Bam: Chaput boycotts the NYT

September 25, 2010 By

Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput addressed the Religion Newswriters Association conference in Denver yesterday where he both inspired and challenged. Religion reporters, he said, are not normal. “They are amphibians who live in two worlds and can honor both.”

“Acknowledge your mistakes and don’t make them a habit,” Chaput said. “Understand believers and their institutions as they understand themselves. If you do that and do it with integrity, fairness and humility, you’ll have the gratitude of the people you cover and you’ll embody the best ideals of your profession.”

During the question and answer period, Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times asked him why he didn’t return her phone call when Archbishop Jose Gomez was chosen as Los Angeles archbishop. Chaput said that Times reporter David Kirkpatrick misquoted him during John Kerry’s presidential campaign, and he said that he has recordings to prove it. “It’s The New York Times‘ editorial policy that I’m interpreting,” Chaput said. “I made a judgment based on experience.”

Goodstein said she did not know Chaput was boycotting the Times. He challenged Goodstein’s more recent coverage of the Catholic Church. “You treated Pope Benedict badly in the latest series about him,” he said.

Cathy Grossman of USA Today challenged him, asking if a boycott over one reporter was fair. “We don’t boycott everyone, just the New York Times,” he said.

In contrast, he praised Associated Press reporter Eric Gorski’s coverage of the Catholic Church, even during the Catholic Church abuse stories. Chaput also gave a generous shout out to GetReligion, acknowledging our attempts to analyze, critique and praise religion coverage in the mainstream media.

Some of the criticism from reporters after the meeting was that they wanted Chaput to give more evidence for his critiques. It was both awkward and fascinating. (More coverage is at the Denver Post, the Huffington Post, and Catholic News Agency)

On one hand, Chaput is under no obligation to call anyone back since he is not a spokesman. Reporters should not expect religious leaders to be at their beck and call, responding to every hot issue of the day. Instead, they should go out of their way to develop relationships with religious leaders, making sure their voices are heard clearly and precisely. Many religion reporters we read do go to great pains to develop these relationships.

Also, if Chaput felt that he was misquoted, it’s understandable why he would want to avoid speaking with the outlet. People who have been misquoted or misrepresented can feel helpless and might want to shut out the media or a particular outlet.

But if Chaput believes in the power of the press, hopefully he can separate his frustration from one particular story away from the New York Times as a whole. If someone has one bad experience with a priest, are all the priests in that diocese bad?

It’s unclear whether Chaput attempted to speak with the reporter at the Times, and whether he attempted to speak with an editor or an ombudsman about making a correction.

What religious leaders should generally understand is that religion reporters are working their tails off, they get paid dirt, and their beat gets less priority than others. While their peers analyze data through election polls, crime reports and shifts in Wall Street, religion reporters cover a complex beat of different traditions, rituals and theologies. Many religion reporters are charging uphill in their own newsrooms, where the religion beat gets a hard look during budget cuts and where they get few inches to explain nuanced ideas.

Generally, GetReligion supports religion reporters over other reporters because, well, you want a religion reporter to cover the latest development in the Catholic Church than your average crime reporter. With all due respect to my political reporter friends, many political reporters (think Politico) cover religion only in the context of election cycles. You might get a play-by-play update with little theological or historical context, and the implications only matter if they could change the outcome of an election.

Religion reporters will try to put a story in the context of what it means for the particular religious body. Most of them understand the nuances of the faith and structure and recognize sacred texts and inside phrases that religious groups use.

If religious leaders want to understand the media better, they could visit a newsroom to better understand how the process of news production happens. There they can see the difference between the editorial desk and the newsroom, find out how story ideas are produced and executed.

Feedback matters. Reporters have to have a tough skin if they want to be in the business. But even the anonymous comment can feel like a punch to the gut. A few weeks ago, I received a very kind note from a pastor who said he thought I was well-prepared and thoughtful during our interview. I’ll treat the pastor with the same fairness and respect as anyone else, but he is on my list of people to talk to again.

Religious leaders tend to be skeptical of the media. Frank Page (a former Southern Baptist Convention president) told religion reporters last year that he felt like Daniel coming to the lion’s den. On one hand, reporters go to great pains to explain Rainn Wilson’s Baha’i faith (we heard from him via Skype); Would Rick Warren get the same treatment? Probably not. Of course, journalists should cover minority faiths, but they should employ the same kind of respect and fairness in their coverage.

