But, but, but … Blagojevich! | Hallelujah, praise the Big Book | A slightly-over-the-top political ad | Got news? Partisan, partisan, partisan | ‘Journalists can play with quotes’ | What ‘cancer’ is in Pakistan? | That’s mighty Native American of you! | Brilliant doubters, dull believers? | Empty pews on Sunday night | Media ordains female priests |2010 Archive >
A few days ago, we looked at the really bad story Time put out on female priests. It was just a bad story, no way around it. It had spelling errors, usage errors, inaccuracies and factual errors. It used weasel words. It managed to not find a single proponent of the historic Christian position despite being over 1,200 words long. So we weren’t the only folks who thought the article was problematic.
Over at Beliefnet, Deacon’s Bench blogger Greg Kandra said that the article was disappointing from his perspective as a member of the Catholic clergy. But from his perspective as a journalist, it was embarrassing. He articulated some of those concerns — paying particular attention to her failure to include people who support the Catholic teaching on women as priests — and said he’d like to hear from a Time editor about how this piece made it through editing.
An editor didn’t respond but the article’s author Dawn Reiss did weigh in. Here’s how she responded to her critics:
Hi. I’m the journalist who wrote the story you are discussing. As Votaire [sic] would say, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
For the record, I have more than a decade in the business and have covered a variety of topics from life in the slums of Cambodia to the trial of Rod Blagojevich and one of Maya Angelou’s lone interviews in her home in Harlem.
I certain [sic] did do my due diligence as a journalist. The Vatican’s recent statements about how ordaining women is on par with pedophile [sic] speak for themselves.
For the record, after I wrote, the second sentence you referred to, that Jacko is also “an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church,” I say: “Officially, of course, the Catholic Church’s canon law 1024 says that only baptized men can receive holy orders. But there is a movement against the no-women rule, one that began eight years ago when a cluster of renegade male clerics (including a European bishop whose identity the female priests won’t reveal in order not to risk his excommunication) ordained the first women. Now, in Jacko’s hometown of Chicago, three women have entered into the priesthood.”
I encourage open commentary. I might add that the gospel today pointed to the story of Lazarus, about how everyone should be treated with respect, decency, and without hatred.
The defense, which begins and ends with non-sequiturs, is odd. I have no idea how Maya Angelou or Rod Blagojevich figure into whether she did a good job with this story. And I think she’s trying to say that she didn’t need to speak with anyone who favors Catholic doctrine because she quoted a Vatican document. That would be remarkably insufficient even if this wasn’t the entire reference to that document: “the Vatican decreed in July that ordaining female priests was a ‘grave’ crime, on par with pedophilia.” No, I’m not joking. And I’m not sure how Lazarus applies to Kandra’s critique, which is fair, calm and comes from someone who spent 26 years at CBS News.
In fact, the response is so weak that it actually surprises me. The critique is straight-forward and seemingly easy to understand. Her response indicates either that she doesn’t care or doesn’t understand what people were complaining about. I’m not sure which one is more troubling.
Written by: Mollie on October 1, 2010. Posted at 7:37 am | Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (10) 10 Responses to “But, but, but … Blagojevich!” Steve says: October 1, 2010, at 7:52 amWow. Just. Wow. No words.
Jeff says: October 1, 2010, at 7:56 amBlagojevich?
Gesundheit!
teomatteo says: October 1, 2010, at 9:14 amWas it Voltaire who said, “it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt” ?
Martha says: October 1, 2010, at 10:07 amHeh. Looks like I shouldn’t have blamed the (lack of a) sub-editor for the appalling misusage of liturgical terms in the piece; judging by the number of ‘sic’s in the above, it was indeed all her own work.
Coming next week in “Time”: financial reporting in which the journalist talks about ‘those funny coloured bits of paper that don’t even look like real money, you know, dollars’ when referring to the mechanism of setting exchange rates between currencies!
Martha says: October 1, 2010, at 10:11 am“one of Maya Angelou's lone interviews”
Is it possible to have more than one lone interview? Or does this mean that Maya Angelou was alone when she did the interview (but, er, doesn’t the presence of an interviewer mean that the interviewee is not, after all, alone)?
Peggy says: October 1, 2010, at 10:51 am
Definitely a weak response. Terrible grammar as well. This woman needs an editor, STAT.
Randy says: October 1, 2010, at 11:01 amIt seems she just does not know that some people actually make coherent rational arguments why only men can become fathers. She thinks it is enough that she is an intelligent person and she can’t think of any reason. This is common today. The new atheists don’t need to listen to what people of faith are actually saying. Even the faithful are not aware of these arguments so why bother with them. Just deal with the replies people actually come up with on their own. Those tend not to be very strong.
joye says: October 1, 2010, at 11:36 amHow in God’s name did this woman get hired by Time?
I don’t know if she is intelligent or not, but she sure doesn’t write intelligently. I can see that the same hand that penned “deaconate” and “say reconciliation and say a homily” is behind such gems as “Votaire” and “I certain did do my due diligence”.
I’m flabbergasted that she knew what the gospel was. That implies that she attends Mass and is a Catholic. I’m suffering from embarrassment by proxy, here. She can’t even report accurately on her own religion? She doesn’t seem to get what the story of Lazarus is about (treating people with respect? really? really?), so maybe she just suffers from Acute Religious Incomprehension Disorder. ARIDity is a common affliction in the God beat, alas.
Chris M says: October 1, 2010, at 11:42 amI think this goes beyond GetReligion. There’s a lot of things not “Gotten” in the referenced article and the author’s e-mail defending it (spelling, grammar, logic, balance, fairness, etc.).
