Here’s a surefire way to make headlines: Do something significant — and this part is crucial — do it for the first time.
Such was the case with this week’s election of Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles as U.S. Catholic bishops’ first Latino leader.
Prominent religion writers — including the New York Times’ Elizabeth Dias, the Washington Post’s Julie Zauzmer and Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins — were on the scene for the milestone vote. It helps, of course, that the bishops met in Baltimore, an easy drive or train ride from those journalists’ base in Washington, D.C., and New York City.
Other familiar names — The Associated Press’ David Crary, the Wall Street Journal’s Ian Lovett and the Los Angeles Times’ Sarah Parvini — covered the news remotely (Crary from New York and Lovett and Parvini from Los Angeles). The WSJ piece was more of a brief (four short paragraphs), but the financial newspaper at least acknowledged Gomez’s election.
Before analyzing all the coverage, I’ll note that I first became familiar with Gomez when he became archbishop of San Antonio in 2005. Based in Dallas, I covered religion for AP at the time. So I traveled to San Antonio to meet Gomez and do a story on him stepping into a new role as the leading Hispanic cleric in the U.S.
I remember him being friendly, but not overly talkative. These were my favorite two paragraphs of the piece that I wrote for AP’s national wire:
Gomez showed that sense of humor as he recalled how he started attending daily Mass as a high school student in Monterrey. A sign of a future archbishop’s deep commitment to the church? Perhaps. But it was also a good way to get the car keys.
“The only way that my dad let me drive was to go to Mass,” Gomez said with a chuckle.
I noticed a few common themes in this week’s stories. For one, the journalists tended to use the adjective “outspoken” to describe Gomez’s support for immigration reform.
“Archbishop Gomez, 67, has long been an outspoken, if largely uncontroversial, advocate for immigrants’ rights,” the New York Times said.
RNS characterized him as “a naturalized U.S. citizen who emigrated from Mexico and is outspoken on immigration issues.”
“Gomez, 67, is known for being quiet in person, but he is outspoken on the subject of immigration, which he wrote a book about in 2013,” said the Post story, for which Sarah Pulliam Bailey, reporting from New York, shared the byline with Zauzmer.
“An immigrant from Mexico who is now a U.S. citizen, Archbishop Gomez is an outspoken advocate for migrant rights, an issue which has frequently put the bishops at odds with the Trump administration,” the Wall Street Journal declared.
I suppose Gomez is outspoken on the issue, so I don’t know that I have a real problem with that term. My only hesitancy would be that it strikes me, to some extent, as editorialized and perhaps unnecessary language. My challenge to religion writers would be to see if they can find a way to “show” that Gomez is outspoken rather than “tell” it.
Maybe that makes some sense. Maybe not. Bottom line: I’m proposing a subtle tweak in journalistic approach to avoid loaded words in straight news reporting.
Speaking of labels, I found the use of “conservative” and “progressive” interesting in the Gomez stories I read. As GetReligion readers know, when journalists start throwing around such labels on matters with both theological and political overtones, the proper usage can get complicated. And in a hurry.
After noting the bishops’ strong opposition to abortion, the New York Times wrote:
Despite his attention to immigration reform, Archbishop Gomez is largely seen as conservative on matters of Catholic doctrine. He was appointed as a bishop by Pope John Paul II in 2001 and is a member of Opus Dei, a Catholic group often seen as conservative.Pope Francis has notably not made him a cardinal, which critics say signals that the pontiff may believe that other bishops are more aligned with his direction for the church.
Wait a minute. “Despite” his attention to immigration, Gomez is seen as a “conservative” on doctrine? His stance on immigration is directly linked to his belief that life is sacred, from conception to natural death. He’s “conservative” on the sacred value of the human person. That’s doctrine.
AP put it this way:
Gómez, 67, has been vice president of the bishops’ conference for the past three years. He is considered a practical-minded conservative in terms of church doctrine but has made clear his disappointment over key immigration-control policies adopted by the Trump administration.
The Los Angeles Times went further in its labeling:
L.A.'s archbishop is at once a conservative and a progressive: staunch in his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage while tenacious in his advocacy for immigrants and the poor.
Here’s my sincere question for reporters: Theologically speaking, is advocacy for immigrants really a progressive stance within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? Or is that more of a political identifier? And if it’s more political, is it really the most appropriate way to characterize the newly elected bishops’ conference president?
I should stress that I’ve only touched on a few high points of the Gomez stories. Another interesting angle is the decline of Latinos as a proportion of the total U.S. Catholic population — a fact noted by several of the reports and attributed to a recent Pew Research Center report. By the way, I wrote an RNS story last year on a conference sponsored by the bishops and “designed to discern ways in which the church can better respond to its growing Latino population.”
Click the links above to check out all the coverage of Gomez’s election. I’d welcome your thoughts and feedback in the comments section. Please remember that GetReligion is focused on journalism and media coverage issues, and comments should focus on related questions.