EXCERPT:
Based on my own experience as executive editor of a Catholic newspaper, I find that many church people struggle to grasp what makes any event “newsworthy.” Consequently, they sometimes fault the media for slighting an event they regard as significant, when all along the journalists do not see it as particularly “newsworthy.”
It turns out that “newsworthy” is a fairly tricky concept. It is a little like obscenity and religion: hard to define, but you know it when you see it. At least, a good journalist does. And here lies much of the trouble between church people and secular media.
The first thing to know is that the “newsworthy” events are not necessarily the most important ones. I often made this point to pastors or readers who felt we covered minor stories while missing major events in the diocese or their parishes. They were often baffled when I asserted that even the most significant events might not be “news.” To persuade them, I developed the habit of using an example that would be unmistakably clear to them.
“If our job at the newspaper were to cover the most important events,” I would say, “we would just print the same banner headline on top of page one every week: Bread and Wine Transformed into Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at 125 parishes!”
They got the point: nothing they wanted to see in print was as important as the Eucharist, yet they could see that the Eucharist itself is not news.
So what is “newsworthy”? Some Christians think only bad things count--negative events like disasters, accidents, and crime. Thus, they think, the “Good News” of our faith gets excluded or at least short shrift.
But mass media publish lots of happy stories: moon landings, sports championships, election victories, dramatic rescues, even papal elections. And the typical modern English description of the Gospel message as “Good News” is a misleading translation that creates a false conflict between faith and mainstream media. The “Godspell” means “Good Word’” and the biblical term “Evangelion” means “Good Message.” It is, of course, our most important message--but it is not “news” in the usual sense.
Typically, “newsworthy” events are somehow unexpected, things that are not routine and not predetermined. They are outcomes we do not know until they happen. So not only do they matter (that is, they are important somehow), but they must be reported or people will not know about them.
Even dramatic events lose their newsworthy character if they become routine. The first moon landing got 24/7 coverage on every media outlet, but the last space shuttle mission was relegated to minor status; space travel had become routine.
World Youth Day may be critically important, and it is certainly big--but that’s been true since it since its inception by Pope John-Paul II in 1986. If memory serves, the overwhelming and unexpected response to WYD 1997 in Paris garnered widespread media attention. But like most regular events, its newsworthy character has faded as it has become a matter of routine. Only something unexpected--like the protests--breaks that routine and attracts the attention of the general media.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Is the “Good News” News?—Part 1
EXCERPT:
Last week the Catholic media--both print and electronic--were filled with complaints about the mainstream media’s coverage of World Youth Day 2011, which had just finished in Madrid.
At first blush the complaints were obvious. Upwards of 1.5 million youth from around the globe converged on Madrid for worship, networking, song, sacrament and celebration, inspiration and general mass gathering. Brutal heat and drenching rains could not dampen the excitement, enthusiasm, and powerful witness these youth gave to their faith. Even Pope Benedict XVI endured a lengthy soaking to show his solidarity with them as he presided and announced that World Youth Day 2013 would be held in Rio.
Yet the mainstream media covered the event minimally, and most of the coverage that was there focused, not on the event itself, but on the various protests that accompanied it…
Small surprise that Catholic media outlets responded negatively, ranging from disappointment to outrage…
Such reactions are natural and well-intentioned, but on another level they reflect serious confusion about the journalistic nature of media coverage. When Bishop Chaput rightly recommends turning to Catholic media for better coverage, he confirms the obvious fact that their purpose and function is to focus on church events. Consequently they offer better coverage of such events. But does it follow that inferior coverage by the secular media betrays “a set of fairly rigid ideological assumptions and imperatives”?
Perhaps not.
I’m reminded of the three years I spent as executive editor of a Catholic (diocesan) newspaper in the late 1980s. Like most such editors, I faced chronic negativism from pastors who wanted the paper to focus on their upcoming parish events, and thereby boost turnout. In short, they expected the paper to serve a promotional and public relations function. As journalists, however, my staff and I saw things differently.
True, our coverage always focused on church matters, because we were church paper, but we still needed to set priorities--and our priority always went to the items we judged to be most “newsworthy.” Even for a Catholic newspaper, “news” is the name of the game. And my job was to persuade pastors and readers that we knew the rules of that game.
NEXT TIME: What makes events “newsworthy”?
