Editor's Desk: Journalistic Freedom

By Michael F. Flach
Herald Editor
(From the issue of 2/5/04)

To censor is to prohibit or restrict the use of something. For journalists, the word "censorship" invokes images of a great conspiracy carried out by a higher authority of the newspaper or magazine. "Freedom of the press" is the mantra by which most journalists swear. That is the ideal, the perfect journalistic universe. But this ideal exists under the premise that the journalist is accurate, truthful and without his/her own private agenda.

Who among us, especially journalists, does not have even the slightest bias when we write? The whole purpose of writing is to take the reader in a particular direction, to guide them where we want them to go. When interviewing a newsmaker or covering an event, it is the unorganized journalist who uses every quote, fact or bit of information in his story. In reality, self-censorship does (and should) begin with the individual journalist, even before his article crosses the editor’s desk. That’s good journalism. It’s also censorship in its basic form.

As editor of this newspaper for nearly 13 years, it is my job to "censor" articles and columns on a weekly basis. I prefer to call it editing. I don’t accept "Letters to the Editor" that attack individual priests or parishes. I don’t run columns that undermine the teaching authority of the Church. We don’t accept certain types of advertising which we believe might be deceiving, immoral or harmful to our readers.

Do you believe there is no censorship at the Washington Post, Newsweek or New York Times? If you do, then you must be living in a dream world. Recent instances of falsified stories written by staff writer Jason Blair indicate that Times editors should have done a more thorough job of censorship before those articles appeared in print.

The HERALD and the diocese have recently been criticized for not running a column by one of our regular contributors. For the record, the decision to reject the column was mine alone. The column was about a controversial subject, the selection of a safe environment program by the diocese that has been criticized by parents and priests. I’m the first one to agree that a dialogue on the subject needs to be addressed. Time constraints prohibited us from publishing an article about the controversy in our Jan. 15 edition. But a staff-written article did appear in our Jan. 22 edition (see page 11). Additional articles will be forthcoming as decisions concerning the program are made by the bishop.

As I’ve said to others, if I thought for one minute that the diocese had any intention of adopting a program that would put my children, or anyone’s children, in harm’s way, then I could not, in good conscience, continue to work here. I do believe that the diocese — its parents, priests and employees — can work together to adopt the right program for the welfare of all our children.

We live in an affluent area where most people are highly educated and opinionated. But most readers probably have no idea what I’m talking about in this column. Perhaps they don’t care. They might not have children or grandchildren who will be impacted by the safe environment program. I’d like to think they trust the Church to do the right thing.

The HERALD will continue to report on this subject, as well as other issues connected to the John Jay Study and national audit, in the weeks and months ahead. — M.F.F.

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.