Hopefully he and Goodstein can work something out. He appeared somewhat defensive in his critique, but he said would be open to a discussion. Goodstein asked Chaput if he would continue to boycott the Times. “I don’t know,” Chaput said. “Maybe you’ll convince me I shouldn’t do that.” Goodstein said, “I’ll try.”

Chaput is an important voice; The New York Times is an important publication; They should mend that relationship so important voices can be heard in important places.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Godbeat, Journalism
  • Francis X. Maier

    Did the reporter feed Chaput the “boycott” word — it’s a pretty standard technique to frame a desired context — or was that the archbishop’s own first thought? Because Chaput didn’t say that in his speech, and he’s never encouraged anything like a “boycott” in any public statement. If the coverage of his talk fixes on a “boycott,” that simply underlines the central point of the man’s speech: Much of the media simply will not engage is serious self-knowledge and self-criticism in covering religion; they hear what they want to hear.

  • Martha

    Interesting question. My initial response is that it’s probably a bad idea to refuse to talk to one particular outfit, because they’re going to cover the stories any way and if you’re not talking to them, how are you going to get your side across?

    On the other hand, if he was indeed misquoted, tried to get that corrected, and was basically told “We’re the New York Times, we don’t make mistakes” then yes, I can see why he wouldn’t be bothered returning their calls.

    But is that what happened? We do need more information here.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Francis, thanks for engaging with the post. I don’t remember who used the word “boycott” first, but I don’t think there was any framing or feeding going on. Laurie was just asking why he didn’t return her phone call. Then he explained that he doesn’t talk to the Times. That’s called a boycott, right? He himself said “We don’t boycott everyone, just the New York Times.” So he used the word. I disagree with your point that media don’t engage in serious self-knowledge and self-criticism. They do this all the time in anticipating readers’ and editors’ questions. They are some of the most self-critical people you will probably find. Its natural for the coverage to focus on the “boycott” because, well, that’s news.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Martha, it would be good to know more about how that story happened, whether he followed up with anyone at the Times. Theoretically that might fall under the “go to your brother” thing. I’m not sure what happened, though.

  • Francis X. Maier

    Martha, back in 2004, as you may recall, David Kirkpatrick did a major NYT interview with Chaput, which then got homogenized into a pre-election front page story. It was fundamentally misleading; so much so that the archdiocese — which had recorded the interview with Kirkpatrick’s knowledge and consent — published the entire, unedited transcribed text on the web, which created a rather different impression.

    Guess what The Times’ response was? Intense pressure on the archdiocesan communications team to take it down. This is simply one of the reasons — though by no means the only one — for Chaput’s lack of confidence in The Times’ professionalism. The individual reporters involved are intelligent; but they co-responsible for the end product. Why would any bishop continue to cooperate with an organ of info that simply won’t get things right?

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Francis, can you help me understand how you know this information? Can you provide links and such? I still don’t think it’s fair to not respond to the religion reporter based on another reporter’s move, but I’m interested in this info and where you are getting it.

  • http://www.authenticbioethics.blogspot.com Mario

    I believe there is a hasty generalization in the article. To draw an analogy between Abp. Chaput’s boycott of the NYT and an assumption that all priests are bad because one is, is simply invalid. Chaput is not boycotting all religion reporters because of one bad NYT reporter. He is not boycotting reporters at all, in fact, he is boycotting a newspaper, and only one at that. By his own words, it is his experience with the NYT’s “editorial policy” that inspired him. I would think, based on this, that Chaput would place the blame for misrepresentation primarily on the editors and their desire to make the Church and conservative bishops look bad, and not only on the reporter, whose work might have undergone significant revision under a politically motivated editor.

    He is boycotting an organization on account of its leadership, not the organization’s employees per se, nor religion reporters in general, nor secular news outlets in general. He apparently wants a good relationship with religion reporters, he has outlined what is needed to make that happen, now the ball is in the NYT’s court. He is someone the press needs to talk to more than the other way around and he realizes this; he has set reasonable conditions for a good relationship and he has a concrete example in the NYT that he won’t talk to outlets who come to him looking for a way to trap him and make him look bad.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Mario, I suggested “If someone has one bad experience with a priest, are all the priests in that diocese bad?” I didn’t say that would apply to all priests. The NYT is not just one newspaper. It’s one of the most respected and influential in the country. As I suggested, perhaps he could talk with an ombud and find out the process between the reporter/editor process. My hope is that the journalist’s reporting judgment will trump the editing process. Then again, I don’t know the process at the NYT. But my understanding is, their columnists/editorial page people are completely separate from their news department. So theoretically the news coverage aims to be fair and objective. That might not be true in every case, but it’s better to evaluate reporters based on stories they’ve written, not make a sweeping generalization about a paper as a whole.