Last week the Catholic media--both print and electronic--were filled with complaints about the mainstream media’s coverage of World Youth Day 2011, which had just finished in Madrid.
At first blush the complaints were obvious. Upwards of 1.5 million youth from around the globe converged on Madrid for worship, networking, song, sacrament and celebration, inspiration and general mass gathering. Brutal heat and drenching rains could not dampen the excitement, enthusiasm, and powerful witness these youth gave to their faith. Even Pope Benedict XVI endured a lengthy soaking to show his solidarity with them as he presided and announced that World Youth Day 2013 would be held in Rio.
Yet the mainstream media covered the event minimally, and most of the coverage that was there focused, not on the event itself, but on the various protests that accompanied it…
Small surprise that Catholic media outlets responded negatively, ranging from disappointment to outrage…
Such reactions are natural and well-intentioned, but on another level they reflect serious confusion about the journalistic nature of media coverage. When Bishop Chaput rightly recommends turning to Catholic media for better coverage, he confirms the obvious fact that their purpose and function is to focus on church events. Consequently they offer better coverage of such events. But does it follow that inferior coverage by the secular media betrays “a set of fairly rigid ideological assumptions and imperatives”?
Perhaps not.
I’m reminded of the three years I spent as executive editor of a Catholic (diocesan) newspaper in the late 1980s. Like most such editors, I faced chronic negativism from pastors who wanted the paper to focus on their upcoming parish events, and thereby boost turnout. In short, they expected the paper to serve a promotional and public relations function. As journalists, however, my staff and I saw things differently.
True, our coverage always focused on church matters, because we were church paper, but we still needed to set priorities--and our priority always went to the items we judged to be most “newsworthy.” Even for a Catholic newspaper, “news” is the name of the game. And my job was to persuade pastors and readers that we knew the rules of that game.
NEXT TIME: What makes events “newsworthy”?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
#336: At A Safe Distance—Or A Dangerous One ?
EXCERPT:
Sometimes I wonder: are our parishes really serious about reaching out to the next generation?
Several weeks ago I was conducting a year-end retreat day for a parish staff. A top priority for the upcoming year was “promoting a vibrant virtual community.” They recognized the fact that younger Catholics lead professional, social, and even family lives that mix live, in-person contact with virtual, online connections. Common sense dictates that if parish life does not join in that mix, those people may not join in parish life. In other words, we are long past the point where churches can ignore how people’s lives have been reshaped by the Internet and still expect to reach them.
Which brings me to the matter of parish websites.
When I began writing CrossCurrents in 2003 I conceived it as a resource that parishes might add to enhance their web sites. By adding an adult faith-formation piece, websites could become more than just parish directories or online bulletins. They could become educational tools and even instruments for community-building.
In those days many parishes had no website at all, and those that did were often offering sparse and static parish profiles. But recently I’ve surveyed more than 200 sites and noticed a dramatic change. In 2011, most parishes do have websites, and most of these features several pages of parish information, access to the parish bulletin, and links to other (usually official) Catholic sites.
You would think such online communication would be an increasingly important key to reaching and retaining the next generations--people from 15 to 50, for whom establishing and maintaining relationships online has become second nature.
That is, you would expect an evolution of parish websites toward a more transparent, more accessible, more welcoming online community--a virtual community, to be sure, but one that could serve the next generation as a gateway into parish life.
Now, in my research, I assumed it might be expecting too much to look for real interactive online features: a pastor’s blog, a Facebook page, or Twitter link, let alone chat forums or instant messaging or even teleconferencing. No, I thought, I would settle for the simplest, most basic form of online communications (community, after all, presumes communications). I would simply check websites for their e-mail connections.
The results astonished me.
...
In sum, while collecting more than 500 addresses, I almost never found a website that offered online pastoral staff contact up front on the main website page. Most website home pages proclaim “welcome to all” but are not actually welcoming. Many even say “we look forward to hearing from you” but do not tell visitors how to do that.
What is going on here?
...
Limiting access reduces the flow of incoming communication to a trickle, thus depriving parish leaders of a valuable and free source of information and insight about the very generation that our future depends on--a generation many leaders struggle to understand.
Also, it sends the wrong message about our intentions. It creates the impression that any talk of outreach, hospitality, and welcoming to younger Catholics is mere lip service--a public gesture we fail to back up by actually making contact as easy and comfortable as possible. In short, we risk undermining the credibility of our efforts to evangelize.
