Hey, Washington Post, does experience matter?

WashPostCoverIt’s the question that all religion-beat specialists hear all the time, whether they want to or not.

“Hey, where do you go to church?” This is, of course, simply another way of stating the worldview question: “Hey, reporter, what in the world do you believe?” As I have discussed here in the past, there are many Godbeat professionals who simply refuse to answer, saying it is nobody’s business. This causes tension, more often than not.

A few journallists open up and pretty much spill the works. This often creates a whole different set of tensions. Want to make a conservative Episcopalian grimace? Tell her that you are a liberal Episcopalian. Or turn that around, because it really doesn’t matter. Ditto for Baptists, Jews, United Methodists, Catholics, you name it.

But whatever a religion writer says in this situation is going to tick off somebody. As I wrote early in the life of this blog:

The religion beat takes a journalist into territory that is both highly personal and very, very complicated in terms of history, doctrine, facts, titles, lingo, statistics and who knows what all. I like to tell people that it’s like covering politics and opera at the same time.

When I joined the Rocky Mountain News staff, I discussed this problem with my editor. He approved the following answer, which some journalist friends of mine jokingly called “Mattingly’s Miranda.” It goes like this: “Yes, I am an active churchman. I take my own faith very seriously and, because of that, I want to do the best job that I can to understand your faith and get the facts right.”

In the classroom, I often put it this way: Report unto others as you would want them to report unto you.

When speaking to clergy groups and at seminaries, I often appeal to holy types to stop asking this question.

Why? Because it’s the wrong question. I have known some very religious people who could not report worth a flip and I have known agnostics and one or two atheists who took the religion beat very seriously and did fine, balanced, nuanced work. For them, it was like sociology with colorful voices and rites. Hey, whatever works.

The key, however, is that they have to care about the facts, history and symbolism of the beat. They have to sweat the details. In my opinion, this comes with experience and professional training, whether in the classroom or out of it.

Thus, I urge clergy to ask reporters this question: “How long have you covered the religion beat? Where did you study?” You would think this would be a rather neutral question, but apparently not.

TumsLong, long ago, back in 1994, The Washington Post raised many eyebrows by posting a newsroom notice for a religion reporter. The “ideal candidate,” it said, is “not necessarily religious nor an expert in religion.” Well, I still think this is bizarre. Try to imagine a notice in an elite newsroom seeking an opera critic that says the “ideal candidate does not necessarily like opera or know much about opera.” How about notices for reporters who cover professional sports, science, film and politics?

No one has taken more shots on this issue than the veteran religion-beat writer Julia Duin at The Washington Times, who once caused a mini-storm at Poynter.org — check out the counter arguments — arguing that newspapers seeking improved religion coverage should hire qualified, experienced, award-winning religion reporters to help bridge the information gap that skews so many stories on this beat. I joined in during these arguments, too.

Now Duin has shipped me another note from the front lines of cyberspace, taken from a MediaBistro board on job changes here inside the Beltway. This latest Washington Post news caused her to reach for the Tums, and you can probably see why:

Metro is happy to announce that Jacqui Salmon, who has been covering philanthropy, will change assignments to become a second regional religion reporter together with Michelle Boorstein. We are making this change to restore a second Metro religion reporter, lost when Caryle Murphy took early retirement. The move reflects the importance of religion to our readers and to contemporary social, cultural and political life. Jacqui remains based in Fairfax, but will report now to the District desk’s Joe Davidson, who oversees religion coverage, including the Saturday Religion Page.

In nearly two decades at The Post, Jacqui has established herself as an enterprising reporter who thinks broadly and breaks news. She has reported and edited on the Business staff, and covered suburban family life on Metro before taking over the philanthropy beat.

Now, try to imagine the eye-popping resumes the Post would have received if it had advertised this job via contacts at the Religion Newswriters Association, Poynter.org or some similar network. Hey, maybe the Post did that and nobody good applied (but I would not count on that).

Would any qualified people apply if the Post advertised a Supreme Court slot? You think? There would have been a very high-quality stampede.

Clearly, Salmon is a skilled, veteran reporter who is trusted by editors at the Post. That is not my point.

Nevertheless, I have to confess that I hope that — in the weeks ahead — lots of people ask her: “How long have you covered the religion beat? Where did you study?” I think this is fair, given the complex and controversial nature of this topic and its importance in local, religion, national and global news today.

