“There are few authentic prophetic voices among us, guiding truth-seekers along the right path. Among them is Fr. Gordon MacRae, a mighty voice in the prison tradition of John the Baptist, Maximilian Kolbe, Alfred Delp, SJ, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.”
— Deacon David Jones
Fifty Years after Watergate Comes the January 6 Committee
A news commentator described the January 6 Committee hearings as the most fascinating since Watergate, but I have yet to find anyone who has watched any of them.
A news commentator described the January 6 Committee hearings as the most fascinating since Watergate, but I have yet to find anyone who has watched any of them.
July 20, 2022 by GJ MacRae
Many of our readers know that I was asked awhile back to serve as a Registered Wall Street Journal Opinion Leader. Besides its slightly ego-inflating title, the position actually means very little and comes with no perks at all — not even a discount on my annual subscription. The voluntary position requires only my commitment to participate in regular surveys about the news, about how it is gathered, reported and delivered, about marketing, and about various WSJ features. As a result I regularly publish commentary on news and opinion at WSJ.com.
I suspect that this led to a more surprising invitation. A few months ago I was asked to participate as a journalist and agree to an interview for the Pew Research Center 2022 Survey of Journalists. I have just received the full report of this survey on the state of journalism and the news industry in America. The Report has surprising results — the most important of which is a very wide disconnect between the perceptions of journalists and those of the public about the news. Here is a summary:
The Pew Research Center 2022 Survey of Journalists
“Washington, D.C. (June 14, 2022) — From the economic upheaval of the digital age to the rise of political polarization and the Covid-19 pandemic, journalism in America has been in a state of turmoil for decades. In this major new study, The Pew Research Center shares the perspective of journalists about the news industry they work in and their relationship with the public they serve.
“While journalists recognize challenges facing their industry, the Center’s survey of nearly 12,000 U.S. journalists finds that they express a high degree of satisfaction in their jobs and 77% say they would pursue a career in journalism again.
“At the same time, when asked to describe their industry in a single word, 72% used a word with negative connotations. The most common are words that relate to “struggling” or “chaos.” Specific areas of concern for journalists were widespread. They include disinformation, freedom of the press, and partisan coverage of the news. Here are some key findings of the Report:
Just 14% of journalists surveyed think the U.S public has a great deal or fair amount of trust in the news media.
About seven out of ten journalists (71%) say made-up news and information is a big problem for the country. This was significantly higher than the 50% of the adult public that said the same thing.
In a separate survey, 82% of the American public says that journalists should keep their views out of whatever they are reporting on. Among journalists, only 55% agree while 42% report that they feel unable to keep their own views out of their reporting.
Over half (55%) of journalists say that in reporting the news every side does not deserve to have equal coverage while only 44% said equal coverage of the news is a goal.
Journalists express far more concern than the public about politically like-minded people clustering around the same news outlets. 75% of journalists report this as a major concern while only 39% of the general public shares the same concern.
Two thirds of journalists surveyed say that social media has a negative impact on the state of journalism while only 18% say it has a positive impact.
The survey results reveal that journalists recognize that the public views their work with deep skepticism. When asked what one word they think the public would use to describe the news, the majority of journalists answered with “inaccurate, untrustworthy, biased, or partisan.”
Journalists and the public stand far apart on how well they think news outlets perform their key functions:
67% of journalists report that the quality of their coverage of important news is very good or good compared to only 41% of the public.
65% of journalists say they report the news accurately compared to only 29% of the public.
52% of journalists report that they fulfill their role as a watchdog of government. Only 29% of the public agrees.
43% of journalists say that they manage or correct misinformation in their reporting. Only 25% of the public agrees, and 51% of the public says that journalists do a poor job at correcting misinformation.”
The Journalist / Public Disconnect
Though not a part of this survey, other media surveys report that the only U.S. institution with less public trust than journalism is Congress. Perhaps nowhere is this journalist/public disconnect in perception more evident that in the work of the Congressional task force known as the “January 6 Committee.” It has been conducting hearings about the events of January 6, 2021 and the chaotic transition of power at the U.S. Capitol. After the Tragedy at Uvalde, Texas and the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it seems that far fewer people have been paying attention to the January 6 Committee hearings.
I was interested at first, and even began to follow the hearings. Then I heard one of the Committee members or an associate complain that the Uvalde, Texas tragedy was “a distraction” that took public attention from the partisan hearings. Like many Americans, I lost interest in the January 6 affair after that.