Finally, it reinforces the worst impression about the institutional church: that it is out of touch, with outmoded ways disengaged from contemporary life, too busy protecting itself from the world to adapt its methods and avoid obsolescence. In a word, we risk reinforcing the impression that the Catholic Church is irrelevant to people’s lives.
I cannot see any theological or pastoral justifications for creating the impression that Catholic tradition is not only old but also old-fashioned. Catholic parishes simply cannot afford to put their online identity and presence on the back burner--let alone behind a protective barrier.
Parish leaders may think that limiting e-mail access (not to mention avoiding Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, blogs, and teleconferencing) will keep people at a safe distance--but it’s actually a dangerous distance, for it endangers our very future.
Sometimes I wonder: are our parishes really serious about reaching out to the next generation?
Several weeks ago I was conducting a year-end retreat day for a parish staff. A top priority for the upcoming year was “promoting a vibrant virtual community.” They recognized the fact that younger Catholics lead professional, social, and even family lives that mix live, in-person contact with virtual, online connections. Common sense dictates that if parish life does not join in that mix, those people may not join in parish life. In other words, we are long past the point where churches can ignore how people’s lives have been reshaped by the Internet and still expect to reach them.
Which brings me to the matter of parish websites.
When I began writing CrossCurrents in 2003 I conceived it as a resource that parishes might add to enhance their web sites. By adding an adult faith-formation piece, websites could become more than just parish directories or online bulletins. They could become educational tools and even instruments for community-building.
In those days many parishes had no website at all, and those that did were often offering sparse and static parish profiles. But recently I’ve surveyed more than 200 sites and noticed a dramatic change. In 2011, most parishes do have websites, and most of these features several pages of parish information, access to the parish bulletin, and links to other (usually official) Catholic sites.
You would think such online communication would be an increasingly important key to reaching and retaining the next generations--people from 15 to 50, for whom establishing and maintaining relationships online has become second nature.
That is, you would expect an evolution of parish websites toward a more transparent, more accessible, more welcoming online community--a virtual community, to be sure, but one that could serve the next generation as a gateway into parish life.
Now, in my research, I assumed it might be expecting too much to look for real interactive online features: a pastor’s blog, a Facebook page, or Twitter link, let alone chat forums or instant messaging or even teleconferencing. No, I thought, I would settle for the simplest, most basic form of online communications (community, after all, presumes communications). I would simply check websites for their e-mail connections.
The results astonished me.
...
In sum, while collecting more than 500 addresses, I almost never found a website that offered online pastoral staff contact up front on the main website page. Most website home pages proclaim “welcome to all” but are not actually welcoming. Many even say “we look forward to hearing from you” but do not tell visitors how to do that.
What is going on here?
...
Limiting access reduces the flow of incoming communication to a trickle, thus depriving parish leaders of a valuable and free source of information and insight about the very generation that our future depends on--a generation many leaders struggle to understand.
Also, it sends the wrong message about our intentions. It creates the impression that any talk of outreach, hospitality, and welcoming to younger Catholics is mere lip service--a public gesture we fail to back up by actually making contact as easy and comfortable as possible. In short, we risk undermining the credibility of our efforts to evangelize.
Finally, it reinforces the worst impression about the institutional church: that it is out of touch, with outmoded ways disengaged from contemporary life, too busy protecting itself from the world to adapt its methods and avoid obsolescence. In a word, we risk reinforcing the impression that the Catholic Church is irrelevant to people’s lives.
I cannot see any theological or pastoral justifications for creating the impression that Catholic tradition is not only old but also old-fashioned. Catholic parishes simply cannot afford to put their online identity and presence on the back burner--let alone behind a protective barrier.
Parish leaders may think that limiting e-mail access (not to mention avoiding Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, blogs, and teleconferencing) will keep people at a safe distance--but it’s actually a dangerous distance, for it endangers our very future.
Monday, August 8, 2011
#335: The Right Man For The Job?
EXCERPT:
The appointment of Denver’s Charles J. Chaput as Archbishop of Philadelphia marks a turning point in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the Archdiocese of Denver, and possibly even the Church in America.
