Add a comment
John L. Allen Jr.
CNN Sr. Vatican Analyst
Vatican Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter
In the end, the decision wasn’t apparently that tough – each of the four decided to go ahead. The brief flurry of debate, however, illustrates the fine line that reporters sometimes walk between wanting to exploit whatever access they can get, yet without being co-opted to advance someone else’s agenda.
To set the scene, reporters on the papal plane had originally hoped that Benedict XVI would come back after take-off en route to the United States to engage in a real press conference – unscripted questions, impromptu replies, and the possibility for follow-up queries in order to press the pope on important matters. The pope had done just that on the way to Brazil in May 2007, the only other trans-Atlantic flight so far of his three-year papacy.
Instead, however, Vatican officials asked reporters late last week to submit proposed questions for the pope to Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson. Lombardi chose four questions, on the following topics:
· The sexual abuse crisis
· Immigration
· The public role of religion in America
· The United Nations
On previous papal flights when Lombardi has screened the questions, he has read them to the pope himself and then asked the pope to respond. This time, however, Lombardi came back shortly after take-off and informed four journalists that their questions had been selected, and that he would call upon them to ask the question when the pope came back to the press compartment.
Hence the ethical dilemma, which reporters on the papal plane debated energetically for a few minutes this morning: Is it okay for a journalist to ask a question of the pope under those circumstances, on the grounds that it’s better than nothing? Or, were we taking part, as one colleague today insisted, in a "journalistic sham"?
In other words, by standing up and reading what amounts to a canned question in front of the TV cameras, were we creating the appearance of a real give-and-take without its substance?
I should confess that I was one of the journalists selected to ask a question. In the end I decided to do it, for two reasons: 1) journalists frequently have to operate under various restrictions, and as long as we’re honest with the public about what those restrictions are, it’s better to make the most of the limited access we do have; 2) it gave me the opportunity to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a few words in English, which I knew would be of value to my colleagues in TV and radio.
On the other hand, I recognize the bite of the opposing argument – that journalists shouldn’t take part in stage-managed events, especially ones that allow the figures we cover to look like they’re responding to legitimate public curiosity while, in reality, they’re ducking it.
One way of cutting to the bottom line may be this: However artificial the setting, today’s exchange with the pope produced his most dramatic comments to date on the sexual abuse crisis, spoken for the first time in English and for the American public. In other words, by tolerating the conditions the Vatican imposed, we were able to elicit comments from the pope that broke new ground and provided a compelling storyline.
Most observers on the plane felt that the pope’s replies did not come off as excessively “canned” or polished, although frustration remained that he didn’t stay longer, take more questions, or allow for any follow-up or clarification. That’s a particularly natural reaction given that the pope is a veteran university professor who actually relishes intellectual give-and-take.
If nothing else, today’s debate aboard “Shepherd One” illustrates that for journalists, there are few places anywhere completely free of ethical challenges – including the plane carrying the world’s premier religious leader to the United States.
| Stacy |
April 15th, 2008 8:27 pm ET John, tough call. I'm not sure what I would do. But I really hope you make the same disclosure every time CNN airs the "news conference," that you just made on this blog. Otherwise you're lying to your viewers. |
|
| em |
April 15th, 2008 8:38 pm ET World premier religiuos leader of a religion that doesnt practice what it preaches.. |
|
| Jolene |
April 15th, 2008 8:57 pm ET John: I think you made the right decision to participate in the "canned" questioning. Afterall, it was still a legitimate question from you and it would be answered by the Pope himself. Kudos to you for having your question "picked". So what was your question? You got me curious. I appreciate your honesty and behind the scenes thoughts around the Pope's visit. Keep it coming! Jolene, St. Joseph, MI |
|
| Christianna |
April 15th, 2008 9:10 pm ET Being a journalist myself, hearing this immediately made me annoyed and upset with this process. |
|
| Annie Kate |
April 15th, 2008 9:24 pm ET Whether staged or not, it sounds like the Pope delivered on the questions as you said he gave some of the most dramatic comments on the sexual misconduct of priests to date. Since he had time to contemplate his answer he may have said a lot more than he would have done in a spontaneous interview where leaders try to be more cautious in what they say so as not to create a fuss that detracts from what they are trying to do. BTW, I am glad you decided to go ahead and participate. We don't always get exactly what we want and have to settled for what we can get. Annie Kate |
|
| Betty Ann |
April 15th, 2008 10:06 pm ET Hi John, |
|
| david wiley |
April 15th, 2008 10:26 pm ET I'm not Catholic but I find this rather irritating. I see a lot of parallels between the FLDS story and this and yet people treat it very differently. I see a lot of sympathy for FLDS that they may have child sexual abuse, child rape, and forced "marriages". The news crews talk to the women and offer them total softball questions. Plus if you try to leave that religion, they'll make it plenty tough on you. But we've got to give the Pope the tough line? why? Ever hear the expression "Don't expect the Pope not to be a Catholic"? Newsflash. The Pope is not an elected official and not even an American citizen. They've got to obey the law and respect the rights of children to be abused, but other than that we have Freedom of Religion in this country and if you don't like something that they do... don't join them. |
|
| Dominic---San Diego |
April 15th, 2008 10:30 pm ET How can he speak of "Human" rights when he clearly opposes UNIVERSAL (Women, Gay people) equality. Perhaps this trip is more to "mend fences" over the clergy scandal & to win the hearts & minds .....and money.....of American Catholics. Women's equality ?? Birth Control ?? Gay Rights ?? Nope ?? Well, then, say Nope to the Pope ! |
|
| David B. Hill |
April 15th, 2008 10:45 pm ET About the Pope's visit.....QUESTIONS I HAVE. |
|
| Pedro |
April 15th, 2008 11:16 pm ET Dominic, When and where did the Pope say that women are not equal to men? Why and how is birth control a human right? |
|
| Manish |
April 15th, 2008 11:22 pm ET I just dont understand why on one side we are talking about the separation of Church and State and then giving a military welcome to current pope. Why is the president of the US required to welcome the pope? I dont see that happening even in a third world nation like India. We dont welcome the Dalai Lama with the military and the head of the nation going to the airport to welcome him ... Very Weird! |
|
| Alan |
April 16th, 2008 4:04 am ET To answer the question of how much this trip is costing and why President Bush is welcoming the pope, don't forget that the US and the Vatican have diplomatic relations. The US has an ambassador to the Vatican, and that the Vatican is a sovereign state. Did anyone complain when the same courtesy was extended to the Queen? |
|
| Marie Rose; Maryland |
April 16th, 2008 6:42 am ET There are so many comments to respond to, I don't know where to start, so I'll just pick the easiest and stop there. The Vatican is an independent state, so though the pope is head of the Catholic Church, he is also technically a head of state... so everything that is done for any head of state (including security) is done for him, too. Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theories of preferential treatment. |
|
| Katherine |
April 16th, 2008 1:31 pm ET David, |
|
|
Leave Your Comment
|
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper, the AC360° staff and a network of contributors. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
We search the news each day to show you what’s on our radar and what we’re planning for the show each night.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- Real-life effects of reform getting lost in the noise
- Evening Buzz: Buying Health Care Reform Votes
- Live Blog from the Anchor Desk 12/21/09
- U.S. soldiers in Iraq could face courts-martial for getting pregnant
- FAQs about health care reform
- Interactive: Brittany Murphy’s acting career
- Senate health care reform bill
- House health care reform bill
- Interactive: The top 10 Health-Care-Reform Players
- Video: Child custody battle continues
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2005
