A religious journalist on religious journalism

[rug]

Monday, October 3, 2011
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey

I have often wondered whether someone who is personally religious would have the guts to uncover a Watergate-like story in his or her own faith tradition. When I read AP reporter Tom Breen’s analogy of a sports fan covering sports, it reinforced the idea for me that someone who is religious could indeed pursue religion journalism just as aggressively as anyone else.

At least one reader, though, was surprised that anyone could arrive where Breen did as he found his way towards the Catholic Church. Mediabistro’s Matthew Fleischer could not fathom how anyone could report on the sex abuse scandals and find faith.

Having covered elements of the scandal myself, this seemed too improbable for words. How could anyone come to believe in the divine sanctity of the Catholic Church while reporting about how, for years, it covered up the sexual abuse of minors and protected the priests who were guilty of these crimes? We emailed Breen to ask him for some clarification.

And here is how Breen responded:

“The coverage of the scandal was the motivation to learn more about Catholicism, and I really can’t overstate the extent of my ignorance at the time; I mean, I couldn’t even name all the sacraments, let alone explain them. So my desire to get up to speed wasn’t just a desire to learn about the context of the scandals, it was an effort to learn, basically, everything I could, from church history to theology to the formal name for that hat bishops wear. It was through that effort – which lasted for years, and took in everything from lots of reading to hanging around pilgrimage sites and talking to people – that I eventually decided Catholicism was for me.”

http://www.getreligion.org/2011/10/a-religious-journalist-on-religion-journalism/

[Jim__]

1. The best reporters are those that don't have a strong bias.

We all have some bias, and that bias affects the way we see things. The stronger the bias, the stronger the affect. People with strong biases can contribute to the discussion, but it's best if they admit their bias up front. This is especially true in the case of a news reporter because the integrity of the entity that is publishing his reports depends upon his accuracy.

[dmallind]

2. This may seem counterintuitive, but I don't share this particular objection

Obviously I have the same objections most sane people have to both the abuse and the mostly horseshit way it was handled by the hierarchy, and even still is. But I honestly can't see the connection between that and abandoning faith if you had it in the first place.

It's a pretty basic logical fallacy to assume that unpleasant actions or people tell us anything about the truth value of their statements. Same for altruistic heroes. My usual bromide applies. Hitler liked dogs, MLK was a serial adulterer. Both are somewhat irrelevant to their larger ideas to say the least. Now it's true the Catholic doctrine does grant the priest some elevated intercessory powers beyond normal humans so I do see the scope for a greater sense of betrayal than might be felt by Lutherans say, but nowhere in any teaching I know claims they are incapable of sinning, or are even expected to be. It's perfectly valid to accept that the church and its hierarchy are perfectly fine interlocutors for the one true faith (not that I do myself, obviously), and despicable human beings at the same time.

I've never accepted the assumption, from believers or nonbelievers, that the actions, good or bad, of religious groups or people are reasons to believe or not believe.

That does not mean that religion is not a powerful motivator for actions. It clearly is. Both good and evil actions. Religious fervor affects actions, but it's a one way street, or should be in my opinion. Actions should not affect religious belief.