I have long admired and respected Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and I frequently publish commentary on her column in the WSJ Weekend Edition. However, I suspect that she was misreading the nation in one aspect of her June 25, 2022 column entitled, “Trump and Biden Both Face Rejection.” She attached to the January 6 hearings an awareness and importance to the collective consciousness of America that just doesn’t seem to be there. She did this, as her excerpts below attest, by drawing a comparison with the 1972 media coverage of the Watergate scandal. Ms. Noonan wrote:
“There has been criticism that the 1/6 committee isn’t the Watergate hearings, which the entire country watched and which in the end turned public opinion. Totally true. We had an entire country that watched things together once. But the Watergate story was often hard to piece together in those hearings. Not so here.
“The 1/6 committee has been knocked for hiring television producers, but that’s part of why it is yielding a coherent story. They made it tight, not cheap. And after they aired, the Watergate hearings disappeared because there was no internet. The 1/6 hearings will be telling their story forever — on C-Span and YouTube … and they will be heavily viewed.”
With all due respect to Peggy Noonan, I could not disagree more. The Watergate hearings of 1973 were iconic. They left a lasting impression on the American political psyche. The public was riveted to them. The hearings resulted in the production of a major motion picture — All the President’s Men — which won numerous Academy Awards and still enthralls 50 years later. Two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, remain household names 50 years later as icons of journalistic pursuit and integrity. No one in today’s news media has a similar reputation.
I was 19 years old when the Watergate burglary was reported at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex in Washington, DC on June 17, 1972. I was 20 when the Watergate Congressional hearings took place and led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Along with the entire nation, I was riveted to the unfolding story and its fascinating cast of characters.
America was a different nation in 1972, and it was a different time. There was no Internet, no Facebook, no Google. The most memorable newsman in America was Walter Cronkite. As Washington correspondent for CBS Evening News, he established a reputation as a trusted, paternal figure. As a result, his reports on the Vietnam War and the Watergate affair greatly influenced public opinion. Today, no one in the news media evokes a similar reputation for trust that comes even close. I cannot say that the news media is better off for having generated no one of similar character and prestige over the last half century.
These Are Not Your Father’s Watergate Hearings!
I admit that I write from a peculiar vantage point. I cannot jump on the internet to take the pulse of the nation, but I am in touch with a lot of people who speak from varying points of view. So over a recent week, I informally polled some of them about their awareness of the January 6 Committee Hearings. This is by no means a scientific survey, but here is a sampling of the underwhelming results from some honest observers. I have not excluded any results that spoke from a contrary point of view:
Law enforcement officer #1 : “I know the hearings are going on, but they are totally one-sided. When I heard that Trump wanted to send troops to stop the Capitol riots but Nancy Pelosi declined, I stopped watching. No one I know watches any of this.”
Law enforcement officer #2 : “I haven’t watched. If they gave equal time to the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal, I might watch.”
Parish priest : “I have not seen the hearings, and none of my parishioners ever even mention them. There are way more important things going on like the reversal of Roe v. Wade.”
High school teacher #1 : “The hearings came as school was ending so I watched a little. I just don’t trust MSNBC which seems to be the main network covering (or exploiting) the story.”
High school teacher #2 : “I got pretty disgusted when I heard one of the Committee members complain that the tragedy at Uvalde was taking attention away from Jan. 6 hearings so I lost interest.”
High school teacher #3 : “I don’t follow the hearings after Nancy Pelosi declined to allow the participation of two prominent Republican Committee members. It is a one-sided political panel.”
Retired obstetrics nurse : “After the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, I don’t think anyone even knew these hearings were still going on.”
Federal Government Employee #1 : “I followed a little at first, but it seems totally one-sided. They just want to ‘get Trump’ while the country is moving on.”
Federal Government Employee #2 : “I haven’t watched the hearings, but I hope they can get Trump! Can’t stand him!”
Ten random prisoners: “Hearings? What hearings?”
The Rise and Fall of the News Media
In 1972, The Washington Post sent two young reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to cover the story of a break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in the Watergate Office Complex. The Post editors made a decision early on to allow that story to go where the facts led. As a result, Peggy Noonan was right. The whole country watched entranced as the Nixon Administration dissolved before our very eyes.
Fifty years later, Washington political scandal has not changed at all. What has changed is the news media. The Washington Post is now arguing in its editorials that George Washington University must change its name because of its namesake’s association with slavery 300 years ago. The Post is conveniently not applying the same argument to its own name. As historian, Barbara Tuchman wrote in The March of Folly, “There is nothing more unjust than to judge men of the past with the ideas of the present.”
The Washington Post and other news outlets today join the partisan Congressional framers of the January 6 Committee hearings to exaggerate public interest or decry the lack thereof. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins demonstrated journalistic courage in covering anew a story that most in the news media and the Democratic side of Congress helped to actively suppress.
