Holy editing error

A couple of unusual things about this newspaper apology. First, it appears on page A1 of the Saint John Telegraph Journal. Second, it goes into some detail about the mechanics behind the story; absolving the reporters of blame and placing  the fault at the feet of the editors. Usually, newspapers claim collective blame for any mistakes (a sometimes infuriating policy for reporters.)

I'm very curious about how comments were included in a story without the reporters' knowledge. That too is unusual, and way beyond ethical.

Telegraph-Journal apologizes to Prime Minister
Published Tuesday July 28th, 2009
A1
Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Telegraph-Journal published a story about
the funeral mass celebrating the life of former Governor-General Romeo
LeBlanc that was inaccurate and should not have been published. We pride
ourselves in maintaining high standards of journalism and ethical
reporting, and regret this was not followed in this case.

The story stated that a senior Roman Catholic priest in New Brunswick
had demanded that the Prime Minister's Office explain what happened to
the communion wafer which was handed to Prime Minister Harper during the
celebration of communion at the funeral mass. The story also said that
during the communion celebration, the Prime Minister "slipped the thin
wafer that Catholics call 'the host' into his jacket pocket".

There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time
this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any
credible support for these statements now. Our reporters Rob Linke and
Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not
include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In
the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge
of the reporters and without any credible support for them.

The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the Prime Minister for
the harm that this inaccurate story has caused. We also apologize to
reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras and to our readers for our failure to
meet our own standards of responsible journalism and accuracy in
reporting.

Comments

[John Hank]

It's also interesting that the publisher and one of the editor's names no longer appear in the paper as of today.

[MikeD]

That's it?????

As someone who holds a Bachelor of Journalism (albeit one earned when "keyboarding" meant learning to type on a massive IBM typewriter -- and no, not a Selectric, a manual machine that required you to drive each key down about an inch to get it to smash its ink-ribboned impression onto a sheet of paper, if the use of so many archaic terms in one sentence can be forgiven. That, incidentally, is the reason why my personal style of "keyboarding" more often than not sounds like a bad Gene Krupa impression -- Google him, youngsters -- but I digress again), I find it more than a little unsettling that at least one major Atlantic Canadian news medium appears to condone, indeed practice, editing that goes way beyond a search for errors and omissions to add highly nuanced material that the reporters, if this "apology" is to be believed, simply never wrote.

"Apology" is in quotations here because, so far as I am concerned, stating that "We also apologize to reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras and to our readers for our failure to meet our own standards of responsible journalism and accuracy in reporting" smacks of "We're really sorry we got caught this time." I think you're being far too polite, Susan, when you characterize it as "unusual and way beyond ethical". Frankly, I'm surprised the ink-stained wretches toiling in the bowels of the Telegraph-Journal's newsroom didn't immediately begin steamrolling enormous rolls of newsprint up against their editors' office doors and setting them alight!

(Of course, then again, maybe they did and the editors simply changed the reporting of that fact to "several of our reporters also let us know that they felt our editing in this case might not have best represented our own standards of responsible journalism… etc".)

[Animal Chin]

Also interesting that Publisher Jamie Irving's name was left off the masthead today.

[mozo]

To add insult to stupidity, the Globe's online reporting of the apology did not even transcribe it properly. For a few hours it stated (from memory) "...was inaccurate and should have been published..."

[Mike Webster]

Personally, I find it interesting that while the Star plastered the whole silly non-issue on the front page for days on end, you are pretty much alone in failing to report that those behind the non-story are now admitting their mistake and apologizing for it. Kudos to you for mentioning it on your blog but I have to question the ethics of the Star trying to make such an issue out of it when the story came out now failing to report the fact that it has been retracted.

[woods]

What does the Telegraph Journal mean by "there was no credible support" for the statement that a senior Roman Catholic priest asked the PMO to explain? Do they mean the priest is not credible? Do they mean that they fabricated the quote they attributed to the priest and, if so, why are they not apologizing to him? Is this an attack on the priest?

What gives with dragging the priest into this retraction but not apologizing to him?

The fact that the paper wrote as fact that Harper pocketed the wafer rather than writing that one observer said Harper pocketed the wafer was wrong and deserved an apology. Most people ignored this statement as the tape only showed Harper not consuming the wafer immediately and did not show what he did with it. So that part of the apology is straight forward - although it does not really change anything about the story people absorbed. But retracting the priest's request for an explanation just does not make any sense.

[Sarann]

I like the comment by a writer in to the Globe and Mail which asks if Stephen Harper will go after the Jewish vote by perhaps getting circumcised in public. This is the real story. To what lows will a person sink to get votes. I go to lots of Catholic funerals and wedding and as a protestant know not to take communion there. Don't tell me Harper's people don't know this little item of protocol.

[Ron Wood]

Susan: It troubles me that all other media, print and broadcast, are not apologizing for carrying the story. I think an apology from every outlet that carried it might go a long way to mending the growing gap between the producers and consumers of news. I still find myself, from time to time, defending the media because I was once part of it. But more often I find myself agreeing with those who hold the media in contempt. You've known me a long time and know that when I sneer at the media, there are a few individuals (yourself included) who I don't think are in there with the all the other eggs. I'd suggest people should read Charles Adler which is on Bourque Newswatch this morning.
Cheers and keep well Susan

[woods]

Ron, are you suggesting that the media should censor stories which might be embarrassing? Ignatieff was at the same funeral and did not take communion (Russian Orthodox are not supposed to take Roman Catholic communion either). No one was interested in this fact, because all politicians are entitled to respect the customs of their own faith. Harper, a Protestant, took communion although the video casts doubt on his consuming it. Then the PMO says Harper consumed it immediately, which definitely cannot be true. This story is in the same category of Harper asking for the salute reserved for the GG. In it itself, it is not very important compared to how Harper treats non-CPC Canadians, but it is of some interest in taking the overall measure of the man.

