Conflict of interest at the National Catholic Reporter?
By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 10, 2005
Back in April of last year, NCR editor Tom Roberts said good-bye to reporter Chuck Colbert:
At that time, we talked about the situation and Colbert understood that becoming a public activist on the gay marriage issue would prohibit him from reporting on our pages.
Roberts was acknowledging Colbert's falling afoul of the so-called "Rosenthal Rule" -- a canon of journalistic self-discipline (named after the former NYT editor who gave it pithy expression) -- according to which a newsman known to be an active partisan for some cause has thereby forfeited his claim to objectivity and is barred from reporting on that same cause.
How did Colbert cross the line? Overtly, by planting himself in a parish to which he did not belong and disrupting its Mass in order to protest a video opposing gay marriage. Roberts admitted that Colbert "lives in a committed relationship with another man," and conceded the obvious conflict of interest:
Colbert's decision to move from dispassionate observer to passionate advocate is not the first or the last time in the annals of journalism that such a move will take place. We will miss his reporting in our pages.
"We will miss his reporting in our pages." Sound like a definitive farewell? It does to me also. But Colbert has returned to the NCR with news reports in the issues of October 7 and November 10, reporting -- not commenting -- on the fiasco that attended the dismissal of Boston's Father Walter Cuenin.
No one can pretend that Colbert's interest in Cuenin is purely reportorial. Cuenin is notoriously one of Boston's most gay-friendly priests and his parish was a center of resistance to the anti-gay-marriage amendment. An editor in the Rosenthal mold wouldn't let Colbert within spitting distance of this story. Was Roberts justified in reversing his own decision? Consider the following paragraph from Colbert's October 7 report:
Parishioner and pastoral council member Larry Kessler said the allegations [against pastor Walter Cuenin] are "a ruse in my mind and the minds of many." The car and stipend are "smoke screens," Kessler said, adding that archdiocese wants "to get Walter out of the pulpit" in part because "he encourages people to think" and "O'Malley wants sheep."
Kessler is identified by Colbert simply as a "parishioner and pastoral council member." From that ID an NCR reader would be justified in conjuring up a picture of Kessler as a typical specimen of the breed, your ordinary Catholic guy with a wife and mortgage and couple kids in the parish school, who happens to think his pastor is getting a raw deal from the Chancery. But Colbert knows full well that Kessler is one of Boston's highest profile gay activists and an outspoken proponent of gay marriage, and yet he is silent about Kessler's role in his article. This is equivalent to interviewing "Catholic laywoman" Frances Kissling on Fr. Robert Drinan and -- oops! -- omitting to mention that she founded Catholics for a Free Choice.
In April 2004, Roberts defensively insisted "Colbert has not written for NCR since the issue of March 19, not since he made the decision to cross the line between reporter and activist" -- your words, Mr. Roberts, not mine. So I put it to you: what has changed in the meantime?
Clearly not Colbert. The NCR's own Abuse Tracker regularly provides links that demonstrate the contrary. Or is the Rosenthal Rule -- the notion of conflict of interest itself -- one of those obsolete norms that encode homophobia and that, in the service of its own agenda, the NCR is prepared to dispense with?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: John J Plick -
Nov. 13, 2005 8:30 AM ET USA
"I would argue that point, isn't what you really meant to say is "the priesthood"?" I toyed with such a thought in the back of my mind, but never found an occasion to express it, as it is so repugnant... But if it is really so and the Bishops are already aware...???
Posted by: -
Nov. 10, 2005 8:39 PM ET USA
"Let's face it -- along with theatre, dance and the performing arts, "journalism" is a field to which many gays are drawn." I would argue that point, isn't what you really meant to say is "the priesthood"?
Posted by: frjimc -
Nov. 10, 2005 6:45 PM ET USA
The point's being missed. Compared to the majority of MSM "reporters," Colbert's got integrity. At least he publicly adverted to his bias. The rest of them refuse to acknowledge their ties to the "gay rights" causes, and won't admit that their own personal POV has any bearing on their reportage. Let's face it -- along with theatre, dance and the performing arts, "journalism" is a field to which many gays are drawn. If they were to acknowledge that, though, they'd not be taken as seriously.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Nov. 10, 2005 3:31 PM ET USA
The NCR is merely placing itself firmly in the main stream of today's Mainstream Media. Along with the NY Times (today's version), the Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, the Associated Press, Reuters...and certainly my hometown San Francisco Chronicle. For daily evidence, see www.mrc.org. (I spent 40+ years in news, most of them as a radio news director for such as Metromedia, NBC & RKO. When I let sombody go because he went to work in politics, he stayed gone.)
Posted by: -
Nov. 10, 2005 2:58 PM ET USA
So what's new? Besides Tom Allen, NCR is known for advocating things contrary to the Church. That's why they're the secular media's darlings. I mean how often is CWNews or CWR quoted in the NY Times or their respective editors heard on NPR? Yeah, I thought not. Because the secular media are trying to ruin the Church, they're going to latch on to anything that claims to be within the Church but isn't. Still it's good to expose hypocrisy. Maybe the light will suddenly go off in Tom Roberts' head.
Posted by: -
Nov. 10, 2005 1:15 PM ET USA
How is it that NCR can be guilty of this kind of conduct, while at the same time retaining John Allen as its star Vatican reporter. Whatever Allen's personal opinions, they rarely show in the course of his reporting. He is balanced and accurate. The rest of NCR's reportage is a bunch of rubbish.