In “Hunter and the Press: Who’s the Real Degenerate?” (WSJ July 2, 2022) Holman Jenkins revealed a series of evolving Washington Post headlines about the now notorious Hunter Biden laptop in late 2020. The Washington Post coverage leaves no doubt that the paper was actively suppressing that story in order to help facilitate a desired election outcome without regard to the damage it was doing to journalism, not to mention democracy. There was no hint of The Washington Post of the Watergate era. In the Hunter Biden story, The Post showed no consideration at all to its Watergate-era determination to “let the story go to where the facts take it.”
In this age of partisan spycraft and woke politics, the news media that was once the underpinning of democracy is now in a state of determined self-destruction. Most in the news media have chosen a partisan political side to the detriment of journalism, and perhaps the nation itself.
I hope, with the small voice given to me, to remain a purveyor of truth, and let the story go where the facts take it. Please do tell me anytime you think I might be screwing this up!
+ + +
Note: Thank you for reading. Please continue to take the measure of the news media with these related posts:
Miranda Devine, Cardinal Pell, and the Laptop from Hell
Hitler’s Post, Nazi Crimes and The New York Times
The Exile of Father Dominic Menna and Transparency at The Boston Globe
The Exile of Father Dominic Menna and Transparency at The Boston Globe
As Father Dominic Menna, a senior priest at Saint Mary’s in Quincy, MA, was sent into exile, The Boston Globe’s role in the story of Catholic Scandal grew more transparent.
“I’m a true Catholic, and I think what these priests are doing is disgusting!” One day a few weeks ago, that piece of wisdom repeated every thirty minutes or so on New England Cable News, an around-the-clock news channel broadcast from Boston. I wonder how many people the reporter approached in front of Saint Mary’s Church in Quincy, Massachusetts before someone provided just the right sound bite to lead the rabid spectacle that keeps 24-hour news channels afloat.
The priest this hapless “true Catholic” deemed so disgusting is Father F. Dominic Menna, an exemplary priest who has been devoting his senior years in service to the people of God at Saint Mary’s. At the age of 80, Father Menna has been accused of sexual abuse of a minor.
There is indeed something disgusting in this account, but it likely is not Father Menna himself. He has never been accused before. Some of the news stories have not even bothered to mention that the claim just surfacing now for the first time is alleged to have occurred in 1959. No, I did not transpose any numbers. The sole accusation that just destroyed this 80-year-old priest’s good name is that he abused someone fifty-one years ago when he was 29 years old.
Kelly Lynch, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Boston, announced that Father Menna was placed on administrative leave, barred from offering the Sacraments, and ordered to pack up and leave the rectory where he had been spending his senior years in the company of other priests. These steps, we are told, are designed to protect children lest this 80-year-old priest — if indeed guilty — suddenly decides to repeat his misconduct every half century or so.
Ms. Lynch declined to reveal any further details citing, “the privacy of those involved.” That assurance of privacy is for everyone except Father Menna, of course, whose now tainted name was blasted throughout the New England news media last month. Among the details Kelly Lynch declines to reveal is the amount of any settlement demand for the claim.
Some of the fair-minded people who see through stories like this one often compare them with the 1692 Salem witch trials which took place just across Massachusetts Bay from Father Menna’s Quincy parish. The comparison falls short, however. No one in 1692 Salem ever had to defend against a claim of having bewitched a child fifty-one years earlier.
Archdiocesan spokesperson Kelly Lynch cited “the integrity of the investigation” as a reason not to comment further to The Boston Globe. Does some magical means exist in Boston to fairly and definitively investigate a fifty-one year old claim of child abuse? Is there truly some means by which the Archdiocese could deem such a claim credible or not?
Ms. Lynch should have chosen a word other than “integrity” to describe the “investigation” of Father Menna. Integrity is the one thing no one will find anywhere in this account — except perhaps in Father Menna himself if, by some special grace, he has not utterly lost all trust in the people of God he has served for over fifty years.
Transparency at The Boston Globe
The June 3rd edition of The Boston Globe buried a story on page A12 about the results of an eight-year investigation into the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Eight years ago, it was front page news all over the U.S. that the Los Angeles Archdiocese was being investigated for a conspiracy to cover-up sexual abuse claims against priests.
After eight years of investigation at taxpayer expense, California prosecutors reluctantly announced last month that they have found insufficient evidence to support the charges. That news story was so obviously buried in the back pages of The Boston Globe that the agenda could not be more transparent. The story of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is front page news only when it accommodates the newspaper’s editorial bias. That much, at least, is clear.
But all transparency ends right there. The Globe article attributed the lack of evidence of a conspiracy by Catholic bishops to the investigation being “stymied by reluctant victims.” Now, that’s an interesting piece of news!