    You are right that he is someone the press needs to talk to, but you have to participate in the process if you want a fair shake. One case six years ago seems a bit unfair, but if I had more information about how that happened, maybe I would evaluate it differently. But as I said, Chaput said he’s open to reconsidering, which was positive.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-neroulias/denver-archbishop-chaput-_b_738516.html Nicole Neroulias

    Not only is The New York Times not just one newspaper, because of Sarah’s comment that “it’s one of the most respected and influential in the country,” but it’s also a wire service. NYT content reappears all over the world, from the Seattle Times to the International Herald Tribune. A public figure refusing to talk to the NYT about absolutely anything — even a feature story about a new archbishop — is serious.

  • http://christineascheller,wordpress.com Christine A. Scheller

    Goodstein respectfully asked why Chaput didn’t return her phone calls. He used the boycott word first.

  • http://catholicradiointernational.com/ Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    Sarah,

    Here’s the link for Kirkpatrick/Goodstein piece that Fran referenced. And here’s the link to the full transcript on the Archdiocese’s website.

    The archbishop is doing his job — teaching — and he’s doing it rather well. Now if only the Times would do its job — reporting accurately — well, then we would have a happy meeting. Why the archbishop should need to learn the Times‘ job in order to help them do it better is something I don’t understand.

  • Jerry

    Sarah, this is an important issue for many different reasons. And it goes to the heart of what GR is here for. I suspect the vast majority of people who read and post to this blog can cite examples, often many, about how a particular story was badly covered. I’ve known cases where something was reported 180 degrees differently than how it occurred based on a reporter’s preconception.

    And of course we want reporters to do a better job not only of covering religion but in basic journalism, getting the facts right and reporting what really happened, to begin with.

    But you also raise an important point about how people in religious and spiritual groups should respond to reporters. I’ll use myself as an example. Bobby and I had a fascinating exchange about the Ghost in the Houston Murders topic. It struck me as a classic example of I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

    Honest mistakes happen and we’re all better off if people can talk through such possible mistakes and learn from them open mindedly and with a minimum of defensiveness. And I see nothing wrong with someone insisting on recording an interview and saying that the actual recording will be made public if necessary. That to me is a sensible precaution.

    I really agree with your point that we’d all be better off if both the media and the religious communities would relax from hyper-aggressive and defensive crouches and spend more time together trying to understand each other.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Francis, I am in the middle of RNA sessions and didn’t take time to Google you (always a bad move!). Thanks for the background info. It gives important context to the discussion.

  • Francis X. Maier

    Hi Sarah, btw, brava/bravo to getreligion. It’s a closely tracked site here in Denver.

    I remain intrigued at how little attention the attendees seemed to have paid to the actual +cjc text — the reason he was there, after all — which is posted in full here:

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1717

  • http://catholicradiointernational.com/ Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    Jerry,

    I’m going to raise my question again. A reporter’s job is to understand a particular story as much as possible and to report on it as accurately as possible. So it is incumbent on the reporter to report accurately. Of course this means that the subject of the report needs to deliver accurately as well. But assuming that happens, it’s not the subject’s job to get the reporting accurate. That’s the reporter’s job. So as long as both people are doing their respective jobs well, then there shouldn’t be a problem.

    Sure, misunderstanding can happen on either or both ends. But I ask again, Why does the archbishop need to learn the Times’ job in order to help them do it better? Since they are “one of the most respected and influential in the country” and a wire service, shouldn’t they already know how to do their job without having the archbishop learn it to tell them how to do it? I simply don’t get it.

  • Ben

    Thomas,

    I agree that no one is under obligation to learn about media processes. On the other hand, I question how well the Archbishop understood journalism before targeting the Times in the preamble to the posted Web transcript.

    “A heavily truncated and framed version of the archbishop’s views appeared” — that’s the essence of a newspaper article! Did he think the journalist was just going to reprint everything he said? The “framing” is also central to a journalist’s job, much like it is for a photographer.

