If any of you read the Wall Street Journal religiously, you may have glanced over Dorothy Rabinowitz’s two-day installment on the clergy abuse scandal. Specifically, she argued in favor of the defrocked Gordon MacRae who received his sentence in this great state of NH. Some good research by the staff at the NH Union Leader, however, gave Dorothy a good wake up call. After she insisted upon her objectivity in reporting, NHUL staff writer Denis Paiste recalled documents from as far back as fall of 2001 that expressed her involvement in Diocesan legal affairs, as well as her involvement with the settlement in March 2003. Her response?
“I haven’t been involved in this case,” Rabinowitz said. “I cannot help somebody using my name. There was no litigation going on. They were discussing the possibilities of getting an attorney, I knew this attorney. . .this attorney did not take the case.”
Next, she said:
“I read the documents and I have the same documents that you have,” she said. “Gordon MacRae is in prison, and I hadn’t even met him.”
But THEN she said:
“Robert Rosenthal was an attorney who does very well in appeals cases. . .and so when asked for a name, I produced that name.”
Asked who had asked for the name, she said, “Father MacRae, and I believe it was Father Diebold, the canon advocate for Father MacRae.”
The list goes on. To make matters worse, despite her status as a Pullitzer Prize-winning commentator, she revealed confidential information (including a previously undisclosed name) of one of the victims of MacRae’s abuse.
Dorothy, go back to Journalism 101. You really aren’t in Kansas anymore.
|
Categories: The Pope & Catholicism, The Media & Blogs
|
April 29th, 2005 at 11:52:51 am
Welllll, I dunno now. Sounds a bit Murky, not to say Muddled, to me.
I haven’t read the Rabinowitz series because I can’t access it Free and I’m Frugal. :) (Of which the WSJ would Approve, philosophically anyway. :)
But from the Union Leader piece, and from recollection of a past column or two, and her Pulitzer Prize that you cited, I gather that she is a WSJ Editor & essentially an Opinion journalist. (Though, the pieces at issue aren’t in the WSJ Opinion Journal as such, a Search hits them only in the regular WSJ Online.)
If her series was clearly Commentary, then IT isn’t supposed to be Objectively written. She’s allowed (in that case) to be an “advocate” for the convict. (Or, a critic of him.)
However, if Rabinowitz had/has some personal connection to MacRae’s case as is suggested, even if a tenuous one as it seems, then presumably she should have Disclosed that up front in her series.
As to the alleged breach of victim confidentiality, if there is one it seems it isn’t hers nor the WSJ’s. So far as I can see they’re not Parties to any confidentiality stipulation. Maybe her Source(s) breached a confidentiality to which they were bound. (?) If so that’s Their problem, not hers. / Maybe also Naming the Name in the Newspaper is simply Not Nice. But ~ alleged-victim Confidentiality is apparently central to the alleged Issue she is complaining about here.
To me it’s a Tough one. Obviously these kinds of crimes have in fact commonly occurred and are horrid and one sympathizes, utterly, with their innocent victims. / OTOH it is possible for a person, of either gender & of any Preference, to be falsely accused ~ and wrongly convicted ~ of sexual predation.
Convicted & behind bars, MacRae is of course no longer entitled to any presumption of innocence. Quite the reverse: his guilt was affirmed, and his sentence determined, by our legal system.
But we cannot bar commentators, even pre-Biased ones, from investigating and Commentating upon the soundness of such findings & sentencings simply because the case was about sexual predation.
April 29th, 2005 at 4:52:51 pm
<i>Welllll</i>, I dunno now. Sounds a bit Murky, not to say Muddled, to me.
I haven’t read the Rabinowitz series because I can’t access it Free and I’m Frugal. :) (Of which the WSJ would Approve, philosophically anyway. :)
But from the Union Leader piece, and from recollection of a past column or two, and her Pulitzer Prize that you cited, I gather that she is a WSJ Editor & essentially an Opinion journalist. (Though, the pieces at issue aren’t in the WSJ Opinion Journal as such, a Search hits them only in the regular WSJ Online.)
<i>If</i> her series was clearly Commentary, then IT isn’t <i>supposed</i> to be Objectively written. She’s allowed (in that case) to be an “advocate” for the convict. (Or, a critic of him.)
However, if Rabinowitz had/has some personal <i>connection</i> to MacRae’s case as is suggested, even if a tenuous one as it seems, then presumably she should have Disclosed that up front in her series.
As to the alleged breach of victim confidentiality, if there is one it seems it isn’t hers nor the WSJ’s. So far as I can see they’re not Parties to any confidentiality stipulation. Maybe her Source(s) breached a confidentiality to which <i>they</i> were bound. (?) If so that’s Their problem, not hers. / Maybe also Naming the Name in the Newspaper is simply Not Nice. But ~ alleged-victim Confidentiality is apparently <i>central to the alleged Issue she is complaining about here.</i>
To me it’s a Tough one. Obviously these kinds of crimes have in fact commonly occurred and are horrid and one sympathizes, utterly, with their innocent victims. / OTOH it <i>is</i> possible for a person, of either gender & of any Preference, to be <i>falsely</i> accused ~ <i>and</i> wrongly convicted ~ of sexual predation.
Convicted & behind bars, MacRae is of course no longer entitled to any presumption of innocence. Quite the reverse: his guilt was affirmed, and his sentence determined, by our legal system.
<i>But</i> we cannot bar commentators, even pre-Biased ones, from investigating and Commentating upon the soundness of such findings & sentencings <i>simply because the case was about sexual predation.</i>
April 29th, 2005 at 4:56:04 pm
I have to agree with Joe on this one. The UL reporter’s big expose’ is not really all that earth shattering. It’s not at all uncommon for people to write about things they have peripheral involvement in. And while the reporter seems to think he’s caught Rabinowitz in a lie, he technically hasn’t. She said that she’s never met MacRae, not that she’s never spoken to him.
