Whenever we write about stories involving Roman Catholic Womenpriests, we get a ton of reader feedback. Part of that is because much of the coverage has been so weak over the years. But part of it is because the issues surrounding the group get at the heart of what animates many believers — authority, Scripture, social issues, personal determination. It’s all very interesting stuff.
Earlier this week, we looked at a couple of Boston Globe reporter Michael Paulson’s stories on recent activities by the Roman Catholic Womenpriests group. We compared the difference between his earlier story and his subsequent story. Paulson had gotten quite a bit of feedback, some of it helpful and some of it just angry, over his first story and worked diligently to incorporate the lessons into his subsequent piece.
Paulson has a new blog — freshly launched — where he discusses the experience. Readers of this blog will probably find it a very interesting look at how stories are drafted and edited. He explains in his blog post that he neither wrote nor saw the headline — “3 women to be ordained Catholic priests in Boston” — before it was published. A subhead that mitigated some of the problems with the headline was dropped in various online pages. Criticism exploded in the blogosphere. Paulson responded by posting much of the email he received and personally corresponding with those who emailed. His follow-up story, filed after the actual ceremony took place, had a much improved headline:
The language I used in the stories also changed somewhat. I’ve been at this a long time, and I knew the subject of women’s ordination is a bit of a minefield, so in the first story I avoided using the word “Mass,” or the titles “Rev.” or “Bishop” in front of a woman’s name, knowing that those terms would be debated. The story was very clear that the Catholic Church viewed the ceremony as invalid, and the women as excommunicated; it quoted from the Archdiocese of Boston, and Pope John Paul II, and I thought it was quite clear and fair. I did call the event an “ordination ceremony” — my reasoning was that there are lots of such events in Christendom and beyond that are not sanctioned by Rome, some by Catholics not in union with Rome, and some by non-Catholics, and it seemed to me that the standard practice of newspapers is to honor the language used by religious groups. When an evangelical church declares someone ordained as a pastor, we say that person was ordained as a pastor; we don’t conduct an examination of his or her theological training, and we don’t ask who else would recognize this person as ordained.
But the reaction suggests that many readers didn’t read the story the same way I did, especially once they had seen the problematic headline, and so I decided to rethink the use of a few words — especially “ordain” and “ordination” — in the story about the actual event. In the end I decided to use the word “ceremony” rather than “ordination” to describe what was taking place, unless it was attributed to someone, and to attribute every description that I thought might be contested. That resulted, most awkwardly, in this phrase, “They then helped preside over a service at which they declared bread and wine to be consecrated and offered what they called Communion to anyone who wished to receive it.”
Paulson said that the second story generated another round of e-mail, which he also posted. Many people thanked him for his second story; others said he went too far in the other direction. His latest blog post says what lessons he learned:
- A traditional journalistic device for communicating more information about a story, the “subhed,” does not translate to the Internet. The initial story had a subordinate headline, or subhed, that made clear the church’s view of the ceremony, but even on Boston.com that subhed was dropped on many pages, and as the story migrated through the blogosphere, the story was referred to only by the main headline, which was, at best, disputable.
- Another journalist convention, “play,” is also irrelevant in cyberspace. As I explained to some readers, if the Catholic Church had decided to ordain women, that would be a huge front page story. The stories about the ceremony this weekend ran at the bottom of page B1 — a signal, in our view, that the matter was interesting and newsworthy, but not huge. But, of course, in cyberspace those distinctions, which we at newspapers spend a lot of time thinking about, are obliterated.