Print Friendly

About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • Larry Rasczak

    “there are many Godbeat professionals who simply refuse to answer, saying it is nobody’s business.”

    Sorry, I know it’s not the point, but that is the one thing that struck me the most.

    Why is it “it is nobody’s business.”?

    Are they ashamed of their faith?

    I mean, yeah it’s kind of a personal question, but if you really believe it, they why are you reluctant to tell someone, someone who asks, what you believe and why?

    Is it a Journalisim thing, like the old joke about how one’s political views are not supposed to influence one’s reporting?

    Honestly confused by that one…

  • ira rifkin

    could it be the post kept the job search in-house strictly for economic reasons? i wouldn’t be surprised given the miserable state of newspaper finances. but would they do that when looking for a white house reporter?

    i’d bet against it, which takes me full circle to your point about how the post thinks about religion coverage.

    ira rifkin

  • Jerry

    To look at the issue from quite a different perspective, I’m a software geek. I was hired for my present job not because I had the specific knowledge that they needed but because I was honest in the interview about what I did and did not know and I demonstrated learning ability in prior jobs.

    So my question in this case is not what Salmon now knows about religion but has he demonstrated that he learns quickly and approaches topics as dispassionately as possible? Sure having specific knowledge is helpful at the beginning, but after a short period of time that should not matter if the reporter learns the subject matter as he or she should. After all, how does one get experience in a profession when we all start out with none.

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    Having been on the beat ten years, I find myself in the odd position of suggesting that specific prior experience ain’t such a big deal. I had, um, none when i took the job. I had interest and curiosity and skills as a reporter. I also had the benefit of working side-by-side for several years with some highly credentialed and experienced fellow religion staffers who I could turn to for nuance help. It is not uncommon in this biz for people to switch beats. A good reporter can bring a fresh eye to a new beat. I wouldn’t argue that prior experience and/or study are harmful. But they are neither necessary nor sufficient, IMNSHO. And particularly when there are two other more experienced religion reporters on staff. That’s hardly the most important question a source should be asking.
    And Larry, it’s *just* like the political thing. Here’s one big difference between any good writer and a good journalist (opinion writers excepted): With the journalist, you should not be able to guess their personal opinions from reading their copy. I’ll challenge you: Google for my byline. And then tell me what my personal opinion was about any controversy I wrote about.

  • JaneD

    I actually feel sorry for this reporter. She is walking into the Espicopal/Anglican civil war in Northern Virginia, Wasington Post’s local area, with no background on the local, national and international implications. Hopefully, some one will give her some background and important phone numbers.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    Jeffrey:

    So you are saying that religion, in this kind of elite newspaper setting, is uniquely simple and easy to learn and, compared to other specialized beats, does not require skills.

    Or, you are saying it would be better for, oh, the Washington Post to hire someone with no experience without EVEN SEEKING OR INTERVIEWING a reporter named Jeffrey Weiss or, oh, Mark Pinsky, or etc, etc.?

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    Terry: Nope.
    Religion is one of the hardest beats at the paper. I tell students that there is no beat where it is easier to unintentionally hack people off. But she will have the help of her two more experienced colleagues. Not to mention the instant resources of the Internet that a smart reporter can use to quickly get smart about any topic. (A dumb reporter can also use the ‘Net to get instantly dumber on any topic, but that’s another subject.)

    But there is no “best” way to prepare for our beat. The WashPost has, far as I know, three fulltime religion reporters. One national and two regional. So I suggest you think of this as a team. It gives the Post the luxury of bringing someone on who is less experienced at the beat but has talents and interests that they hope to encourage. I don’t know Salmon, but I presume that she is an experienced reporter who has tackled other challenging assignments. It’s not like they took some green reporter straight out of J-school. And as Ira suggested, the paper may have limited its search to in-house for bean-counter reasons.

    Those of us on the beat *want* religion to be seen as an assignment to be sought after by talented reporters, just like other high-profile beats. Political reporters aren’t required to have advanced degrees in politics. A good enough reporter should be able to take on any beat. I’ll grant you that her climb up Mount Learning Curve is gonna be a steep one…1:-{)>

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    And, of course, you ignore the 1994 posting, which shows that they have avoided experience, studies, awards, etc., for a decade or more.