[Wascally Wabbit]

The original story was - and still is - why a low chapel worshipper like Harper received the Host in the first place. I know - because I broke it - in one of the Macleans blogs - pretty much in realtime - was watching the funeral service for former GG Romeo Leblanc while working in my office...

I wrote that I thought that it was tacky...still stand by that...and also pointed out that - as far as could see - he did not appear to put the wafer in his mouth in front of the priest..

Still tacky!

[Gabby in QC]

"... a low chapel worshipper like Harper"

So, could you elucidate for those of us who were not aware there are such things as "low chapels" - could you provide a list of what you consider "high chapels"?

Hey, maybe I'd able to hobnob with the likes of you if I frequent a "high chapel."
But maybe you'd recoil at the thought of rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi, riff-raff like me.

[woods]

I have no idea what a "low chapel worshipper like Harper" is, but it may have something to do with the fact that, as an adult, Harper chose to join a church which believes that all those people taking communion are going to spend "eternity in conscious torment" no matter how compassionate and wonderful they are during their lives.

Just imagine taking communion while believing that everyone around you will rot in h*ll precisely because they believe in that communion.

[Wascally Wabbit]

Dear Gabby -

Wascally Ch. 1 V. 1 - Once there was a single Christian religion - called Catholicism - Roman Catholicism..a King or two and a German theologist named Luther thought it would be nice to maybe have a religion for themselves

Wascally Ch. 1. v. 2 - and verily before thouest knowest it - every self proclaimed "more religious than thou" type had put up his own pulpit and preachethed - or even stood in the middle of the square with their brothers and sisters - as equals.

Wascally Ch 1. V. 3 - And were they false prophets? Who could sayeth but the Lord! But one of these brought into their flock one Stephen son of Harper - and he did - while practicing their faith - which they said - is more pure than those Papists - became risen up to be leader of the land.

Wascally Ch 1. V. 4 - And it came to pass that this Stephen - son of Harper - entered the Temple of the Papists - and was welcomed there. Though he was a believer of some far off temple - the priests of that place welcomed him for a blessing - but he wanted more...and verily - it is said - partook of the flesh of the Lord in a manner unbecoming to such a guest - and was chasticed for his sinful ways...

Prefer that Gabby?

[Gabby in QC]

I’m sorry I cannot reply in kind, matching your droll reply.

Since this is a rather serious topic, evidenced by the outrage expressed by some members of the media and some members of the Liberal camp, I humbly submit to you that those outraged by PM Harper’s partaking of communion would naturally have shared that same outrage when they read this report (full article by subscription only). Correct?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-98370562.html
“CANADA: Catholic church official say [sic] Canada's Anglican governor general, Adrienne Clarkson, should not be taking Communion in Catholic churches. A spokesman for the governor general acknowledged Clarkson "does take Communion in Roman Catholic services" and attends Mass "fairly regularly" in Quebec City's basilica.
The controversy surfaced late last month after it was revealed that Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais gave Clarkson Communion last September when she came forward at a memorial service in Notre Dame Cathedral.”

Funny, I don't recall reading much about it, nor that it constituted a national scandal.

Likewise, those members of the media and of the Liberal Party who decried PM Harper’s partaking of communion at the funeral would be among the first to support Archbishop Raymond Burke’s POV, correct?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-170157985.html
“A U.S. Catholic archbishop is urging priests and lay eucharistic ministers to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights, arguing that it's a "mortal sin" to offer the sacrament to "the unworthy. ..."

Should Jean Chretien and members of his entourage have accepted the Eucharist at the funeral? Not according to Archbishop Burke, among other ecclesiastical authorities. And you, as a member in good standing of "high chapels," surely would agree with Archbishop Burke, n'est-ce pas?

Finally, since you mentioned Martin Luther in your mock monograph, let’s see what happened in his homeland a few years ago:
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2003b/062003/062003r.htm
“… Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, papal nuncio to Germany, read a message from John Paul II that stressed the “common message” of all Christian faiths. “When all of you together witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ in all its strength, you make it clear that Christians have a common message for the world. I want to encourage you to do so, especially in Germany. ...”

But hey, if you believe! yes Lord Almighty! you believe that only very orthodox catholics are called, even though Pope John Paul II “stressed the “common message” of all Christian faiths” - well, one could conclude you’re trying "to be more catholic than the Pope" (the latter a good Quebecois expression)

BTW, if you want to use the archaic forms of English pronouns, you'd benefit from this information checking Wiki on proper usage:
"to know: thou knowest, thou knewest
to drive: thou drivest, thou drovest
to make: thou makest, thou madest
to love: thou lovest, thou lovedest

A few verbs have irregular thou forms:
to be: thou art (or thou beest), thou wast (or thou wert; originally thou were)
to have: thou hast, thou hadst
to do: thou dost /dʌst/ (or thou doest in non-auxiliary use) and thou didst
shall: thou shalt
will: thou wilt"

IOW, these forms you used, though creative, are incorrect:
thouest knowest and preachethed

I will not chastise you for “chasticed” however ...