Rude awakenings in religion
I read a few industry-related blogs in my spare time; one of them is run by Mike Sechrist, the GM at Nashville ABC affiliate WKRN. Recently, he posted about the troubles of covering religious stories.
It reminds me of my hesitation to cover stories on this topic. No, I don't have anything against religion or those who adhere to certain religious beliefs...it's just that otherwise mild-mannered religious folk turn hostile the moment they sense a reporter. Like the WKRN reporter who's been chased from church functions (even though the church sent a press release), I've been met with cold stares.
A long time ago, a church in the area had its Nativity scene vandalized. It always seemed to happen to this church, and the local newspaper quoted the pastor's disbelief that something like this could happen so closely to Christmas. So, I headed to the church, hoping to speak to the pastor. When I went into the church office, a secretary warmly welcomed me and asked if I needed anything. I identified myself, and asked if the pastor could spare a minute to talk to me about the vandalism.
The secretary immediately got up, and told me to leave. The other people in the office immediately shyed away from me. It was as if I was Madelyn Murray O'Hair herself. I was eventually told the pastor didn't want to talk to reporters, for fear of retribution, even though he spoke to the local newspaper. Not wanting to deal with the cold-shoulder treatment, I left, and used the tried-and-true backup plan of speaking to neighbors.
I don't understand why some religious folk have such contempt or distrust of reporters. Well, OK, I can make a few educated guesses. Either way, as much as I hate making broad generalizations, my experiences make me shy away from covering religious events. If I wanted to get icy stares from people, I'd head down to Harrisburg and pull a Mike Wallace on members of the state legislature, since they really don't like reporters!
It reminds me of my hesitation to cover stories on this topic. No, I don't have anything against religion or those who adhere to certain religious beliefs...it's just that otherwise mild-mannered religious folk turn hostile the moment they sense a reporter. Like the WKRN reporter who's been chased from church functions (even though the church sent a press release), I've been met with cold stares.
A long time ago, a church in the area had its Nativity scene vandalized. It always seemed to happen to this church, and the local newspaper quoted the pastor's disbelief that something like this could happen so closely to Christmas. So, I headed to the church, hoping to speak to the pastor. When I went into the church office, a secretary warmly welcomed me and asked if I needed anything. I identified myself, and asked if the pastor could spare a minute to talk to me about the vandalism.
The secretary immediately got up, and told me to leave. The other people in the office immediately shyed away from me. It was as if I was Madelyn Murray O'Hair herself. I was eventually told the pastor didn't want to talk to reporters, for fear of retribution, even though he spoke to the local newspaper. Not wanting to deal with the cold-shoulder treatment, I left, and used the tried-and-true backup plan of speaking to neighbors.
I don't understand why some religious folk have such contempt or distrust of reporters. Well, OK, I can make a few educated guesses. Either way, as much as I hate making broad generalizations, my experiences make me shy away from covering religious events. If I wanted to get icy stares from people, I'd head down to Harrisburg and pull a Mike Wallace on members of the state legislature, since they really don't like reporters!
posted by Howard Beale at 9:05 AM
7 Comments:
I guess I've been lucky -- I've never had that problem in interviewing members of the clergy. It's too bad that one or two bad experiences they may have will make them paint all of us journalists with the same brush, instead of seeing us as people just doing a decent job. Also, on the note regarding Harrisburg and treatment of reporters, most of them are pretty decent and will give you the time of day...there are only a few "bad apples," so to speak, but it's not too difficult to get around that and get information from another source.
In my experience, most "religous folk" tend to live with tunnel-vision. It's certainly an uphill battle.
I think it's up to the pastor... some will speak, others won't.
The Diocese of Scranton has likely tightened the collar over its priests, issuing a decree to utter "no comments... . "
You'll still find willing members of the Protestant clergy (those with little 'overhead') and some bold pastors who enjoy telling the Diocese to go blow.
I've always had luck with interviewing priests. It's most importantly about trust. You don't just get trusted = it must be earned.
Depends, I suppose, on what clergy you're dealing with; fundamentalists would almost always be hard-right, meaning they strongly believe in the liberal media idea, therefore you're the enemy. Some mainline Protestants would tend to be more open in their thinking, chiefly the Episcopalians. The Catholic clergy has had the crap beat out it(and justifiably so)over the abuse situation so bad that they'll likely run from you.
Another thought would be that many sects are fearful that they cannot withstand public scrutiny, subsequently they avoid it as much as possible.