    No, I think you are dodging the question. In fact, you did dodge the question.

    So let’s ask it again: You are saying it would be better for, oh, the Washington Post to hire someone with no experience without EVEN SEEKING OR INTERVIEWING a reporter named Jeffrey Weiss or, oh, Mark Pinsky, or etc, etc.?

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    I’m saying it’s a false dichotomy. As in: Would you rather have chocolate or a blue sky. Answer the question!!! No dodging!! heh.

    As for 1994, I have no idea who they eventually filled that spot with. What do you think of the WashPost’s religion coverage for the past 12 years? That’s the test, isn’t it?
    As a general principle: If as now they were filling a spot on a team of reporters and if they were looking to bring someone good and new onto the beat, I suggest that would not have been a per se a Bad Thing.

    Look: I do this for a living. It’s not the lost pet beat, but it ain’t quantum physics. The heart of the beat is recognizing the human stories and implications that faith/values creates. One need not have an M. Div. to do that really well. And frankly, I suggest the the intricate inside baseball details of many denominational hoo-has are decreasingly important to readers.

    If you want a job on the NCR, you’d best know as much about Catholic polity as possible. But the WashPost? Not as much.

    Speaking from a completely selfish perspective about a beat I really enjoy: Am I better at it now than 10 years ago? I hope so.
    But was I “qualified” to take the beat then? I think so.

    And speaking of dodging, how about responding the idea that a newspaper of the WashPost’s size and strength *ought* to be cultivating good newcomers to the beat?

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    So Jeffrey Weiss is actually less qualified today for an elite religion-news slot in a mainstream paper, one even more elite than the one he holds, than he was 10 years ago?

    This is a beat in which lack of experience and knowledge — Freedom Forum report be damned — IS A PLUS, so much a plus that elite national newspapers do not even need to consider hiring award-winning veterans on the beat?

    Jeffrey, I know what you are saying and I think you are better now than 10 years ago and that elite papers need people like you.

    Clearly, you disagree.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    tmatt–I keep seeing all over the media playing field the word “nuanced” as in your phrase “nuanced work.” But what do you mean by “nuanced?” It is clear you have a positive attitude toward “nuance.” However, many orthodox Catholics have a negative view of the word. To them “nuanced” means being very skilled at hiding one’s own prejudices while loading up one’s news story with barely noticeable “zings” and “zaps” directed at orthodox Catholics or leaders. A poorly nuanced story is considered (usually by liberals) one where the writer got caught making his liberal prejudices obvious–as in “Hans Kung should have written a more nuanced attack on the papacy.”

  • Jerry

    I took your challenge to find a bias and came up with this in a story about Kumbaya:

    “… sappy white liberals couldn’t wait to suck the soul out of it.”
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-kumbaya_11rel.ART0.State.Edition1.3e6da2d.html

    “Sappy white liberals” “suck the soul” sure sounds like a bias to me. During the 60′s liberals were derided from the left. Subsequently the right started using liberal as a perjorative. Your bias did show up in pretty dramatic style.

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    Jerry first. Let’s look at the entire passage. The previous pararaph listed the experts I asked (without getting any clear answers) about how the folk song Kumbaya became an idiom. Then:

    Some guesses: It’s a one-word title that rolls easily off the tongue. It sounds foreign, and that makes it funny to many Americans. It’s African-American, so racists deride it. It’s African-American, so sappy white liberals couldn’t wait to suck the soul out of it. It’s a song that generations of summer campers (and folk-mass celebrants) were forced to sing, and they’re sick of it.

    So not only were the guesses not mine, but they were all over the map.
    Now back to Terry (Merry Chrismas, btw). I’m not saying that experience on the beat doesn’t matter. I am saying that it is not the only factor — particularly when you have more than one position. Back when the DMN religion staff was its largest, we always had one person who really really knew the technical aspects of religion. But the rest of us, not necessarily so much. We brought other skills and talents to the enterprise. Worked out pretty well for a lot of years. I suggest the WashPost may be doing something similar.

  • Jerry

    I sometimes use word substitution to see what effect some writing has. Let me switch ‘liberal’ to ‘evangelical’. What would you think of the author if this sentence appeared:

    “Some guesses:… It’s Christian, so sappy evangelicals couldn’t wait to suck the soul out of it.”

