Editorial

Charges and Counter-Charges

If readers believe that our coverage is flawed, they owe us the courtesy of a detailed explanation

Sometimes unhappy readers do not cite specific examples of error in our stories because they cannot find fault with the accuracy of our reporting--because in fact our coverage is on target.

In this month's Letters column, readers will find a complaint about an article which appeared in Catholic World Report four months ago. The fact that we should receive a protest is itself unremarkable. CWR often stakes out a controversial position; we expect--indeed, we encourage--arguments from our readers.

Alas, this particular letter does not provide an argument. In the Essay which appeared in our February issue, our author Lesley Payne delivered a powerful indictment of several facilities which have been set up to care for priests who suffer from psychological problems. In his response, Louis Horvath--who is associated with one of the hospitals critiqued in that Essay--offers nothing more than a general statement, claiming that his institution upholds high professional standards.

After promising that he will "clarify for your readers some of the inaccuracies of the article," our correspondent does nothing of the sort. He cites not a single instance of inaccuracy, real or alleged, in our coverage. Nor does he respond directly to any of the specific charges made in the Payne article.

As professional journalists, we take pride in providing reliable news coverage. The word "inaccuracy" is not one which we take lightly. Of course we are human, and we do make mistakes. (To compound our embarrassment, those mistakes are immortalized in print.) But when we discover our errors, we do our best to correct them.

Needless to say, we cannot correct our mistakes until those mistakes are brought to our attention. So readers do a disservice both to the editors and to the other subscribers if they fail to alert us when we commit an error.

At times, however, when angry readers speak of "inaccuracies" but do not provide details, there is a reason for their silence. They do not cite specific examples of error because they cannot find fault with the accuracy of our reporting--because in fact our coverage is on target! In such cases, the charge of inaccuracy is itself dishonest and unjust; it impugns the integrity of an honest reporter.

Regrettably, CWR receives many such vague and misleading complaints. When confronted with evidence that their programs and policies have caused damage to the Church, some ecclesiastical officials find it more expeditious to deny that evidence than the correct the problem. To cite just one noteworthy example, we have received dozens of letters from subscribers who have asked their bishops for an explanation of the ties between the Campaign for Human Development (CHD) and organizations which promote abortion and homosexuality. Almost invariably, chancery officials have responded to these readers by saying that the public criticism of CHD is thoroughly inaccurate. Yet these officials have never provided any evidence to disprove any of the specific charges against the CHD which have appeared in CWR and in several other publications.

There are times, to be sure, when a journalist might be scrupulously honest in reporting the facts, but inaccurate in drawing inferences from those facts. CWR delivers the news accompanied by healthy servings of opinion, and our readers are free to disagree with the logic of our writers' conclusions. Again, we welcome such debates, in the confident belief that an honest exchange of opinions will sharpen our arguments and enlighten our readers.

Finally, it is true that two people can sometimes observe the same set of facts from very different perspectives. A reader might therefore suggest that our reporting is incomplete, or even misleading. In these cases, too, the introduction of another perspective should certainly lead to a healthier understanding of the topic.

Catholic World Report herewith announces a new editorial policy, which shall take effect immediately. If any correspondent charges that our reporting has been inaccurate, we expect him to point to specific sentences, and furnish evidence to demonstrate that our coverage is wrong. If we are convinced, we shall publish a retraction; if not, we shall debate the issue openly. But in the absence of such details, the correspondent will receive a copy of this editorial, and a note explaining that CWR does not print unsubstantiated complaints.