Blog 4

In chapters three and four of People of Faith, John Schmalzbauer writes about how Christians work in the secular fields of journalism and academics. Basing his observations on personal interviews, he notes that, sadly, some professionals keep their faith completely out of their work. Other journalists, however, do not and connect their faith to their work using what Schmalzbauer refers to as “multivocal bridging language.” Such bridging language includes the language of justice and peace and that of intellectual refinement.

Under the language of justice and peace, Schmalzbauer cites journalist Coleman McCarthy as an example. In their one-on-one interview, McCarthy states that he likes to “write about people who are on the margins, who are voiceless…and I do what I can to align myself with their hopes for reform, or to ease their suffering somehow. I think that’s a legitimate use of your journalistic skills.” I absolutely agree with this assessment. This is one good way – if not the best way – for me to live out my faith while working as a journalist. As a Christ follower, my job is to do whatever I can to help those less fortunate than I am. And as a Christian journalist, this involves giving a voice to the downtrodden, to the overlooked and to the otherwise inaudible voices in our society.

Stemming from this idea, as McCarthy touches on, I can also live out my faith through my Christian duty to seek social justice for those who cannot. Jeremiah 22:3 says, “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed.” And Micah 6:8 tells us that “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Clearly, God is a God of justice; therefore, I believe it is my responsibility to champion justice as well. For me, this means seeking out the truth no matter the cost and, again, giving a voice to those who would not otherwise have one.

Finally, I can live out my faith in the secular journalism field by bringing a biblical worldview into my reporting. That said, this does not necessarily mean using my writing as a pulpit. As NBC reporter Lester Holt told The Christian Chronicle in 2005, “My place as both a Christian and a journalist is not to judge. If I give voice to all relevant sides of an issue or debate, with proper context and perspective, then the viewers can formulate their own opinions.” Instead, having a biblical worldview means reporting and interpreting through a God-centered filter in which God’s truth is the standard by which everything should be compared, but communicating it in the language of the culture without departing from the truth.

Approaching secular journalism from this perspective, I believe that God will provide both the means and the audience to witness His love and justice.

Blog 3 – Interview with a professional journalist

Note: So, I know we were supposed to think big, and I did. Last week I emailed and called (that is, when I could find a phone number) a number of journalists at three different papers (The L.A. Times, O.C. Register, and The Tennessean – since I want to intern in that state). However, I still haven't heard back from any of them. And since I was stuck in Arrowhead taking care of my little brother during my parent's 25th anniversary trip, I had to think a little smaller. So hopefully that is okay.
__________________________________________________
For this blog, I interviewed Mary-Justine Lanyon, editor of the Mountain News – a newspaper serving the San Bernardino Mountains. Originally an English major, Mrs. Lanyon planned to be an English teacher. However, that “fell by the wayside” and she eventually fell into writing. Now, she says, she loves it and couldn’t imagine doing anything else.

Do you feel journalism is your calling?

I do now. I planned to be an English teacher, but that fell by the wayside a long time ago. And then I kind of fell into writing. What I love most about this job is getting to meet all the people that I get to meet and getting to tell their stories. Because that’s what journalism is – good or bad – telling people’s story.

What is your philosophy of Journalism?

Well, I think…I’ll start with a story: One of the things I cover here is the Lake Arrowhead Community Services district. And after I was here a while and covering their meetings, the person who was president at the time commented to my publisher that she thought my coverage of the meetings was very objective and very fair, and she seemed a little bit surprised. And I was astonished because here I thought that’s what my job was. Everyone has their own opinions, but as a journalist you can’t inflict that upon an article – that’s for your editorial. But I guess she’d had experience with someone who couldn’t separate themselves from the article. So, I guess my philosophy is to be as fair and objective as I can and to just tells as many stories as I can.

So, do you think what you do as a journalist matters? How?

Oh, I think it matters a great deal – just speaking for the people on the mountain. Right after the 2007 fires, I went to all the recovery meetings they had and tried to digest all this information that was truly overwhelming. And I felt this strong sense of responsibility to get the information and deliver it in as uncomplicated a way as possible to help people. So it matters for important information and for smaller things as well.

Do you think God shows up in your work?

Um, God does show up. A lot of people up here feel a strong connection to God and often mention God. So, I mean, it’s not something we go seeking, but it does show up and that’s what the person feels so that’s what we’re going to report. But I don’t put my own faith into my work because that wouldn’t be appropriate. Although, maybe I can report on certain people more easily because I do understand what they’re saying.

Do you believe God is real to people in your profession?

