Suppose that a conservative Catholic newspaper–let’s say The Wanderer–approached Tony Spence, the editor-in-chief of Catholic News Service (which operates under the auspices of the USCCB) and asked him to respond to unsourced allegations that Catholic News Service is infested by theological dissidents.
Suppose that The Wanderer then ran a piece headlined "Editor denies Catholic News Service ‘infested by theological dissidents.’"
And suppose that nowhere in this piece did it cite anyone as having made this allegation. It simply seems to be something that The Wanderer wants to suggest even though there is apparently no one willing to go on record making the claim.
Would that be responsible journalism? Of course not. That’s an attack piece.
Why then has Catholic News Service just used this exact tactic in an article on the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that points out problems in various Catholic universities?
Disclosure: I have no connection to the Cardinal Newman Society, nor have I been more than dimly aware of its existence prior to the publication of this piece. I know next to nothing about it, have no prior impression of it, and have no opinion on it one way or the other. I support fostering the Catholic identity of Catholic universities, but whether the Cardinal Newman Society does so in a constructive manner is something I do not at this point know.
That being said. . . .
As soon as I started reading the CNS piece–titled Cardinal Newman Society head says group operates within magisterium–it was immediately obvious that the piece represented a hit piece apparently written in gross violation of journalistic ethics (either that or it’s gross journalistic incompetence). Both the reporter who wrote it (Agostino Bono) and the editor who approved it are severely at fault.
Here’s how the article begins:
WASHINGTON (CNS) — A self-described watchdog organization that claims many Catholic colleges are losing their Catholic identity is not setting up a teaching authority independent of the bishops, said the head of the group.
The Cardinal Newman Society is exercising a "concurrent magisterium" in keeping with the church’s teaching authority, said Patrick Reilly, the society’s president.
You’ll note that the article goes after the Cardinal Newman Society from the very beginning. It lobs allegations at them and does so without naming anyone who is making these allegations.
Nor does it go on to name those making these allegations in subsequent paragraphs. They are completley unattributed.
This is a hallmark of hit piece journalism. You simply cannot lob unsourced allegations at someone and claim to be doing responsible journalism.
A reporter’s job is — get this — to report the news. If some
bishop or university president has accused the Cardinal Newman Society
of setting up its own teaching authority, and a reporter gets a
statement from the Cardinal Newman Society denying said charges, that is reporting the news.
If as far as we know nobody
has accused the Cardinal Newman Society of setting up its own teaching
authority — at least, not on the record, not in any way that would
make it a news story — and a reporter up and decides out of the blue
to ask the president of the Cardinal Newman Society whether his group
is setting up its own teaching authority, then runs a story all about
how the Cardinal Newman Society denies setting up its own authority,
then that is not reporting the news, that is slime journalism.
This is a breathtaking lapse of ethics (or a breathtaking act of incompetence). Even secular journalists wanting to slime a group have the brains not to make such a blatant attempt. They at least go out and find someone willing to publicly mouth the accusation that the reporter wants to lob at the group.
The fact that the piece was a brazen attempt to slime the Cardinal Newman Society was thus immediately apparent, though I also recognized that if Patrick Reilly really said some of the things attributed to him in the article that he did himself no favors, and I began to form a negative impression of his group.
The comment about the society seeking to exercise a "concurrent magisterium," for example, was an immediate danger signal, as were other commenets attributed to him, and I began to view him and his society in a negative light.
But it turns out that Mr. Reilly disputes the attribution of these quotations. A response on the Cardinal Newman Society web site denies that Reilly said this, and it makes some of the same points I would in critiquing the phrase "concurrent magisterium."
The response on the Cardinal Newman Society web site also mentions a prior encounter with the Catholic News Service, in which the latter attempted to get the former to stop using the acronym CNS, as if there weren’t at least fifty-two other uses of that acronym.
This further calls into question the motivations of Catholic News Service in running the piece.
One can only hope that Tony Spence or his superiors will immediately take steps to correct and apologize for this outrageous breach of journalistic ethics and to discipline the reporter and any subordinate editor who approved the piece.
If Spence is himself the editor who approved it then he needs to be disciplined by his superiors.
Standard contact info:
Catholic News Service
(202) 541-3250
cns@catholicnews.com
PROBABLY THE MOST TELLING POINT IS THAT THE HIT PIECE -SLIME JOB CAME OUT RIGHT AFTER THE NEWS SERVICE LOST ITS FIGHT OVER THE INITIALS CNS. IF THE EDITORS HAD ANY COMMON SENSE, THEY WOULD HAVE AT LEAST HELD THE STORY UP FOR A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME.
What’s up with that “self-described watchdog organization” business? As opposed to what other kind?
Doesn’t “self-described” exude an aura of doubt as to the legitimacy of the group’s right to the term? As if real watchdog groups were accredited by the Federal Watchdog Accreditation Office, or something? Aren’t all watchdog groups watchdog groups just because they say they are?
Conversely, if the writer has some evidence that this so-called “watchdog” group is operating below some minimum threshold of acceptability for watchdog groups, then shouldn’t he back this up?
Strange that out of the many actual dissident organization that really are not in line with the magisterium they pick on the Cardinal Newman Society.
Over the years I have followed their press releases and statements and have never seen how they have ever been out of line other than spotlighting divergence from the magisterium in Catholic schools.
Catholic News Service needs to clean house — big time.
If Catholic News Service wants to expose dissident organizations, how about focusing on Call to Action, Rainbow Sash Movement, Catholics for a Free Choice, Dignity USA, Catholic Women’s Ordination, CORPUS, and Voice of the Faithful, among many, many others.
Liz, they probably won’t so that because they would offend 95% of their employees and supporters. Awfully sad….
Best Music Buys CD Search and Price Comparison
It’s generally considered one of the best albums in pop music history. For all that renown, Astral Weeks is anything but an archetypal rock & roll album: in…