Beyond question, Philadelphia desperately needs a new diocesan culture. Of all dioceses damaged by the sex abuse scandal since the 2000 breakout in Boston, Philadelphia is emerging as the worst case the all. First, the numbers of abuse cases are as high as any other dioceses. Second, it appears the mismanagement (through secrecy, neglect, and the recycling of offenders) lasted even longer than elsewhere. Third, the civil authorities have moved in aggressively.
Last spring Monsignor William Lynn (former Secretary for Clergy) became the first US diocesan official indicted on criminal charges (“felony child endangerment”) for recycling pedophile priests. The practice was endemic in nearly all US dioceses, but Philadelphia’s practice was so egregious it has drawn an unprecedented crackdown.
I have no inside knowledge of Philadelphia’s church culture (most of my work since 1976 has been in New England), but the arrival of the new bishop to replace retiring Justin Rigali cannot mean that “business as usual” will continue. There is every reason to expect that the way diocesan affairs have been conducted in recent years will be overhauled, and a new way of doing things will be installed.
This will make for interesting church-watching, since Philadelphia’s new bishop arrives bringing the reputation he earned in Denver. There Archbishop Chaput established himself as arguably the preeminent hard-liner in the American hierarchy (especially once Bernard Law fled the scene).
Does that mean that, if Philadelphia’s diocesan culture needs a thorough overhaul, Chaput is the right man for the job?
Here the case of legendary baseball manager Dick Williams (who died the same week as Chaput’s arrival) may be instructive. Remember, Williams led the Red Sox' “Impossible Dream” of 1967 and thus revived Boston's past glory by ruling with an iron hand to create a winning culture. But his style depended on a historical era when ballplayers were still docile wage-slaves. Once free agency liberated them, his style was largely obsolete. In short, culture-shaping requires not only strong management, but also a management style well matched to its times. For Philadelphia, the key question is: can Chaput provide both?
Time will tell. But the question is especially critical in a time when Catholic life is marked by two influences: (1) the way Vatican II made Catholic laity “free agents” rather than obedient children; (2) the way scandal and declining numbers have damaged both the morale and the motivation of those same laity. Philadelphia will need healing, not a hard line.
The appointment of Denver’s Charles J. Chaput as Archbishop of Philadelphia marks a turning point in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the Archdiocese of Denver, and possibly even the Church in America.
Beyond question, Philadelphia desperately needs a new diocesan culture. Of all dioceses damaged by the sex abuse scandal since the 2000 breakout in Boston, Philadelphia is emerging as the worst case the all. First, the numbers of abuse cases are as high as any other dioceses. Second, it appears the mismanagement (through secrecy, neglect, and the recycling of offenders) lasted even longer than elsewhere. Third, the civil authorities have moved in aggressively.
Last spring Monsignor William Lynn (former Secretary for Clergy) became the first US diocesan official indicted on criminal charges (“felony child endangerment”) for recycling pedophile priests. The practice was endemic in nearly all US dioceses, but Philadelphia’s practice was so egregious it has drawn an unprecedented crackdown.
I have no inside knowledge of Philadelphia’s church culture (most of my work since 1976 has been in New England), but the arrival of the new bishop to replace retiring Justin Rigali cannot mean that “business as usual” will continue. There is every reason to expect that the way diocesan affairs have been conducted in recent years will be overhauled, and a new way of doing things will be installed.
This will make for interesting church-watching, since Philadelphia’s new bishop arrives bringing the reputation he earned in Denver. There Archbishop Chaput established himself as arguably the preeminent hard-liner in the American hierarchy (especially once Bernard Law fled the scene).
Does that mean that, if Philadelphia’s diocesan culture needs a thorough overhaul, Chaput is the right man for the job?
Here the case of legendary baseball manager Dick Williams (who died the same week as Chaput’s arrival) may be instructive. Remember, Williams led the Red Sox' “Impossible Dream” of 1967 and thus revived Boston's past glory by ruling with an iron hand to create a winning culture. But his style depended on a historical era when ballplayers were still docile wage-slaves. Once free agency liberated them, his style was largely obsolete. In short, culture-shaping requires not only strong management, but also a management style well matched to its times. For Philadelphia, the key question is: can Chaput provide both?
Time will tell. But the question is especially critical in a time when Catholic life is marked by two influences: (1) the way Vatican II made Catholic laity “free agents” rather than obedient children; (2) the way scandal and declining numbers have damaged both the morale and the motivation of those same laity. Philadelphia will need healing, not a hard line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)