The obvious question it raises is whether these claimants were reluctant to speak BEFORE obtaining financial settlements in their claims against the Archdiocese. If they are reluctant witnesses now, then, at best, it may be because the true goal of some has long since been realized and there is nothing in it for them to keep talking. At worst, the silence of claimants in the conspiracy investigation could be interpreted as an effort to fend off pointed questions about their claims. Perhaps prosecutors were investigating the wrong people.
I have seen this sort of thing play out before. Last year, a New Hampshire contingency lawyer brought forward his fifth round of mediated settlement demands against the Diocese of Manchester. During that lawyer’s first round of mediated settlements in 2002 — in which 28 priests of the Diocese of Manchester were accused in claims dating from the 1950s to the 1980s — the news media announced a $5.5 million settlement. The claimants’ lawyer was astonished that $5.5 million was handed over with no real effort at proof or corroboration sought by Diocesan representatives before they paid up and deemed the claims “credible.” The lawyer was quoted in the news media:
“During settlement negotiations, diocesan officials did not press for details such as dates and allegations for every claim. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
“He and his clients did not encounter resistance from the Diocese of Manchester in their six months of negotiations. Some victims made claims in the last month, and because of the timing of negotiations, gained closure in just a matter of days.”
That lawyer’s contingency fee for the first of many rounds of mediated settlements was estimated to be in excess of $1.8 million. When the mediation concluded, the news media reported that at the attorney’s and his clients’ request, the diocese agreed not to disclose the claimants’ names or any details of their claims or the amounts they received in settlement. “No confidentiality was sought by the Diocese,” the lawyer declared.
In contrast, the names of the accused priests — many of whom were deceased and none of whom faced criminal charges — were repeatedly released and publicized throughout the news media. This process served one purpose: to invite new claimants against those same priests with assurances that their names would remain private and no real corroborating details would ever be elicited. It was clear that non-disclosure clauses were demanded by the contingency lawyer and his clients, though the diocese and its lawyers were eager to oblige as part of the settlement.
It is fascinating that the news media now blames “reluctant victims” for stifling an investigation into cover-ups in the Catholic Church. That is a scandal worthy of the front page, but we won’t ever see it there. If the news media now has concerns about the very people whose cause it championed in 2002, we won’t be reading about it in the news media. Transparency in the news media, after all, is a murky affair.
Transparency and the U.S. Bishops
Writer Ryan A. MacDonald has a number of contributions published on These Stone Walls. His most recent is, “Should the Case Against Father Gordon MacRae Be Reviewed?” I am told that Mr. MacDonald has an essay published in the June/July, 2010 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review entitled, ”Anti-Catholicism and Sex Abuse.” In the essay, the writer also recommends These Stone Walls to H&PR readers. Though I subscribe to the well respected H&PR, I have not at this writing seen the current issue.
Ryan MacDonald also has a letter published in a recent issue of Our Sunday Visitor (“Raising the Alarm,” June 13, 2010). Ryan makes a point very similar to one I made last month in “As the Year of the Priest Ends, Are Civil Liberties for Priests Intact?” Here is an excerpt from Ryan’s OSV letter:
“A number of courageous bishops have argued in opposition to retroactive application of revised civil statutes of limitations. Such revised statutes typically expose the Catholic Church to special liability while exempting public institutions.
“But I must raise the alarm here. As a body, American bishops lobbied the Holy See for retroactive extension of the time limits of prescription, the period of time in which a delict (a crime) exists and can be prosecuted under Church law …
“… Many accused priests now face the possibility of forced laicization with no opportunity for defense or appeal because our bishops have embraced routine dispensation from the Church’s own statute of limitations. The bishops cannot argue this point from two directions. Some have defended this duplicity citing that the delicts involve criminal and not civil matters. This is so, but these men are also American citizens, and the U.S. Constitution prohibits retroactive application of criminal laws as unconstitutional.
“Statutes of limitations exist in legal systems to promote justice, not hinder it. Our bishops cannot have it both ways on this issue.”
Ryan MacDonald made this point far better than I ever could. The issue for me is not just the obvious double standard applied when the spirit of Church law is set aside. The issue is one of fundamental justice and fairness, and what Cardinal Dulles called “The great scandal of the Church’s failure to support Her priests in their time of need.” Pope John Paul II said that the Church must be a mirror of justice. Let’s hope our bishops can respond to the public scandal of sexual abuse without perpetrating a private scandal of their own.
There are people in groups like S.N.A.P. and Voice of the Faithful who clamor for the Church to ignore the rights of priests in favor of an open embrace of “survivors.” It is always easy to deny someone else’s rights and restrict someone else’s civil liberties, and that, historically, is how witch hunts begin.