I've mixed feelings on this, having been (and still am) on both sides of the mic. I'm sure you all know what my day job is; for those who don't, see you in church. Maybe I can share perspectives you folks don't have, or answer questions you do.
1:53 said: The Diocese of Scranton has likely tightened the collar over its priests, issuing a decree to utter "no comments..."
Depends on who's in charge, but as things get tighter and tighter, you will hear only from official spokesmen and, even then, not much at all. This is not new and it is not restricted just to churches; it's common everywhere. But who wants to be assigned to Outer Slobbovia for the next ten years?
Back to 1:53 again: It's most importantly about trust. You don't just get trusted = it must be earned.
I was interviewed by a crew from 28 some years ago. They wanted some "B" stuff and assured me they were rolling silent video while we chatted about stuff I did not want on air. I said, again, "This is silent video, right?" They said it was. That night they rolled the tape with the effing audio those effing liars at 28 said they were not recording. You lost my trust, folks, all for some audio that really did not build your story. You lied, you died.
12:19 said: In my experience, most "religous folk" tend to live with tunnel-vision.
I don't know if it's most, but it's certainly an occupational hazard. I mean, when you're sure you've got all the right answers, hey, all these other folks are simply soooo wrong.
2:41 said: The Catholic clergy has had the crap beat out it (and justifiably so) over the abuse situation so bad that they'll likely run from you.
True enough, altho I'm still pissed that Fr. Altarboy gets such a big deal in the news for something he did 30-40 years ago and Joe Predator gets 7" (no pun intended) on page 8 of the CV for what he did two days earlier.
There is also another point: This may not be any part of what you folks are posting about, but I thought I'd toss it in. We have a standing and when "Father says" hits the air, people around here might tend to believe it more than when "Stash says."
For instance, let's say I saw an object which was flying that I could not identify. Actually happened years ago; a lot of them, later seen in Albany. So I run into a street reporter who says, "Did you see that?" I say, "Yeah; I've tried to figure out what it might be and can't come to any explanation." Tease at 11:00 "Priest sees UFO!" Yeah, you would do it, and you would tease every newsbreak.
We gotta be careful what we say. Better to say nothing.
A few thoughts, Padre...
The Diocese of Scranton has likely tightened the collar over its priests...
But your order, as most others, are autonomus, correct? Martino is widely despised. Right, wrong, whatever, he is. I know many good, solid, devoted, life-long Catholics who have nothing but contempt for him. Care to discuss his behavior at McGowan's funeral?
...I'm still pissed that Fr. Altarboy gets such a big deal in the news for something he did 30-40 years ago and Joe Predator gets 7"
Big difference is, Fr. Altarboy is a priest, "a man of God," a person whose trust should be an absolute. Clergy deservedly should(and need)to be held to a higher standard. Confining this discussion to the Roman Obedience alone, let my say that any priest proven to have abused anyone should be defrocked immediately, then handed over to civil authorities for full prosecution. Screw therapy, screw rehab, punish them fast and hard.
That night they rolled the tape with the effing audio those effing liars at 28 said they were not recording.
And, Tom, that is pitiful. But I can with damned near certainty guess who that reporter was. He burned people all the time, it was his ticket to the big time. Personally, I thought he was despicable. He made the bigs, he's no longer there.
11:41 said: But your order, as most others, are autonomus, correct?
Not totally; in some ways, yes, and in many ways, no.
Big difference is, Fr. Altarboy is a priest whose trust should be an absolute. Let my say that any priest proven to have abused anyone should be defrocked immediately, then handed over to civil authorities for full prosecution.
We pretty much agree on this simple answer to a complicated problem. With kids, to the gallows; with a 17-y/o, to the cops, unless there's a pattern. We can argue this last one. But if it's some stuff that happened 30-40 years ago (and they got a guy whose only incident was 59 years ago --not here), he has obviously regretted, repented and gone on to excellent ministry, I think that deserves consideration. ZT just doesn't work in all cases at all times.
Screw therapy, screw rehab, punish them fast and hard.
Unfortunately, we tried therapy and rehab, found nothing works with child abusers -- priests or laypeople. Someday we might find the answer. But we have to keep in mind that there are several stages: small children, older children, teens, just-underage, adults. One size does not fit all. Some people are confirmed in their actions, some were just opportunists (means, motive, opportunity) and a couple years in the slammer might do them a lot of good. I dunno.
Post a Comment
<< Home