    Honestly, it sounds a bit to my ear that he felt the granting of the interview was so special that he was insulted with how few direct quotes he got; after all, he’s no longer Bishop of Rapid City “when nobody paid attention to me.”

    The lead-in to the sin quote simplified his message in a way he explicitly said he rejected, but the quote itself preserved the more fleshed-out logical progression he was arguing. Other than that, I don’t know what there is to complain about in that article. Please help me see what you found inaccurate.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Friends, I will play referee in a bit, but I am listening to a panel about the Amish at RNA. Beware: comments not related to journalism will be deleted. Thanks for engaging with this topic.

  • http://catholicradiointernational.com/ Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    Ben,

    It’s easy to see what went wrong. Throughout his entire interview, Archbishop Chaput did not once mention George W. Bush. Not even a passing reference to him. And what’s the first line in the story? “For Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in Colorado, there is only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote in this presidential election, for President Bush and against Senator John Kerry.”

    Throughout the entire interview, +cjc laid out the foundational principles Catholics should have in mind when they go into the voting booth. But the story starts with putting an endorsement in his mouth that he never made. While the practical implication for Catholics may have been to vote for Bush and against Kerry, he did not say that and it was wrong for Kirkpatrick/Goodstein to say that he did.

    When the NYT does something like that, it’s easy to see why +cjc would be at the very least reluctant to speak to anyone at the paper again. And any reluctance is only going to be solidified when the Times messes up on stories like then-Cardinal Ratzinger and the Father Lawrence Murphy case.

    And btw, he wasn’t complaining about not getting attention when he was in Rapid City. He was making a point — he had said all these things when he was in Rapid City, just as Archbishop Burke had been said them when Burke was the Bishop of La Crosse, Wis., and bishops of small dioceses all around the country say the same thing and have been saying the same thing, but since no one pays attention to those small cities it’s somehow or other new when these guys get to the big cities and command more media attention.

    And yes, he understands perfectly well how journalism works. His chancellor, Francis X. Maier, was the editor of the National Catholic Register for many years before going to his current position and was brilliant in that position. That’s why he got upset — because he knows reporters aren’t supposed to say you said something when you didn’t.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Aside frpm this story, many people feel that the problem isn’t the NY Times itself, but the way the rest of the media slavishly follows the Times lead in so many instances and so many ways. If the Times says a certain evemnt is BIG news then it seems 90% of the media wags its tail and says “Yes, It’s a BIG story!” And even conservative talk radio people can’t seem to put the Times aside. Every
    conservative I hear mention their reading say they start with the Times in the morning–they say it is to “know the enemy.” But that also contributes to the Times undeserved aura of power.
    I say undeserved because its circulation isn’t the largest, their news spin, unethically, is almost as liberal as their

    editorial pages, and over the past few years they have either been incompetent (or maybe corrupt) as much as –or more than — many other publications (the McCain smear comes to mind.) Yet how many genuine apologies from them do you ever hear of –even in the face of irrefutable evidence????
    So why do virtually everyone in the media kneel to kiss the Times ring so often??? Habit??

  • Jerry

    Thomas,

    When I go to the doctor, I remember that his time is limited and he’s often running behind, so I write out my symptoms and questions ahead of time. Before I retired, I tried to make sure I understood my boss’s frame-of-reference so that I addressed the issues on his or her mind. When I negotiate with someone who sells on commission, I make sure I keep his perspective in mind so that I can pitch my offers to try to get the best deal. I’ve found it’s always worthwhile to try to understand the other person’s perspective. Maybe that’s one reason I’ve been married 41 years? :-)

    So, of course, the archbishop does not need to walk in a reporter’s shoes. But he has to decide whether he’d rather stand on theory which puts the responsibility on the reporter or be effective in the real world. From my perspective as a consumer of news, I prefer people with something to say to do their best to make sure that their point-of-view is heard.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Jerry, terrific response to some of the comments about whose job is whose. You should write a book on marriage.

    Still in RNA sessions, some interesting stuff I don’t want to miss. Thanks again for throwing around these ideas.

  • http://catholicradiointernational.com/ Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    Jerry,

    I can understand understanding another person’s perspective and trying to be effective through gaining that understanding. But what I don’t understand is not doing one’s job correctly.

