It’s almost always news when a public official testifies before a congressional committee. Such was the case when Attorney General Merrick Garland faced the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

As expected, it was an important, and often heated, four hours of testimony that was highlighted by the back-and-forth exchanges between Garland and Republican senators on the panel. You can read Garland’s opening remarks on the DOJ website. 

Beyond his prepared remarks, there were plenty of potential storylines tied to religion that surfaced in the hearing. However, depending on which news organizations one follows, these storylines either made it into the news coverage or they were never mentioned. 

The Garland hearing comes at a time of heightened polarization, something made worse by the Supreme Court decision that rolled back the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. The aftermath of that decision has resulted in increased vandalism of Catholic churches, pro-life pregnancy centers and even a now-retracted FBI memo that targeted some traditional Catholics. 

The content of the coverage of the questions asked and the contents of Garland’s responses depended on what reporters, editors and news organizations deemed important. This has been the case for decades, but the shift has changed dramatically in more recent years as news organizations divide themselves into political camps depending on the beliefs of their faithful audiences. 

Did valid religion angles, especially those involving Catholics, make it into the coverage of national legacy media outlets? 

Here is a hint: Prayers by protestors at abortion facilities appear to be considered much more dangerous, and thus newsworthy, than vandalism, or even arson, at Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers. News coverage of this Senate hearing seemed to have been produced by journalists living in parallel universes. Once again, this is the dominant news trend in the Internet age.

Here is the top of the New York Times report on the Garland hearing: 

WASHINGTON — Republicans subjected Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to a four-hour grilling before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, a harbinger of the fights that loom ahead as the party targets the Justice Department in the months leading up to the 2024 election. 

One by one, Republican senators accused Mr. Garland — testifying before Congress for the first time since appointing special counsels to investigate former President Donald J. Trump and President Biden — of politicizing the department by aggressively investigating Republicans and conservative activists while shielding Democrats.

They also rebuked Mr. Garland over a range of policy and law enforcement issues, including his response to the fentanyl and immigration crises as well as the court’s decision in June to end the constitutional right to an abortion.

But the most pointed exchange came in the final 20 minutes of the session, when most of the panel’s Democrats had left the room. He was left to field a volley of questions from Republicans about his actions in the investigations involving Mr. Trump as well as the inquiries into Mr. Biden and his son Hunter.

“You have one tier of justice for people that are conservatives and another for those that are on the left,” said Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee.

Until then, lawmakers had mostly steered away from pressing about multiple investigations into top officials: an inquiry into Mr. Trump’s retention of sensitive government documents, the high-stakes examination of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of government records, or the long-running federal inquiry into his son Hunter on possible weapons and tax transgressions.

In other words, the hearing focused primarily on political controversies.

There was no mention of any of the issues — often relegated to the Catholic press — regarding violence against churches and pro-life centers as related to the abortion issue. The only mention of the Supreme Court, and attempted violence against the conservative justices, were the final three paragraphs:  

The tension broke briefly when Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, politely asked why Mr. Garland had not admonished Democrats who had denounced Supreme Court justices after their abortion ruling last year.

Mr. Garland, whose nomination to the court in 2016 was scuttled by Senate Republicans, did not offer a direct answer but gave a more sweeping assessment.

“I come from a kinder and gentler era — and a kinder and gentler court — even in terms of the way the members of the court treat themselves,” he said, an apparent reference to reports of squabbling among justices.

Interestingly, a disclaimer appeared midway through the news story that read this way: 

How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause. 

This may be true, but it doesn’t address bias that may occur in what is otherwise supposed to be an objective news story.

The story’s first few words — “Republicans subjected Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to a four-hour grilling” — signals how this story was framed. The attorney general wasn’t “subjected” to anything other than the accountability by the country’s top law-enforcement officer to questions posed to them by representatives elected by citizens.

It remains important for the Times to attempt to remain fair because of the newspaper’s rich past and decades of credibility. The Gray Lady plays a strategic role in shaping how powerful newsrooms view American life, especially politics and cultural issues. It’s clear that Fox News, for example, can’t fill that role given the scandal around its 2020 election commentaries and the libel lawsuit brought forth by Dominion Voting Systems.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press account of the hearing, one of the most important given how widely distributed it was, opened like this: 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Merrick Garland vowed Wednesday he won’t interfere with an investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes, a probe that’s continuing to unfold as congressional Republicans intensify their focus on the president’s son.

Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee he has left the matter in the hands of U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the top federal prosecutor in Delaware, who would be empowered to expand his investigation outside the state if needed.

“He has been advised he is not to be denied anything he needs,” Garland said. “I have not heard anything from that office to suggest that they are not able to do everything the U.S. Attorney wants to do.”

Garland’s appearance was his first since the new Congress convened, and came against the backdrop of special counsel investigations into classified records found at the homes of former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden.

The investigation into Hunter Biden began in 2018 and has included an examination of his income and payments he received while serving on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company whose board he had joined when his father was vice president, sparking potential conflict of interest concerns. 

