What Is Really Up At the National Catholic Reporter (NCR)?

By Jerry Slevin
Christian Catholicism
September 7, 2014

http://christiancatholicism.com/what-is-really-up-at-the-national-catholic-reporter-ncr/

While banning commenters like me is the ultimate censorship tactic that NCR has adopted, apparently in light of its conservative Catholic donors’ influence or other unknown factors, see here:

http://christiancatholicism.com/national-catholic-reporter-bloggers-object-to-censorship

Bill Lindsey has brilliantly shown at Bilgrimage.com, see here:

http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2014/09/another-weekend-another-discussion-of.html  ,

how NCR Discus comment objection “flags” are being managed by some bloggers at NCR to depress comments either permanently or until most other readers have read others’ comments and moved on.

Since NCR got its $2 million dollar grant from the conservative Hilton Foundation, which is associated with FAIDICA (a group of seemingly conservative Catholic foundations, in part at least it appears, under the influence of wealthy investment bankers who have also advertised another of their related groups at NCR), NCR has turned considerably to the right in its coverage and focus in my opinion. It has also hired a new management team that appears to me to be dedicated often to pleasing right wing interests.

This seems to have been done (1) by neutralizing NCR’s focus increasingly to “feel good” stories about nuns and Pope Francis, (2) by seemingly reducing the coverage and frequency of tough stories on bishops’ misdeeds, especially on Vatican priest child abuse cover-ups, (3) by controlling content by increased comment censorship and the selection of more seemingly biased articles and writers, and (4) by seemingly focusing on selecting more NCR directors who likely may better please NCR’s major donors. For example, the sister who is the communications director of LCWR is no longer on NCR’s Board of Directors. Why not? Very puzzling, no?

More and more NCR stories in advance of the significant US November elections also appear to me to be right wing focused, like stories that undercut President Obama and the Democrats, such as narrow immigration stories on enforcing immigration laws with respect to children from migrant Central American counties. Of course, these NCR stories at times fail to mention Honduras’ Cardinal Maradiaga, a supporter of the reportedly corrupt regime that is generating the most child immigrants, as well as his being Pope Francis’ top adviser.

Also, more stories, including some by authors apparently connected to a Middle East related group, are focusing on faulting Obama for his Middle East policies, while seemingly almost beating the drums for an anti-radical Islam crusade, that is also reportedly favored by some right wing Republicans and at times, seemingly, even by some in the Vatican.

For the most recent example of NCR’s apparent “media spin” shift, please note this NCR comment by Joan (AnonAJ) to David Gibson’s current NCR piece, that NCR lifted from RNS, on Cardinal Dolan and conservatives.

I have known Joan through blogging for over four years — she is sincere, solid and savvy. She held senior positions for years in Catholic social services and has, I recall, worked closely with Sr. Simone Campbell, the lead Nun on the Bus.

__________________________________

Joan’s recent NCR comment is as follows:

“Out of curiosity, I pulled up this RNS story from RNS…in it there were 8 links noted. In this NCR piece there was one link noted….in the CRUX rendition there was one link for John Allen’s interview that was highlighted, none of RNS’s links.

Think both NCR and CRUX should put in ALL links in the original story…..In the interests of readers comprehension.

I can fully understand it, if an online entity wants to additionally highlight a piece of their own original work that they feel is relevant, but to omit links that the chosen news source utilized, a news source presumably valued sufficiently to be used by either NCR OR CRUX is inexplicable.

At a minimum if NCR is going to omit links….some of them very interesting in this piece, you note the omission or give a link for the original story ….same advice to CRUX”

End of comment.
________________________________________________

NCR and the Boston Globe’s new CRUX ( under master papal promoter, NCR’s former John Allen ) appear, in light of Joan’s comment, to be “cherry picking” some links in articles they “lift”, even from generally Vatican friendly sites like RNS. This seems to lack journalistic integrity, no? It also seems to me to be part of a very conscious and questionable media spin strategy.

Perhaps some of McKinsey & Co.’s reported media management advice to the Vatican is now working its way into NCR via the right wing donors? Who knows? NCR is also secretive about some matters like the Vatican, it appears, no?

If you enter FADICA into the search box at NCR, you will see some of the NCR “puff pieces” about FADICA. Not bad reporting after only a $2 million grant, no? You can also see FADICA’s overall conservative thrust at its website here:

http://www.fadica.org/main/Abo…

The question for NCR staffers now is to ask whether NCR is “selling out” to its donors or others. NCR bloggers then should ask themselves the same question and, depending on their answers, ask themselves whether NCR is sufficiently “independent” any longer and is still worth reading and supporting.

It isn’t any longer for me. I can read elsewhere stories that in my opinion appear more balanced with less spin, etc. I have done what I can to try to inform NCR readers. They are on their own now. Good luck, you will need it!