They are among the most famous words in journalism, combining to form a phrase that — back in the old wire-service days — defined the craft of hard-news reporting and writing.
All together now: These words are “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why” and “how.”
That’s the old approach to writing a good hard-news lede (especially on deadline). This formula can be a big clunky, at times, but it does force reporters to think through their material and identify the most important elements of a story.
So, with that in mind, try to identify the various pieces of the W5H puzzle when reading the Providence Journal lede that dominated our discussions during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The key in this case is to focus on the “why” factor.
The Rev. Richard Bucci, pastor of the West Warwick church where a lawmaker’s sister has said she was sexually molested repeatedly as a child by a now-dead priest, marked the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by issuing a flier listing the names of every Rhode Island legislator who voted last year to enshrine the right to an abortion in state law.
So why did this Catholic pastor send out this flier? That’s pretty obvious: He did so in response to a piece of abortion-rights legislation in Rhode Island.
Now, why did the individual legislator mentioned in this train wreck of a lede believe that Father Bucci had taken this action?
It would appear that Rep. Carol McEntee thought this action also had something to do with the Catholic church — or this particular parish — hiding clergy who abuse children. Later, readers also learn that Bucci and McEntee had previously clashed over her right to give a eulogy in the middle of a Catholic funeral.
But what is the main story here? Is this a story about the new abortion law and Bucci’s list of legislators or is it a story about Rep. McEntee and this priest? Does the story offer evidence that proves that McEntee is onto something, with this claim that there are two “why” factors at play in this case? (Hold that thought.)
It would appear that editors at the Associated Press decided to base their lede on the basic facts of the story. Here is the overture:
The pastor of a Rhode Island church issued a flier which said that every state legislator who voted last year to preserve the right to an abortion in state law would be denied communion.
Father Richard Bucci distributed the fliers last week at Sacred Heart Church in West Warwick, the Providence Journal reported on Saturday. He also mailed them to the homes of several lawmakers.
“In accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, the following members of the legislature may NOT receive Holy Communion, as are all the officers of the state of Rhode Island, as well as Rhode Island’s members of Congress,” the flier reads.
The fliers also said legislators wouldn’t be allowed to act as witnesses to marriage, godparents or lectors at any church functions.
McEntee is quoted in the story, but the statements that attempt to link Bucci’s actions to fights over clergy sexual abuse didn’t make it into this short, direct, factual AP report — which is built on a W5H formula of facts.
So what happened here? As “Crossroads” post Todd Wilken noted, it appears that the Journal editors tried to turn two stories into one. First, there is a story about Bucci’s list flier responding to the abortion legislation. Then there is a second story about the complicated history of conflict between this legislator’s family and this priest and/or the parish (it’s hard to tell).
Why not write two clear stories, rather than one confused report built on an assumption that may or may not be true? A second story on Bucci and McEntee could present the basic facts of their dispute and allow readers to decide whose point of view makes the most sense.
You can see the basics in my earlier post about this story: “Journalism train wreck: Catholic scholar pours acid on news story about abortion and politics.” Note that, in the past, Father Bucci had taken some rather brave actions to force disciplinary actions against an priest who was guilty of abuse.
But let me note, once again, a question that looms over this whole discussion: Do Catholics have a constitutional right to demand that priests give them Holy Communion, even if they have openly opposed the doctrines of the church?
Why do I ask that? Check out this unusually large direct quote from McEntee that was included in the Journal story:
“This is nothing more than another vicious outburst by Father Bucci,” said McEntee. … “He is unfit to be a priest, and I call on him to resign immediately. ... I also call on Bishop [Thomas] Tobin to withdraw and disown this notice and issue a full apology to all individuals who are listed in this notice.
“Both Father Bucci and Bishop Tobin need to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution requires the separation of church and state. We as legislators have an obligation to the people of Rhode Island to vote for legislation that reflects the opinion of the majority of Rhode Islanders, and not allow our religious beliefs to get in the way of our civic obligation as elected officials.”
So attempts to defend church doctrines — inside the church itself, which is a voluntary association and an ancient, global one at that — violate the separation of church and state? Is that what McEntee is arguing, that she has a constitutional right to receive Holy Communion?
As I noted in my earlier post:
Of course, the First Amendment would protect the controversial actions of politicians, as in their actions in the public square.
The First Amendment would also protect the actions of Catholic leaders to take the actions they believe are necessary to defend the doctrines and sacraments of their faith. We are talking about their actions inside the voluntary association that is a Catholic parish. To the church, the key issues here involve doctrine, sacraments, sins and souls.
The bottom line: Catholic politicians are free to reject the doctrines of the Catholic church. Catholic bishops and priests are free to defend those doctrines at the altars of their churches.
One more question: At least one editor at the Journal approved the publication of this story in this form. What was this editor thinking?