Some people asked me why we covered the story at all. Several of the e-mailers said they saw no distinction between the ceremony at the Church of the Covenant, and any individual who just declared himself or herself to be the president or the governor. This was my response to one of those readers: “The rationale for coverage is that this is the major group involved in a subject of high public interest and with at least some claim to, or argument for, legitimacy, which is why the Vatican and the various dioceses have responded, which Beacon Hill etc. would not do if your friends swear you in as governor. The e-mails I got make clear that there is a group out there that wishes we would simply not acknowledge that this group exists or is having this event, but that would be an editorial judgment as well, one that many people would view as censorial. I suppose each of our readers, given the options of all that takes place in Boston and the world each day, would put together a different set of stories if they were in charge of the newspaper, and all I can tell you is that we are making the best judgments we can, hour after hour and day after day, trying to decide what is important, significant, interesting, and trying to cover those events and issues in a way that reflects what is happening fairly and precisely.”
That second point about play is key. On pulp, the reader is given cues about how important a story is by where it’s placed in the paper and on the page. On the internet, every story is in huge type and above the fold on the front page. That might be one of the strangest effects of the internet age.
Either way, I loved Paulson’s transparency with his email and his reflections on the story. It’s so nice to see a reporter be open about what he was thinking and what he learned.
 | Posted at 3:09 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (21) |
July 27, 2008, at 3:50 pm
There are no Roman Catholic women priests.
Ironically, I support women to become priests at some time in the future.
However, what these women did automatically excluded them from the Roman Catholic church, even if they had not been women. It is erroneous then to title an article or to mislead the public into believing that they are actually Roman Catholic at this point.
As a Roman Catholic, I am aware that we have procedures on the ordination of priests that were flagrantly ignored in this case.
In the future, if women really want to be ordained, they absolutely need to: 1. Establish a theological basis for their ordination based on historical misinterpretation of Pauline scripture, and 2. Don’t ignore the historical ordination procedures already in place.
It would likely also help to make a pilgrimage to Rome to attract attention to their theological basis for ordination, and to subsequently, courteously, make their appeal to the Pope.
Otherwise, why not call them Jewish Women Priests or Hindu Women Priests - titles to which they would have an equally valid claim at this juncture?
Cordially,
L Fischer
July 27, 2008, at 4:08 pm
One of the best things about mainstream journalists blogging—and I think there are tremendous risks to the profession—is that it does give people insight into the process. Realizing that many hands go into a story landing on a page or screen is an important thing for people to understand.
I also agree that his discussion of “play” is an important thing for readers to think about. Translating all the clues we use in print for online presence is a great challenge for newspapers. Going back to the Rosie cruise kerfuffle, I wonder if the story had been read a few pages back in the Arts section in the print version instead of online, whether there would have been as much concern in some circles over alleged cheerleading.
July 27, 2008, at 4:39 pm
Indeed yes. His comments also served to educate people about the differences between the online and print world. Many people would not instinctively recognize the distinction. I do wonder if there is some way to migrate such things as subheads and importance rankings to the blogosphere. I don’t have any brilliant suggestions, but I think it’s worth thinking about.
July 27, 2008, at 7:01 pm
Just a minor point… This particular photo is the same one you put up every time this issue is discussed. Is there not another picture somewhere that you can use as an alternative? Not only am I simply tired of looking at it, but the unflattering image speak as clearly as any words of negative editorial opinion on the subject— which is a distraction from Get Religion’s stated purpose of critiquing the coverage of religious issues, rather than dealing with the issues themselves.
July 27, 2008, at 7:34 pm
This causes me to wonder, and I don’t recall seeing it covered (not that it may’ve been and I missed it) how ‘major’ is this group? I had the impression they’re pretty fringe. Way way out like [searches frantically for non-hot-button comparison] the anti-flouridation folks. And that the dioceses that respond do so because the media is going to pump up these groups - by reporting on their antics - so they have to try to minimize the damage caused.
Nor, since that decree came down some years ago (1994, “On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone), do they even have a leg to stand on legitimacy-wise. In proper Catholic eyes, anyway. I guess I can’t fault reporters for not getting that, if they aren’t Catholic and interested in it.
Should they get it?
July 27, 2008, at 7:36 pm
There are other photos. They are less flattering, to be honest. If you find a non-copyright source on Womenpriests photos, please let us know.