Norman says: October 1, 2010, at 11:44 amThere is an implication in her statement that the Catholic Church is so evil that its views do not deserve to be heard.
I wonder again if there is not a generational crisis in journalism, where the new wave are believers in the notion that power is the only reality, and that everything is at root a conflict between oppressors and oppressed.
Leave a Reply Name [Required]: Email [Required]: Your blog/website:GetReligion will not publish, sell or share your email address, or send you spam. When we notice posts without names or email addresses, we will delete them. Why? Read our Comments/TrackBacks policy.
WARNINGYour browser does not support JavaScript or has JavaScript disabled!
This will not compromise the possibility to leave a comment, although the automatic insertion of both markup tags and emoticons will not work.
Markup Controlspowered by C4F Textarea Toolbar
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
_uacct = "UA-127478-3";urchinTracker(); woopraTracker.track();Over at Beliefnet, Deacon’s Bench blogger Greg Kandra said that the article was disappointing from his perspective as a member of the Catholic clergy. But from his perspective as a journalist, it was embarrassing. He articulated some of those concerns — paying particular attention to her failure to include people who support the Catholic teaching on women as priests — and said he’d like to hear from a Time editor about how this piece made it through editing.
An editor didn’t respond but the article’s author Dawn Reiss did weigh in. Here’s how she responded to her critics:
Hi. I’m the journalist who wrote the story you are discussing. As Votaire [sic] would say, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
For the record, I have more than a decade in the business and have covered a variety of topics from life in the slums of Cambodia to the trial of Rod Blagojevich and one of Maya Angelou’s lone interviews in her home in Harlem.
I certain [sic] did do my due diligence as a journalist. The Vatican’s recent statements about how ordaining women is on par with pedophile [sic] speak for themselves.
For the record, after I wrote, the second sentence you referred to, that Jacko is also “an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church,” I say: “Officially, of course, the Catholic Church’s canon law 1024 says that only baptized men can receive holy orders. But there is a movement against the no-women rule, one that began eight years ago when a cluster of renegade male clerics (including a European bishop whose identity the female priests won’t reveal in order not to risk his excommunication) ordained the first women. Now, in Jacko’s hometown of Chicago, three women have entered into the priesthood.”
I encourage open commentary. I might add that the gospel today pointed to the story of Lazarus, about how everyone should be treated with respect, decency, and without hatred.
The defense, which begins and ends with non-sequiturs, is odd. I have no idea how Maya Angelou or Rod Blagojevich figure into whether she did a good job with this story. And I think she’s trying to say that she didn’t need to speak with anyone who favors Catholic doctrine because she quoted a Vatican document. That would be remarkably insufficient even if this wasn’t the entire reference to that document: “the Vatican decreed in July that ordaining female priests was a ‘grave’ crime, on par with pedophilia.” No, I’m not joking. And I’m not sure how Lazarus applies to Kandra’s critique, which is fair, calm and comes from someone who spent 26 years at CBS News.
In fact, the response is so weak that it actually surprises me. The critique is straight-forward and seemingly easy to understand. Her response indicates either that she doesn’t care or doesn’t understand what people were complaining about. I’m not sure which one is more troubling.
Wow. Just. Wow. No words.
Blagojevich?
Gesundheit!
Was it Voltaire who said, “it is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt” ?
Heh. Looks like I shouldn’t have blamed the (lack of a) sub-editor for the appalling misusage of liturgical terms in the piece; judging by the number of ‘sic’s in the above, it was indeed all her own work.
Coming next week in “Time”: financial reporting in which the journalist talks about ‘those funny coloured bits of paper that don’t even look like real money, you know, dollars’ when referring to the mechanism of setting exchange rates between currencies!
“one of Maya Angelou's lone interviews”
Is it possible to have more than one lone interview? Or does this mean that Maya Angelou was alone when she did the interview (but, er, doesn’t the presence of an interviewer mean that the interviewee is not, after all, alone)?
Definitely a weak response. Terrible grammar as well. This woman needs an editor, STAT.
It seems she just does not know that some people actually make coherent rational arguments why only men can become fathers. She thinks it is enough that she is an intelligent person and she can’t think of any reason. This is common today. The new atheists don’t need to listen to what people of faith are actually saying. Even the faithful are not aware of these arguments so why bother with them. Just deal with the replies people actually come up with on their own. Those tend not to be very strong.
How in God’s name did this woman get hired by Time?
I don’t know if she is intelligent or not, but she sure doesn’t write intelligently. I can see that the same hand that penned “deaconate” and “say reconciliation and say a homily” is behind such gems as “Votaire” and “I certain did do my due diligence”.
I’m flabbergasted that she knew what the gospel was. That implies that she attends Mass and is a Catholic. I’m suffering from embarrassment by proxy, here. She can’t even report accurately on her own religion? She doesn’t seem to get what the story of Lazarus is about (treating people with respect? really? really?), so maybe she just suffers from Acute Religious Incomprehension Disorder. ARIDity is a common affliction in the God beat, alas.
I think this goes beyond GetReligion. There’s a lot of things not “Gotten” in the referenced article and the author’s e-mail defending it (spelling, grammar, logic, balance, fairness, etc.).
There is an implication in her statement that the Catholic Church is so evil that its views do not deserve to be heard.
I wonder again if there is not a generational crisis in journalism, where the new wave are believers in the notion that power is the only reality, and that everything is at root a conflict between oppressors and oppressed.
GetReligion will not publish, sell or share your email address, or send you spam. When we notice posts without names or email addresses, we will delete them. Why? Read our Comments/TrackBacks policy.
Read Full Article »