    When I read the full transcript, the archbishop made his point exceedingly clear numerous times. There were any number of “money quotes” in there which Kirkpatrick/Goodstein could have used. Instead, they put words in his mouth. The archbishop did his job, Kirkpatrick/Goodstein didn’t do theirs. I don’t get why he has to understand how their process works when they can’t even get the basics of their job right.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Well now. I have been out all day.

    Has anyone noticed that GetReligion — very early in our history — covered the original clash?

    http://www.getreligion.org/2004/10/tape-unto-others-as-you-would-want-them/

    Some of the links are dead, due to a format change, but it’s still interesting to look back and read that in light of the current dust up.

    BTW, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Kirkpatrick. Note that the controversial piece was a double-byline. That almost always means that editors wrote at least some parts of the report.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Having followed #RNA2010 on Twitter, it sounds like this has been an exciting and fun conference. I hope you give us more reports, Sarah.

  • Martha

    So that sounds like a bad editorial decision. But if there’s a different reporter covering religion news, surely he should make some effort to talk to her, or even just explain “Sorry, I’m no longer willing to give interviews to your paper because such-and-such happened”?

    I can’t believe I’m criticising the Archbishop, because from the little I’ve read about him online, he seems like a good bishop, but this is more like what the Anchoress said about the Vatican and its approach to PR – does she really need to go over and pound the table in front of the Curia to get them to realise that the media will put its own spin on things if you don’t get the word out yourself, and part of that is establishing and maintaining channels of communication?

  • Dan

    It would be nice to see a transcript of the question and answer session but I suppose none exists. Judging from I’ve read here, it sounds like a factor in all this is that Archbishop Chuput is angry about the NYT’s series of (ongoing) hatchet jobs on the Pope. I don’t blame him. I’m permanently disgusted by it myself. It’s silly to think any of this is going to change either. Did you see the signs of the protesters when the Pope was in England? The mentality of those protesters is not all that different then the mentality of the New York Times reporters who write about the Pope.

  • Ben

    Thomas,

    …because he knows reporters aren’t supposed to say you said something when you didn’t.

    I looked at that first line of the Times again. The Times did not say that he “said” anything. However, they did summarize the inescapable, logical conclusion of what was said. I challenge you to argue that is not the case.

  • Martha

    Ben, sometimes I feel like voting “None of the above” when looking at a slate of candidates in local/general elections, so I can’t say that it is an “inescapable, logical conclusion” to say that on Catholic principles, if one candidate is not votable-for, that is an endorsement of the other candidate (me, had I had a vote in the American election, would have had serious trouble deciding between Bush and Kerry. I really couldn’t believe the Democrats could not find a better candidate than Kerry). Saying “Candidate X is a dreadful choice” need not mean “So vote for Candidate Y.” Maybe they’re both godawful, in which case it’s choosing the lesser evil.

    There’s always a third-party candidate, or spoiling your vote deliberately, or even not voting at all. As a sidenote, how do Americans register protest votes with your basic two-horse race system? Over here we have Proportional Representation and a selection of small parties, not even counting the single candidate issues that get Independents elected.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    OK, another question:

    Raise your cyberhand if you think it would be a good thing for Chaput to begin talking to the NYTs, but only on the condition that he can tape the interviews as well and post them on the WWW, without the newspaper’s editors protesting that?

    I have been advising major religious leaders to do this for years.

  • Ben

    Good point, Martha. It’s hard to register a meaningful protest in the US short of not showing up to the polls. Terry’s solution makes sense to me for ending the Chaput standoff.

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    The interview on the Archdiocese website was very informative. The Archbishop says that to vote for a pro-choice candidate is to participate in evil. He mentions that Kerry is pro-choice.
    And he says this:

    “And so to elect someone who has no respect for unborn human life…or has a…what kind of respect?…a kind of respect that is wobbly…it doesn’t make any sense. Why would you trust someone with your life, if that person is willing to let unborn babies die?

    The message is–don’t vote for Kerry.
    The Times got it right. They said that the Archbishop did not come out and endorse Bush, which is true.
    They also reported that the AB said that to vote for a pro-choice candidate–ie Kerry–is to participate in evil and wrong.

  • Martha

    tmatt, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have a website, so I’d imagine that they do regularly put up full texts of speeches and what have you by the bishops (or if they don’t, they should – and in a timely fashion, not the Vatican website “English translation? Get back to us in about six months’ time” running on Eternal City timeframe).

