherry-picking among church teachings to support those positions. Needless to say, the American Catholic landscape is dotted with prominent examples of all the above.
Recent years have seen some noble attempts to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. When the U.S. bishops produced their most recent version of “Faithful Citizenship,” a statement on faith and politics, they styled it as a joint project of their pro-life and peace-and-justice committees. At the time, it seemed a tribute to a unified Catholic vision, though some of that synthesis seemed to unravel under the pressures of the ’08 campaign. A second example is the annual Social Ministry Gathering in Washington, again under the aegis of the U.S. bishops, which has become a laboratory for a consistent life ethic. It’s sponsored by both the conference’s pro-life and social mission structures.
Yet such efforts remain rare. Under the lure of partisan politics, pro-life and peace-and-justice Catholics in America too often move in separate circles. They read their own journals and Web sites, go to their own meetings, and have their own heroes. Pro-lifers tend to be drawn into the Republican orbit, while peace-and-justice types are usually more comfortable with the Democrats. As a result, they travel down separate paths, having separate conversations and investing their time and treasure in distinct, and sometimes even opposing, efforts.”
After reading “Render unto Caeser”; reviewing many of his statements during the presidential race in fall, 2008, etc. Chaput can be easily documented and siloed into the bishops for Republican group. That has very little to do with THE TRUTH (as you put it).
I quoted above from another bishop, Kicanas, whose descriptions and comments about the media are very different in tone, style, and points than Chaput. So, which bishop is correct? which is speaking the truth?
Bill, the situation that exists today in Society and the Catholic Church is the result of the recycled heresy that claims there is no Divine Truth, a spin on the old arian heresy. In order to understand The Truth, you need to go back to Genesis, which answers the question, “why is there something and not nothing”. There is something because God is the Creative Relationship of Love that gives us Life from the beginning. Bishop Chaput sees Pro-Life and Peace and Justice in communion and understands that if we do not protect God’s Gift of Life from the beginning, we can not have Peace or Justice to begin with.
I think everyone here beleives in Divine truth.
What Nancy thinks that is is so broad that it’s impossible to hav ea nunanced discussion with her and the notion of “truth’ is reduced to glib argumentation.
I just am sorry to write this as we will get many more posts about the Truth accorduing to….