Furthermore, it seems that Dorothy is definately on to something with this case. It seems entirely unjust that people can bring a class-action suit and never have to reveal their identity. That sucks. It sounds like a great extortion scheme, and while I am a victims’ rights advocate, I would rather see a guilty man walk than an innocent one imprisoned.
I hope that MacRae appeals the judge’s decision not to allow the juvenile offenses of the victim to be brought to the attention of the jury. I mean, come on, the “he-sodomized-me-but-I-lost-my-memory-and-kept-going-back-for-more”
offense is incredibly lame; moreover, it doesn’t seem to me that the burden of proof was met. Alas, I’m not on the jury, but it is entirely possible that the rising anti-Catholic swell in the wake of the Boston scandal contributed to the jurors’ prejudice.
Also, Rabinowitz is a well-known opinion journal writer and therefore, her work is supposed to betray a prejudice. No one would read the opinions section if it was all straight news.
Rabinowitz has been on shows like Crossfire a billion times. She’s published books. She’s in the public eye and she’s open about her opinions and prejudices. A little research would reveal that.
In other words, this spurious critique comes off more like some piss-ant reporter trying to tarnish one of the big boyz and failing miserably rather than some brilliant expose.
Moreover, I think that the fact that she “leaked” the name of an accuser is more indicative of a lower level confidentiality violation, as Joe indicated. If, indeed, Rabinowitz had violated a person’s confidentiality after vowing not to do so, I suspect that that person would have some kind of legal recourse. Brendan can help on this one.
There are some journalists out there who willfully lie and distort information (*cough cough* maureen dowd *cough cough*). I’m not sure that Rabinowitz is one of them.
What confuses me is that the UL seems to have some kind of bizarre agenda against the woman. I know NH is probably as boring as South Bend, but this story hardly seems newsworthy. If they needed filler, they should do a story on ducks.
Dude, I love ducks.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:15:54 pm
“…(*cough cough* maureen dowd *cough cough*).”
LOL! :)
April 29th, 2005 at 9:56:04 pm
I have to agree with Joe on this one. The UL reporter’s big expose’ is not really all that earth shattering. It’s not at all uncommon for people to write about things they have peripheral involvement in. And while the reporter seems to think he’s caught Rabinowitz in a lie, he technically hasn’t. She said that she’s never <em>met</em> MacRae, not that she’s never <em>spoken</em> to him.
Furthermore, it seems that Dorothy is definately on to something with this case. It seems entirely unjust that people can bring a class-action suit and never have to reveal their identity. That sucks. It sounds like a great extortion scheme, and while I am a victims’ rights advocate, I would rather see a guilty man walk than an innocent one imprisoned.
I hope that MacRae appeals the judge’s decision not to allow the juvenile offenses of the victim to be brought to the attention of the jury. I mean, come on, the “he-sodomized-me-but-I-lost-my-memory-and-kept-going-back-for-more”
offense is incredibly lame; moreover, it doesn’t seem to me that the burden of proof was met. Alas, I’m not on the jury, but it is entirely possible that the rising anti-Catholic swell in the wake of the Boston scandal contributed to the jurors’ prejudice.
Also, Rabinowitz is a well-known opinion journal writer and therefore, her work is <em>supposed</em> to betray a prejudice. No one would read the opinions section if it was all straight news.
Rabinowitz has been on shows like Crossfire a billion times. She’s published books. She’s in the public eye and she’s open about her opinions and prejudices. A little research would reveal that.
In other words, this spurious critique comes off more like some piss-ant reporter trying to tarnish one of the big boyz and failing miserably rather than some brilliant expose.
Moreover, I think that the fact that she “leaked” the name of an accuser is more indicative of a lower level confidentiality violation, as Joe indicated. If, indeed, Rabinowitz had violated a person’s confidentiality after vowing not to do so, I suspect that that person would have some kind of legal recourse. Brendan can help on this one.
There are some journalists out there who willfully lie and distort information (*cough cough* maureen dowd *cough cough*). I’m not sure that Rabinowitz is one of them.
What confuses me is that the UL seems to have some kind of bizarre agenda against the woman. I know NH is probably as boring as South Bend, but this story hardly seems newsworthy. If they needed filler, they should do a story on ducks.
Dude, I love ducks.
April 30th, 2005 at 12:15:54 am
<i>”…(*cough cough* maureen dowd *cough cough*).”</i>
LOL! :)
April 30th, 2005 at 8:07:33 am
Of course it’s not earth shattering. It was on page 17. The point wasn’t that she did some horrible injustice; just that she’s an idiot. Don’t claim objectivity when it’s an opinion; Don’t say you never spoke to someone and then say you did; and I’ll even go so far as to say it’s not nice to disclose confidential financial statements/names of people whose case was supposed to be confidential. To me, this wasn’t a big travesty of journalism. I just think she’s not a nice lady. And I certainly don’t want to be her friend.
April 30th, 2005 at 1:07:33 pm
Of course it’s not earth shattering. It was on page 17. The point wasn’t that she did some horrible injustice; just that she’s an idiot. Don’t claim objectivity when it’s an opinion; Don’t say you never spoke to someone and then say you did; and I’ll even go so far as to say it’s not nice to disclose confidential financial statements/names of people whose case was supposed to be confidential. To me, this wasn’t a big travesty of journalism. I just think she’s not a nice lady. And I certainly don’t want to be her friend.