    So what about if he did put up the full transcript of his interview with any reporter – questions asked and full text of answers? Would the papers object? On what grounds – that they own the questions or something akin to copyright? I don’t see why the bishop shouldn’t – or couldn’t – put up the text of “This is what I said”, as well as talking to the newspapers.

  • Mad Dawg

    Maybe, just maybe, “GetReligion” is showing the bias of one professional for another in his profession.

    You say,” …: The New York Times is an important publication.” That is debatable.

    You also make an analogy between a newspaper and a diocese and, I think, suggest the wrong conclusion. Certainly one bad priest does not a diocese make. But if a heterodox or careless priest is given honor in a diocese, of if it’s not a matter of just one bad priest, one may have to make a prudential guess, while being open to further information.

    Similarly, if one has reason to believe that a newspaper has a bias or two, and then one encounters a reporter who exhibits that bias … well, how many times, in your view, should one submit to bad reporting before one can fairly decide to avoid making things easier for one’s apparent adversaries.

    The suggestion that religious leaders should acquaint themselves with the inner workings of newspapers is, first, irrelevant in the case, and second a bit skewed.

    (1)It is irrelevant in the case because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. However it works, if it produces bad product, then the heck with it.

    (2) Newspapers purport to convey the facts or their best stab at them. If they frustrate the efforts of religion reporters to do so, is it really the job of religious leaders to accommodate themselves to journalistic flaws?

    It is remarkable enough that reporters are, more often than not, advocates — in effect if not intent. But knowing that it’s the editor’s fault and not the reporter’s when the facts are misrepresented may make me think less harshly of the reporter, but it won’t garner him or her any more interviews.

    I could see something like this, though: Some journalistic professional associations or larger news organs might produce and offer a pamphlet explaining the sort of thing you think religious leaders should know. Such a piece ought to include a section on what one should do if one thinks one was misquoted or unfairly used — on the organ’s procedure to correct errors.

    Also burying corrections is hardly a good faith effort to counteract and amend the effects of an error. There seems to be a lot of burying going on.

  • Dan

    The New York Times did NOT get it “right.” Every election Catholics internally discuss what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for clergy to say about elections and candidates. If one looks at the various pronouncements of bishop conferences, including those of the USCCB, one will see that it is absolutely true that Catholic bishops have emphasized the importance of the abortion issue but they ALWAYS stop short of endorsing one candidate or another. There are two reasons for this: One, many Catholics — including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict — believe that it is not in the interest of the Church to involve itself in partisan politics (and, for this reason, Pope John Paul II forbade priests from running for political office). Two, the Church would risk its IRS tax exemption if it endorsed one candidate over another. Thus, Archbishop Chuput not only did not publicly endorse George Bush, he consciously would be very careful not to do so. The NYT however is not so careful. Archbishop Chaput was understandably angry when the NYT wrongly reported that “for” him there was only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote and that was for George Bush. Were Archbishop Chaput to publicly state such a thing would be to do something that every parish priest is instructed NOT to do.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Mad Dawg,
    I don’t think I was biased toward one and against another profession. Even Chaput emphasized the importance of the press. If he regarded it as insignificant, this discussion wouldn’t matter. Again, because he placed such an importance on the impact of the media, I was suggesting that context behind an organization’s inner workings could be helpful (not necessary, though).

    Whether everybody likes it or not, whatever the Times does gets attention. Its still very influential if you look at hits and the impact after a story is covered. It’s naive to think that it’s not important.

    Good idea about that pamphlet idea. Hmm…

  • Bob Smietana

    Dan:

    The NY Times in question says twice in the beginning that Chaput did not endorse Bush.
    He did, however, make it clear that Catholics who voted for Kerry were on the side of evil, in his judgment–leaving Bush as the only viable candidate for office.

  • Francis X. Maier

    Ben,

    I’ve been away from Denver for a day. Just catching up. You say:

    On the other hand, I question how well the Archbishop understood journalism before targeting the Times in the preamble to the posted Web transcript.

    Just for the record, the archbishop has several former journalists working for him, and others — both secular and religious — who provide counsel. He’s very well acquainted with the protocols, needs, and also the foibles, of mainline journalism.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    BOB:

    You do not, my friend, have a future in moral theology.

    Ditto for the Times editors. Quote the archbishop saying what he said. Leave the interpretation for the readers. Period.

