AmericanPapist Comments
With regards to regarding the telephone conversation, laws vary from state to state. I know that some states only require the consent of one participating party (in which case, it would be legal), but some other states require both parties to consent (in which case, it would be illegal).
"We have had a number of experiences where CNA has printed erroneous and non-sourced information in the past, which is not consistent with standard journalistic practices."
Is she applying the same rules to the New York Times and the Washington Post?
Both have published unsourced or outright fabricated stories in the recent past.
If one is the official spokesperson for a major institution, one does not have the role of monitoring the journalistic standards of others.
Put out your own version of events in an accurate and fair way. If they distort it, ask them for a correction. If they don't print the correction, complain publicly about their distortion of your information.
And, by the way, doesn't the Archdiocese have its own newspaper? Its own website? Access to other media?
Plenty of ways to correct a story if CNS gets it wrong. No excuse for failing to respond, in my book.
Generally, the rule of thumb is that you have permission to record a phone conversation. While it might technically be legal, it's certainly not ethical to do so in most circumstances. (An exception would be investigative journalism, or something of that ilk).
It does sound like she's slandering the Internet media...IMO, it's pretty easy to see that CNA is a legitimate international media organization - a quick Google search will show you that.
As a journalist, I can tell you that you do not secretly tape a source if you ever intend to use that source again. It is a hostile act, and is really only done in certain situations, which this clearly didn't merit. If she were, say, a slum-lord or a drug dealer or a john, that might merit secret recording. But a PR flak? No way. As for the "legality" of recording, that varies widely based on state, situation, and intended use of the recording.
The item at the end of the CNA story about them being "not worthy of a statement" was unprofessional. Without context, it was a meaningless fillip that discredits the story and the venue. Since CNA and Gibbs have history, it's dishonest to squirt out a little dig at the end of a news item without any mention of that history.
I know nothing about CNA, but this wouldn't pass muster in a college newspaper, much less a professional news source.
This was bound to come up sometime, and I'm glad to see Gibbs handle the problem professionally.
I have to wonder why all this touchiness got started in the first place. There has to be some hidden causal factor that CNA is not willing to admit or that Gibbs doesn't even thinks is on the oscilloscope. It's just rather unlikely that such blatant, snippy writing finds its way out into the public domain without there being an immediate, emotive cause for it occurring. (Except if you post in the AmP Combox, then there need not be any reason for snippy writing other than fun!) It has to be that someone just flew off the handle for no good reason at all. In any event, it's too bad that this sort of thing gets aired out as the public laundry and the rest of us have to put up with it for a week or two.
Oops! Forgot to stick my name on there. I'd make a horrible journalist, I forgot to stake a claim to my own by-line!
The line about "standard journalistic practices" sounds like authentic Gibbs. It is the reason she gave me that blogs are not credible sources of news because they are "not accountable by journalistic standards." Bloggers aren't supervised by editors so they can't be trusted, she alleges. She has also refused to include me on a distribution list for press releases as well as refusing to answer questions. It was incredibly disappointing as I have no intention of being malicious to the Archdiocese or the Archbishop.
Bloggers are among the first to call out for transparency and accountability, though we ourselves are accountable to no one but our readers. Is it any wonder we don't get a lot of respect?
Gibbs mentions jounalistic standards of ethics, such as fact-checking and multiple sources. One might mention honoring embargoes as well, considering one incident involving a recent Motu Proprio.
In a coincidence of church history, blogs became widespread at the same time as sexual abuse claims against priests came to light. In that atmosphere there was considerable license taken. I'm not sure we're going to be able to do that forever.
And in other news, it's a little awkward to punish someone for printing "erroneous and non-sourced information" by refusing to give them correct and sourced information, when they phone up the horse's mouth!
Odd that bloggers are called out because they "regularly repeat and change information and a lot that is out there is wrong. That misleads people."
Till recently, the mainstream media had a monopoly on doing that. But I don't recall ecclesiastical communications directors refusing to speak to them in retaliation.
Peer-reviewed journals are more respectable than non-peer-reviewed jounals.
Papers with editorial oversight and an ombudsman are more respectable than unregulated papers.
But more to the point is the professed and I think sincere desire that bloggers have to serve the Church with their writings. However, shouldn't writing for the Church be subject to episcopal oversight?
I really think what is going on is quite simple. A prelate who is not doing his job, vis a vis canon 915, is taking more flak for it now that another prelate has.
So his staff are trying to stonewall and dis those who are asking why he isn't.
It's just another example of the shuck and jive we've come to expect from certain prelates, since we noticed that they covered up for sexual misconduct among the clergy.
I know the word "episkopos" means overseer, but right now, I think the Episcopacy in many areas needs the oversight of public criticism and exposure.
Ephrem--EWTN is a good example of why llay communication should NOT be under the bishops. Cdl Law--remember him?--and Cdl Mahoney tried to take control of it, with no basis in civil or canon law, to silence a voice for Catholic teaching and tradition.
Until why are free of heretical, crypto-schismatic and untrustworthy bishops, or at least until they don't form a third or more of our national hierarchy, we need to goad them.
"we need to goad them."'
Mr. Redneck, I believe the relevant Canon is phrased quite differently.
Translation: CNS and the Blogs are not liberal enough for us.
It's one thing to say you're faithful to the Magisterium. The proof lies in habits of respect and obedience.
Most of us at St. Blogs would like to see the Mandatum enforced. Yet our teachings, which are potentially more influential and wideapread and easy to cut 'n paste, are completely unsupervised. That's a remarkable inconsistency.
(Sorry to be such a thread-hog, Thom. Here ends my rant.)
ignorant redneck:
Dead on. A bishop who is refusing to do his job--obstinately and manifestly, I might add--has nothing informative to say to the Catholic press.
Except unintentionally. Wuerl's statement was "boob-bait for the Bubba's." He repeated his claim that it is up to the bishops "back home" to deal with the baby-killers' Communions. This claim was dealt with already in Abp. Burke article.
And Wuerl cited the USSCB's statement of 2004--the one that the bishops voted for after McCarrick LIED to them about Ratzinger's position, and while McCarrick was still concealing the letter Ratzinger wrote.
There is no one but the Pope who can do anything to give Washington a Catholic for an archbishop. But the Catholic laity should not be attending the Masses of a man who believes that Nancy Pelosi and other baby-killers are in union with the Catholic Church--because such a man is not in union with the Catholic Church.
You can't believe that baby-killers are Catholic, and be a Catholic.
"But I would say that I've been reading CNA closely for years and have never caught them twisting facts or being wilfully negligent in their reporting."
But unless you are the subject of their stories, or have first hand information about their stories, you have no ability to catch them twisting facts.
It's been my experience that the media never knows what they are talking about, that even when they get the facts right, the tone is all off. I was quoted in the Washington Post covered Pope Benedict, and the quote really didn't summarize the conversation we had. It was just a snippet to support the overall tone and feel of the story itself.
The burden is on the press to show why we should talk to them.
Actually, I've often had (private) first-hand account of the events CNA covers, and CNA often glosses MSM sources. In boths cases I haven't caught them up to anything. Maybe I'm not reading closely enough, but if others know of particular exampls - please - by all means, let me know.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