Like the Times news story, there was zero mention of protests and violence linked to churches, crisis pregnancy centers, etc. But the AP did focus on the Hunter Biden laptop, which had been a taboo subject during the 2020 presidential election.

What didn’t help is that the line of questioning involving Catholics, and that recent FBI memo, was spearheaded by Hawley, a senator who has put forth misleading statements regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. It certainly doesn’t help that Hawley has little credibility to many, including Times editors, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t correct asking Garland factual questions about the leaked FBI memo and related issues.

Was there any mention of the issues important to many Catholics that actually took place at the hearing in any news accounts?

Yes, but you had to largely look to the Catholic press for it. As is increasingly the case, threats and violence linked to traditional forms of religion is automatically considered “religious” or “conservative” media material.

Catholic News Agency had no problem quoting on-the-record material from the hearing. Here’s how the CNA story opened: 

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday fielded questions from lawmakers regarding alleged anti-Catholic, anti-pro-life bias within the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In his responses to questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the attorney general called a now-retracted Richmond FBI memo that suggested investigating traditionalist Catholics for possible ties to domestic terrorists “appalling.”

Garland also defended the DOJ and FBI during heated exchanges with Republicans over whether federal agencies are biased against the pro-life movement in their enforcement of federal laws.

In response to questioning from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, Garland denounced a memo from the FBI’s Richmond division, which detailed a strategy to investigate a link between “radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology” and “the far-right white nationalist movement.”

The now-retracted memo discussed investigating Catholic parishes that offer the Traditional Latin Mass and certain Catholic online communities. The document cited a list from the Southern Poverty Law Center to determine which organizations adhere to “radical-traditionalist Catholic ideology.” 

The politically conservative press — such as the Fox News Channel — also covered the Catholic angle. Here’s the key section from that news account: 

Hawley then said he "noticed a pattern" and referenced a Jan. 23 memorandum from the FBI field office in Richmond, Virginia, that advocated for "the exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development against traditionalist Catholics."

"Attorney General, are you cultivating sources and spies in Latin mass parishes and other Catholic parishes across the country?" Hawley asked.

"The Justice Department does not do that and does not do investigations based on religion. I saw the document you sent. It's appalling. It's appalling. I'm in complete agreement with you. I understand that the FBI has withdrawn it and is looking into how this could ever have happened," Garland replied.

Garland also called the document "inappropriate" and noted it did not reflect the methods the FBI is supposed to use. He added that agents should not be relying on any single organization without doing its own work.

When asked how many informants the FBI has in Catholic churches across America, Garland said, "I don't know, and I don't believe we have any informants aimed at Catholic churches. We have a rule against investigations based on First Amendment activity."

Again, let me stress the big idea here: These news accounts seem to have been written in parallel universes. This is news produced for consumers in an America that is divided, in large part, by slanted news.

However, in a sign that CNN may be trying to return to a more centrist stance following the Trump administration (they have had layoffs recently put forth edicts saying they want to focus more on journalism and less on advocacy), the story posted to the cable news network’s website included a section on the FBi memo and violence against Supreme Court justices. Here’s the key section from that story: 

Garland disavowed an FBI field office memo that seemed to suggest the FBI was targeting “radical traditionalist” Catholics, calling the memo “appalling” and saying the FBI is investigating its origin.

“It’s appalling. It’s appalling,” Garland said. The FBI “has withdrawn it, and it’s now looking into how this could ever happen,” he added.

Garland continued: “The FBI is not targeting Catholics, and as I’ve said, this is an inappropriate memorandum. And it doesn’t reflect the methods that the FBI is supposed to be using – should not be relying on any single organization without doing its own work.”

The memo was originally issued in a field office earlier this month and was almost immediately pulled.

In one exchange during Garland’s hearing, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri asked the attorney general whether the department had informants in Catholic churches.

Coverage of Garland’s testimony, once again, highlighted the need for citizens to read a wide variety of news stories from outlets on both sides of American life. List month, I wrote a post here noting that the death of old-school journalism is why vandalism against Catholic churches is not a story in the elite press.

These days, I generally encourage people to watch public events, such as these hearings, for themselves and to seek out transcripts. However, that was impossible given the time of day and the length of this event.

This is where solid journalism — with professionals striving to be accurate and fair-minded — is important to an informed citizenry. 

This appeared to be a case of bias by omission, especially in The New York Times story.

The issues — regardless of which side readers are on politically — are apparently too much for the Times audience to handle. The Times had previously mentioned the FBI memo in passing as part of a story regarding GOP talking points. 

It’s one thing to ignore issues in news coverage, but another to do so when they are such a central part of a public testimony.  

Again, news consumers can attempt to read a wide variety of news accounts about any one story. The coverage of this hearing with the attorney general is a warning that failing to do so will result in citizens knowing only a small fraction of what’s happening in this country.  

FIRST IMAGE: Vandalized Catholic church in Boulder, Colorado, on May 4. Image via Youtube screenshot.