Here is the question that I have been asking, during the latest round of the game called, “What did the pope say and who says that he said it?”
In terms of basic journalism craft and ethics, what is an “interview”? Here is the top of a Reuters report that shows why I am asking this:
ROME, July 13 (Reuters) – About 2 percent of Roman Catholic clerics are sexual abusers, an Italian newspaper on Sunday quoted Pope Francis as saying, adding that the pontiff considered the crime “a leprosy in our house”.
But the Vatican issued a statement saying some parts of a long article in the left-leaning La Repubblica were not accurate, including one that quoted the pope as saying that there were cardinals among the abusers.
The article was a reconstruction of an hour-long conversation between the pope and the newspaper’s founder, Eugenio Scalfari, an atheist who has written about several past encounters with the pope.
And what precisely is a “reconstruction of an hour-long conversation”? Here is some additional information:
The Vatican issued a statement noting Scalfari’s tradition of having long conversations with public figures without taking notes or taping them, and then reconstructing them from memory. Scalfari, 90, is one of Italy’s best known journalists.
While acknowledging that the conversation had taken place, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi issued a statement saying that not all the phrases could be attributed “with certainty” to the pope. Lombardi said that, in particular, a quote attributed to the pope saying cardinals were among the sex abusers was not accurate and accused the paper of trying to “manipulate naive readers.”
So this was a private conversation and the journalist did not — perhaps as an homage to Truman Capote — take notes or use an audio recorder. Instead, he left the hour-long conversation and then, with his razor-sharp (we can only hope) 90-year-old memory, he “reconstructed” the verbatim quotations from this event.
Reuters went out of its way to say, over and over, that Pope Francis “was quoted as saying” these words, thus distancing itself from the precise content. Is that enough?
So is the story what the pope allegedly said or the fact that this famous scribe Scalfari claims that the pope said XY and Z? I honestly do not know.
I am just as intrigued that the Vatican could confirm that parts of the interview were accurate and that other parts were not. Is the assumption here (a) that someone from the press office was in the room, (b) that someone was listening in or (c) that the Vatican tapes all papal “interviews” just in case — for the files, so to speak. I’d love to know the details. How about you?
You can see all of these issues surface, once again, in the first few lines of the BBC report on the same story:
Pope Francis has been quoted as saying that reliable data indicates that “about 2%” of clergy in the Catholic Church are paedophiles.
The Pope said that abuse of children was like “leprosy” infecting the Church, according to the Italian La Repubblica newspaper. He vowed to “confront it with the severity it demands”.
But a Vatican spokesman said the quotes in the newspaper did not correspond to Pope Francis’s exact words.
In an analysis of this dilemma, David Willey of the BBC Rome bureau asked the obvious questions:
When is a papal interview not an interview? Sunday’s edition of La Repubblica devotes its first three pages to an account of a conversation between Pope Francis and editor Eugenio Scalfari, which took place last Thursday. Papal spokesman Federico Lombardi said in a sharp note that it was not an interview in the normal sense of the word, although he admitted it conveyed the “sense and the spirit” of the conversation.
Mr Scalfari does not use a digital recorder, and Father Lombardi said Pope Francis never checked the accuracy of the interview.
It was not an interview “in the normal sense of the word.” Ah. I feel so much better now.
So one final question: When other journalists quote these remarks, as many are doing, how many sentences of content do they need to include in order to set the scene, to provide the right journalistic — or anti-journalistic — context for these words that the pope did or didn’t say?
BONUS LINK: Catholic conservative Phil Lawler asks the obvious, and appropriate, question: Would an American journalist be fired for producing this kind of “interview” material? Ah, but this article was produced by someone — as founder of the paper in question — on the management side of the room?