  • Passing By

    I wasn’t going to crawl into this one, but I’m really having a hard time getting my head around the notion that any single newspaper is too important to ignore, particularly one that has engaged in a protracted propaganda campaign against my religion. Sure they have influence, but it’s because we give it to them. Were I important enough to be sought out for a quote, I would feel no obligation to give it to the likes of Laurie Goodstein, or anyone from the Times, who clearly hate the Catholic Faith.

    This whole post, and many of the comments, seems like a big game of insider ball, and perhaps you should consider the viewpoint of outsiders: you know, those of us who are, increasingly, NOT buying your product.

  • http://catholicradiointernational.com/ Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

    Ben,

    What tmatt and Martha said. The Times wrote, “For Archbishop Charles J. Chaput…there is only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote in this presidential election, for President Bush and against Senator John Kerry.” He did not say that, they should not have reported it. Period. It was not an “inescapable, logical conclusion”; let the reader reach the conclusions.

    tmatt, your idea is a good one. But it only goes so far. I know an archbishop who’s now in a high-ranking position in Rome who will not speak to any secular media. Even if such an option were available to him, he would have no personal website to publish it on and I personally would not trust the Holy See’s Press Office to handle something like that.

  • Bob Smietana

    TERRY:

    I do, thankfully, have a healthy BS meter and a future in religion journalism.

    The Times gets things wrong all the time. But in this case, they were right. The Times reporters said he did not endorse a candidate–twice, high in the story.

    They also reported what he said–that Kerry was pro-choice and to vote for him was to participate in evil, and that someone who is pro-choice is not trustworthy.

    In a two candidate race, Chaput said that voting for the pro-choice candidate was to do evil.

    That left Catholics with one choice, in Chaput’s view: to vote for Bush.

    That’s what the Times reported. Not that Chaput endorsed Bush, but that he taught that voting for Kerry was immoral.

    That’s not interpretation. It’s reporting.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    BOB:

    No, you are wrong on the basic facts, in this case. As several readers have noted, Catholics — in terms of acts of moral conscience — had several other options, including not voting for a Republican candidate who may have violated their consciences on other issues. Chaput knows that.

    In this last election, for example, I elected not to vote (for the first time in my adult life) because I could not in good conscience vote for either major-party candidate and, truth be told, there was no one I truly wanted to write in, either. It was that kind of year.

    The Times story, in this case, went too far. There was no need to add content to the archbishop’s words.

    Your final statement is accurate: That Chaput taught that voting for a candidate with Kerry’s strong, consistent record of public opposition to Catholic teachings was immoral.

    Report that. But in terms of the content of Catholic moral theology — which you seem to be calling BS — there is no need to say that Chaput was calling for a GOP vote.

  • Francis X. Maier

    As I said earlier in this discussion, the 2004 Times article was one, but by no means the only, reason why Chaput no longer has confidence in the Times’ ability to tell Catholic stories in a fair and thorough manner. And incidentally, archdiocesan sources talked to David Kirkpatrick in regard to other Times stories and potential stories after the 2004 article, simply out of good will. But the archdiocese’s cumulative contact with the Times has been negative. The issue here is not irritation with perceived unfriendly treatment in one or two articles; it’s a lack of confidence in an entire paper due to a pattern of prejudicial and inadequate treatment of serious religious issues relevant to Catholics and other Christians.

    BTW: The Times certainly is an important paper. But that doesn’t license it to do deficient work.

  • Sarah Pulliam Bailey

    Hi friends,
    I’m inclined to let you all duke it out. I just have not had the time or energy to figure out who was right and who was wrong in that original story. Let’s pretend/think/consider that the story could have been more specific/accurate/clearer. I still think a religious leader shouldn’t boycott the Times as a whole.

    Francis, thanks for continuing to discuss this with us as this is helpful context. I wonder whether Chaput could consider working with Laurie, a specific beat reporter with a specific reputation. But thank you again for engaging with us on this.

  • ben

    I live in the Denver area and Charles Chaput is my Archbishop. While I do think it is important that he communicates openly and effectively with the press, I certainly don’t thik he owes any special courtesy to the New York Times. For those of us living in Denver, The Denver Post is a far more important newspaper. It seems that they are on good terms with His Excellency and have treated him with fairness. As a catholic denverite, that is what is really all that matters to me.

  • http://goodintentionsbook.com Bob Smietana

    Terry:

    Moral theology is not BS.