July 27, 2008, at 8:14 pm
I also agree that “play” gets lost on the Internet. Some news organizations like the Washington Post include the page number, but most do not. I think it’s great that Paulson is doing this blog though.
July 27, 2008, at 9:01 pm
How do you define a ‘major’ group? If I get 50 people to stand around and agree with my crowning myself the Queen of all Londinium does that make it true?
I wonder, how much coverage do the real Catholic ordinations that happen in Boston get? I know that where I live the ‘womenpriests’ fake ordinations happening in other cities gets more coverage than the real ordinations happening right here in town get.
I think that the concept of ‘play’ is really lost when people are emailing a story and it goes viral… then it’s all that the rest of the world sees from the paper that day and as far as the rest of the world is concerned that was the biggest story of the day.
July 27, 2008, at 9:39 pm
Elaine T says:
Most emphatically, yes.
Otherwise, you might as well change the names of the newspapers to “Pravda” or “Xinhua”, and the vast plethora of unprinted dusty editorials can have titles like: “Catholics still awaiting permission slips from Chairman Mao to express an idea.”
July 27, 2008, at 11:31 pm
I found this reporter’s blog fascinating and enlightening.
As a former reporter for a small-town paper who had a town official swear at him at a public gathering because of a headline I did not write (he later apologized, in public, after I forced my editor to call him and assure him that the headline was HIS work) I strongly sympathize with this reporter’s frustration and need to explain to his readers just what happened.
I’m also fascinated by his insights about “subheads” and “play,” both of which are obliterated in the Internet Age, and both of which have been critical as to how a story is portrayed to, and interpreted by, print readers.
The Internet not only destroys the delicate and finely honed skills of editors in the placement of articles, it lends itself to hyperbole. Stories like this one can be email-forwarded to Traditionalist Catholics who are already frothing over such things, and then they send “hat tips” to Catholic bloggers who THEN are picked up by even more interest groups (pro and con) making this a potential HUGE story.
This is especially true given that the ENTIRE story may or may not be forwarded, only the “juicy bits,” giving it the “playing telephone” effect of the change in basic tone and elimination of all of the great context the reporter tried to put into it to avoid bias or slant.
I don’t have to tell you what happens if this is ever featured on the Drudge Report.
July 27, 2008, at 11:39 pm
I think that overall Paulson did a great job of responding to reader reaction and using his blog in a unique way. But this seems to show a slight misunderstanding of what’s going on.
The difference is that these women weren’t ordained into the Womenpriest Church, they underwent a fake ordination into the Catholic priesthood. An evangelical church doesn’t claim to ordain Catholic priests. If one did, or if a Catholic parish claimed to have ordained someone as an evangelical pastor, I don’t think newspapers would take their claim seriously. I don’t understand why they take RC Womenpriests’ claims seriously.
July 28, 2008, at 7:05 am
The headline was clearly a misjudgement. The headline leads people to believe that the Church in some form gives a tacit approval which it does not. I would have mentioned somewhere that once a woman is ordained as a priest, she is view by the Church as a Protestant even though she may see herself as still Catholic. I believe Martin Luther still saw himself as maintaining the Catholic Tradition within his Lutheran congregation. This did not make him any more Roman Catholic in the eyes of the Church. One can say more or less the same thing about Anglicans. To say someone is Catholic when they are not is misleading.
I wouldn’t have backed down on ordination. All types of religious leaders get ordained all the time. Even a Rabbi has an ordination. The women are obviously religious leaders since they are ordained to lead a flock that has chosen to follow them. It is an important story since it is a movement. It is just not in any way shape or form Roman Catholic, altho’ the liturgies are similar.
July 28, 2008, at 12:06 pm
I’ve done some poking around about this outfit. They appear to be a small fringe (except for the media attention) group.
So, why give them more space than a real Catholic ordination? My own local paper has reported on the women’s antics but I don’t remember ever seeing notice of a the recent ordinations of seminarians anywhere but in my parish bulletin.
