GetReligion.org - GetReligion » “The press . . . just doesn’t get religion.” — William Schneider
member of beliefnet's blogheaven
microsoft windows mail help Cheap Soft Downloads microsoft windows teraterm microsoft windows 2000 pro buy Cheap Soft Downloads :: Buy Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3 microsoft windows daylight savings time download microsoft office standard 2003 key generator Cheap Soft Downloads :: Buy Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2007 price for microsoft office 2003 microsoft windows movie maker 1 Cheap Soft Downloads :: Buy Microsoft Windows 7 Professional microsoft windows xp system recovery help microsoft office word 2003 geting started Cheap Soft Downloads :: Buy Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Web Edition SP2 microsoft virtual pc windows98 installieren microsoft windows xp error 1402 Cheap Soft Downloads :: Buy Microsoft Office 2003 Professional microsoft sharepoint service windows 2000 logon

Recent Posts

Clearing one missionary’s name | Voo dat? | Problems with parachuting into AFA | Question: Who set all this up? | Superbowl morality tales | Shameless super plug for a friend | Godly gridiron giants | Southern Baptists should slow down? | Praying away Uganda’s anti-gay bill | On Haiti: Yo, Washington Post copy desk! | 2010 Archive >


Friday, December 30, 2005
Posted by Mollie

faucetI’ve spent a great deal of time researching media coverage of the Air Force Academy scandal that erupted last April. The press accounts, woefully one-sided, indicate that evangelical Christians are running roughshod over the rights of everyone else at the Academy.

Allegations range from the horrible — a Jewish cadet being called a slur by an unidentified classmate — to the perfectly legal in a country that protects religious freedom — Christian chaplains preaching Christian doctrine at voluntary Protestant worship services.

When the story broke nationwide last April — there had been a smattering of mostly-local coverage prior — it broke because two of the three major players in the story leaked it to the media. I know this because one of them admitted it after the fact — not because I read it any of the breathless Associated Press or Los Angeles Times coverage. The coverage also preceded the release of a report from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State — but included the same information as was contained therein. Communication between Americans United and the press were not revealed.

Yesterday, a separate player — one on the other side of the imbroglio — leaked some inconsequential information related to the case. Do media reports mention how the information was obtained? Let’s take a look at the Rocky Mountain News:

First, there was the joke, e-mailed Wednesday night. Then, the cordial reply: “looooong time no chat, bro …”

By Thursday, the e-mail exchange had escalated into a war of words between evangelical Christian leader Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, who sent the joke, and activist Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, who is fighting what he calls religious proselytizing in the military.

The exchange took on added dimensions when Haggard’s office called the media Thursday to publicize it.

“An ambush — a cowardly ambush,” Weinstein said of the release of the e-mail exchange.

As a reporter who covers the federal bureaucracy, I would be dead in the water without leaks. When people leak to me, I assume they are doing so for a reason. That’s because they are. Revealing information due to personal conviction or to make your side in a dispute look better is, for better or worse, universal. But reporters only mention it some of the time.

chapelMedia folks need to develop some consistency in treating how they obtain information — especially considering that in this story, everyone involved was sharing the information far and wide:

Weinstein also distributed the e-mails — but only to supporters on his e-mail list. “I did not send them to the media,” he said.

Another thing that has intrigued me about the coverage is the failure to give a full picture of Weinstein, the man suing the Air Force. He is always referred to as a former Reagan official, an Albuquerque attorney and father of two Air Force Academy cadets. And those things are true. He is also a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, often refers to the movie The Passion of the Christ as the Jesus Chainsaw Murders or Freddy vs. Jesus, thinks that Academy leaders take their direction on evangelism directly from the White House and believes Christian cadets should be prevented from telling others they are going to hell if they don’t believe in Christ. Each of those views is perfectly legitimate for Weinstein to offer, but when they are concealed, it’s difficult for readers to understand Weinstein’s interesting religious motivation in the dispute.

  • Share/Bookmark
Page Icon Posted at 12:21 pm | Print Print | Permalink | Trackback | Comments (3)
divider

3 Responses to “When is a leak a leak?”

  1. Scott Allen says:

    Thank you for mentioning “both sides” of the story from a professional perspective.

  2. Michael Rew says:

    A leak is a leak when it leaves the stain of yellow journalism.

  3. Michael says:

    There does seem to be a difference between a leak of information that supports your side and a leak of a “private” conversation where there was not an expectation that it would he handed over to the press and the leak was done to discredit a whistleblower.

    IOW, as a reader I guess I want to kinow where a report comes from but I REALLy want an explanation of how the newspaper got access to an email exchange between non-public figures.