    Claims that the Times completely distorted and twisted Chaput’s words, well, they come closer.

    The Archbishop said that voting for a pro-choice candidate is evil, in his interview.
    He also said that Democrats who use a “seamless garment” argument to make abortion just one on many social issues are wrong. And that abortion is more evil that the Iraq War. And that a pro-choice candidate is untrustworthy.
    And that abortion was the most important social issue.

    In the opening anecdote–which points out that the Archbishop did not openly endorse candidates–the Times reported that he did say that abortion is the number one issue, that Kerry was pro-choice–and that Bush could help overturn Roe v. Wade.

    And the diocese was out encouraging people to vote.

    Come on Terry. The AB is telling people to vote. He’s also saying that in a two candidate party, voting for one candidate is a sin.

    That leaves only one candidate who faithful Catholics can vote for, in his mind. Which is what the Times reported.

    If there are two canidat

  • John Pack Lambert

    The New York Times has such a consistently anti-Catholic bias, including its attempt to force in a law that lifts the statute of limitations for private but not public school teacher’s sexual abuse of minors, that Chaput’s position is immenently reasonable.

    The New York Times has never backed down from its misrepresentation of what Chaput said. This was a decision of the editors and the entire newspaper is now suspect.

    Anyway, with the Times and the rest of the news-media charging towards bankruptcy, I am not sure why Chaput should subscribe to the myth of the power of the press, at least in the narrow view of the Times having any influence west of the Hudson.

  • John Pack Lambert

    Chaput was seriously misrepresented in this case. The New York Times insisted on their position. I see no reason at all he should communicate with it.

    I have to admit I wish the New York Times would collapse and vanish from the earth.

    I have to admit that at some level I can see problems with Chaput’s policy. However he was the one who had his words twisted by the Times to advance their own agenda. It was a policy of the institution, not the actions of one reporter.

    I see no reason why Chaput should trust or cooperate with the times.

    He might in the long run be helped by doing so. However when his interview have no effect on what they write, and are only used to twist his words and then advance something he opposes, it is reasonable to argue his talking with the times has a negative effect.

    If he does not give them an interview, than they can not claim what they have is a quote from talking to him. They will be fully exposed as liars, instead of able to hide behind the facade of a fake interview.

  • John Pack Lambert

    Another issue the times misses is that the Presidential Election is not a two person contest. There are third-party pro-life candidates. Unless someone specifically endorses a candidate, they are not endorsing a candidate.

    People also always have the ability to write in candidates. There is no way to interprete Chaput’s statements to mean what the times claims they do.

  • Bob Smietana

    John:

    The Times piece said that Chaput didn’t endorse any candidate.

  • http://rub-a-dub.blogspot.com mattk

    “particularly one that has engaged in a protracted propaganda campaign against my religion.”

    This is exactly how I feel about the NY Times.

  • http://rub-a-dub.blogspot.com mattk

    “Another issue the times misses is that the Presidential Election is not a two person contest. There are third-party pro-life candidates. Unless someone specifically endorses a candidate, they are not endorsing a candidate.”

    This is right. I didn’t think either of the major party candidates was suffiecienly pro-life to earn my vote. I voted for someone else. For someone to say Archbishop Chaput was endorsing Bush because he was preaching a position contrary to one held by Kerry is fallacious.

  • Francis X. Maier

    Bob, the archbishop was not telling people whom to vote for in 2004 or any other year. Stop claiming that. It’s false. Chaput’s catechesis on the life issues does not change during election cycles; it’s the same every year, election or not. If that’s inconvenient for any particular party: Too bad for them.

  • Bob Smietana

    Francis:

    The AB told people who they couldn’t vote for in a 2 person race.

    Do the math

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Bob,

    Apart from the fact that we’re getting far afield from the problem of whether Chaput’s statements were written accurately or not, that’s silly. Just because the country is dominated by two parties does not mean that your only option is to vote for one or the other.

    You could vote for hundreds of people in that race for President. And some of them were on the ballot in states with a majority of votes in the electoral college, including Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, Michael Peroutka, David Cobb.

    You could write someone in and you could not vote. More people didn’t vote than voted for either Kerry or Bush, I bet.

  • Francis X. Maier

    Yes Bob, I get it that you’d like that to be true. But it’s not. He explained his reasoning on the pro-life and Communion issues in detail in his book.