So, what is the news judgement that says this outfit is newsworthy?
I bet it’s because it’s women challenging men = fits the narrative journalists are used to using. And huge bureacracy has laid down the law that they can’t have what they want. Second strand of familiar narrative, albeit mostly lost in the reporting.
July 28, 2008, at 12:41 pm
What?? Getting automatically excommunicated doesn’t mean that you’re “regarded by the Church as a Protestant”. It means that you’re regarded by the Church as excommunicated. Simulation of Sacraments and falsely claiming to be priests are not about being Protestants, as far as Catholic canon law is concerned. Rather, it is about tricking other Catholics into not getting real sacraments from real priests. Fraud or delusion have nothing to do with doctrine, per se.
If you want to be “regarded as a Protestant” by the Catholic Church, you have to make some kind of formal renunciation of the Catholic faith (a letter to the bishop works), and then you have to join some kind of Protestant group (even if it consists of just you).
Now, believing that women can and should be ordained as priests does put one at considerable variance with certain doctrines of the Catholic Church. But whether or not it is enough to count as formal heresy or schism is a fairly complex problem. Saying you’re a female Catholic bishop and “ordaining” other women as priests — that definitely cruises into schism territory, though.
However, I am not a canon lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet. If you’re interested in canon law, folks, there are some very good basic books by canon lawyers that were written for laymen. They are specifically designed to fight this kind of misconception about how canon law works, and the theology behind it.
July 28, 2008, at 12:41 pm
Can any journalist explain the red plastic trash bags the women are wearing?
July 28, 2008, at 4:07 pm
Brian Walden wrote:
That’s because you’re not looking at it in the reporter’s frame. This isn’t a Catholic story so much as a women’s rights story.
Elaine T came close:
It’s not that they can’t have what they want; it’s that they’re not being treated equally. This is framed as a major employer openly practicing sex discrimination in hiring and promotion, and getting away with it. The fact that even a small group is challenging that major employer on that point is newsworthy in the women’s-equality frame. The fact that “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” is an oxymoron along the lines of “kosher BLT” in the eyes of that major employer, does not make it less newsworthy.
July 29, 2008, at 12:48 am
That’s one side’s spin on the issue. To focus so heavily on that aspect would make a story into a biased piece, and thus, journalistic garbage.
That, again, is one side’s spin. Reporters should vigorously question the motives and statements of those who have an agenda that would force religions to accept as priests those it does not deem acceptable.
July 29, 2008, at 3:26 pm
Once again the Christian Community is focusing on the wrong issues. Ordination is decided by the group that is acting out this premise. The real work of the Church is to keep the the Great commandment and the second which is like unto it. Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and your neighbor as yourself.. If we could get the hang of this we would really accomplish something great; we could get past the small stuff that we bicker over. I
July 29, 2008, at 3:45 pm
Stephen A. (#17), I’m not denying that what I wrote is one side’s spin. I’m explaining why the MSM grab this story and run it where they would not run a story on your family swearing you in as Governor.
July 29, 2008, at 7:03 pm
Just a follow-up. Many Catholics had wondered about the use of a Protestant (Presbyterian-United Church of Christ)church and the public support of a United Church of Christ minister-leader at the service which was a clear stab in the back of Catholic Tradition and Doctrine. Is this ecumenism in action???? But some Protestant leaders in Mass. have come out strongly against this gross interfering in the internal affairs of a fellow Christian church condemning it as beyond anything proper in interchurch relations.
So how much coverage did the secular media give this Protestant backlash against meddling in other church’s internal affairs??? None, Nada, Nothing that I ran across.
The only place I saw the information about this side of the issue was a Catholic News Agency Report.
July 30, 2008, at 11:23 am
Deacon John, you’ve identified a true failure to get religion here. In an age of interfaith free-for-all, when one church rebukes another for insulting a third one, that ought to be news.