Well that’s a very personal thing, so it depends. But when you’re reporting – whether God’s real to you or not – if He’s real to the person you’re interviewing then that should come out in your story.

Blog #2

In July 2003, Robert Novak published a column outing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. Following his column, several other journalists like Matthew Cooper reported the same information.

Because it is illegal to leak such information, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leak. Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists, including Matthew Cooper, concerning alleged conversations the reporters had with confidential sources. Cooper filed a motion to quash his subpoena, but a judge rejected the request. Cooper then refused to comply, and was ordered to jail and to pay a $1,000 fine per day until he obeyed. After a failed attempt at an appeal, Cooper agreed to testify. He told the New York Times that he had received “in somewhat dramatic fashion…an express, personal release from my source” that allowed him to comply with the subpoena.

If I were put in that same situation, I think I would react like this: When I first received the subpoena – which I knew would force me to disclose my confidential sources – I was in a state of shock. Having never been in such a predicament before, my heart pounded so loudly I could practically hear it in my ears and I was almost in fight or flight mode. My brain went into overdrive, and all I could think was, “How do I get out of it?” After telling myself to breathe and to calm down, I immediately called my lawyer. He advised me of my rights and told me that he would try to take care of the subpoena.

When we got off the phone, I pondered the situation a bit more. If I actually was forced to testify, would it really make that much of a difference for me? I didn’t have to think about that question long before I knew that without a doubt the answer was a resounding “yes.” Revealing my confidential sources would cause a chilling effect that would have an adverse effect on, what Philip Meyer called, the “reward system” between my sources and myself. And it could easily cause them to lose their trust in me. Few sources would want to give me information if they thought I would repeat it before a grand jury, after all. And then, as Newspaper Association of America President John Sturm put it, “Citizens [would] not receive the information to which they are entitled and the public interest isn’t served. The free flow of information is crucial to a well-informed citizenry and is often the only real-time check on government power.”

In the process of pondering the situation, I also thought back to a quote I’d heard recently, from Eduardo Bertoni of the Organization of American States. He argued that, “The right to confidentiality is essential to a journalist's work in performing the important public service of collecting and disseminating information.”

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that, short of gaining permission from my source, I needed to fight the subpoena, even if that meant possibly going to jail.

According to Reporters Without Borders, an organization fighting for press freedom, the United States ranks 40th in the world with regards to freedom of the press (with 1 being the most freedom). On the other hand, the United Kingdom ranks 25th. Given this statistic, the question becomes “How can that freedom be seen in the newspapers?” To answer this question, I will focus solely on the UK’s The Guardian and The NY Times.

One way that freedom is clearly utilized in The Guardian is through curse language in the articles. A study of the articles printed in the last two weeks shows the use of curse words more than 100 times. Broken down, this includes approximately 45 uses of the “f-word,” over 50 of the “s-word,” and even the “c-word” is used a few times. Regarding specific articles, no type of article escapes this language: “Labour on death row,” an article about the Labour Party that was published October 1, reads, “…79% of voters don't give a shit about that.” Such language is a sharp contrast to newspapers like the New York Times, where curse words are essentially non-existent. In fact, during the time I spent comparing these two papers, I have yet to find a curse word in the Times. This is probably due, in part, to the AP style used by America’s newspapers which advises writers “to find a way to give the reader a sense of what was said without using the specific word.”

Another way the lack of constraints on freedom is seen through the casual, somewhat graphic talk about sex. The Guardian contains a weekly column about sexual health and healing that, with headlines like “I Find it Difficult to Climax,” certainly do not hold back. But it is articles like “Don't criminalise young sex” and “Why women have sex,” both published in late September, that show exactly how far the British have taken their freedom. In contrast, the New York Times does not have a sex column. Nor did I find an article that graphically discussed the subject during the time that I followed the paper. What I did find, though, was a very news-oriented approach to the subject: In “When the Cool Get Hazed,” for example, the Times writes about sex in relation to hazing.

Finally, both papers use the freedom they have to push their political agendas. Alhough both newspapers lean politically left, ironically it may be the New York Times that takes the most liberties with its freedom. In articles like “Republicans Call Health Legislation a Tax Increase,” dated October 1, the Times uses tactics like emotive language and the omission of pertinent facts to advocate its Liberal viewpoint. Similarly, The Guardian, which favors the center-left Labour party, also uses its platform to promote its leftwing ideology. Articles like “Tory ties with EU extremists are sickening, says David Miliband” and large-scale coverage of the country’s Labour Conference (as opposed to smaller-scale coverage of the Conservative conference), are perfect examples.