    Would you assume that the author is indicating the a few evangelicals are sappy or that sappiness is a characteristic of many or most?

    And what does “sucking the soul” out of something mean? Is there something in the nature of Evangelicals that causes lack of ability to sing something with meaning?

    And ‘couldn’t wait’ means of course that sappy Evangelicals took great joy is destroying the meaning of the song.

    An IMO non-biased way of saying that would have been something like “Some guesses… liberals sang the song so often that the meaning was lost”.

  • Michael

    But Jerry, that would have made a much more dull read in what is a pretty entertaining, breezy story. Anyone reading this story understands the context of the comments; not everything needs to read like an AP wire story

  • http://carelesshand.net Jinzang

    “there are many Godbeat professionals who simply refuse to answer, saying it is nobody’s business.”
    Why is it “it is nobody’s business.”?
    Are they ashamed of their faith?

    Probably for the same reason reporters don’t reveal their political affiliation. They don’t want to give the impression of having a bias.

  • Jerry

    > Anyone reading this story understands the context of the comments;

    Not me.

    So it’s entertaining to bash liberals. Why not be equally entertaining and bash evangelicals in the same way? After all, everyone knows what *they* are really like, poor saps. (If it’s not obvious, I’m trying to arouse the feeling in others that reading that crap aroused in me).

    Or would you consider it acceptable breezy entertainment to refer to blacks using the ‘n’ word if it was done in a well written manner?

  • Jeffrey Weiss

    Jerry, if the guesses I got had included “It’s Christian, so sappy evangelicals couldn’t wait to suck the soul out of it.” I would have used that with no problem. Wouldn’t have accused all evangelicals of being sappy, any more than what I used referred to all liberals.

  • Jonathan S

    Jerry,
    I hate to tell you, but you’re way too thin-skinned about that one article by Jeffrey, which was pretty tongue-in-cheek anyway. To make my point: Michael, who is probably ideologically close to you, thinks you’re taking it too seriously. Lighten up – you picked a poor choice to argue for Jeffrey’s bias. And if you think “sappy white liberals” and “sucking the soul out” of a bad camp-fire song is biased, try reading Frank Rich talk about evangelicals. (Oh yeah, you probably don’t see that as biased because it’s not you.)

  • Julia Duin

    As the direct competition to the WPost, it’s probably better for me their newest writer does not have years of experience on the beat like you, Ira. Or what if they had lured someone like Ann Rodgers from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette who knows new Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl better than any journalist in the country? Or Mark O’Keefe, one of the best analysts out there of religion trends? My goodness, I would have been reaching for a tranquilizer gun instead of Tums.
    The staffing over there is a mystery. I remember one hire for the religion beat who was so clueless that Larry Witham (my predecessor at the Times) and I would frequently tally up the mistakes she had made. And then there was that Dec. 18 Post headline on A1 about the 7 churches when the true number was 8. With 3 reporters on the story, was it that hard to get it right?
    But I am not perfect either and being outnumbered 4-1 (Hamill Harris also covers religion), I do get beaten at times. So, Jacqui, welcome to the beat. I wish you the best. I am in the weird position of folks calling *me* to complain about your paper’s religion coverage. I have refered them to Deborah Howell (your ombudswoman). Hopefully I will not have to continue to do so.

  • Pingback: drive repair free download

  • Joel

    Sorry to come to this late, but it seems like Diane Connolly did a good job of covering the whole experience vs. no-experience thing. She more or less sides with Jeffrey.
    http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=76754

    BTW, I was a politics reporter with no politics training. My reality was similar to that listed by Julia — getting the facts right was 90% of the battle, before you start worrying about knowledge imprated by specialized training. I’m not suggesting that someone ignorant of civics could do the job — the minimum qualification would have to be watching Schoolhouse Rock at least once.

    One other key point. Dianne mentioned (and Jeffrey) implied that a key issue is learning what you don’t know. That was the frustrating thing about watching reporters from the elite newspapers come to Japan in the 1990s — there was a lot of background available on the country’s postwar era, economics, US-Japan relations, etc., but as a matter of policy some reporters didn’t want to prejudice their own perspectives by learning what others already knew. Let’s hope that Jacqui is like Diane and Jeffrey.