"Sure, there's some institutional bias at work here, but reporters can't talk to people they don't know exist."

I really think that you're giving the press a pass on this one. You're making the assumption that the press, in all of their hurried lives and their inability to become experts on pretty much any subject, that there is going to be some kind of good faith effort to get an expert who will give a fair, unbiased explanation.

I really don't buy that at all. These people know there are people out there, they just don't give them the angle that they want. It's much more colorful to quote a dissident with a contrary opinion. If the press really wanted to hear the truth about the Church, why don't they seek out people such as yourself and the rest of the bloggers on this site--are you trying to tell me that they don't know you exist?

Please don't give the press credit where it isn't due.

Actually, I don't think there will be a good faith effort on their part, which is why I was advocating making an effort from our end. Yes, a lot of them go to the same sources because they know they'll get a good contrary opinion, but I still believe that at least part of it is unfamiliarity with the terrain -- or, at least, overfamiliarity with an unrepresentative group.

I don't think Maureen's suggestion will change the religion reporting landscape overnight, but especially on a local level, I do believe that making yourself visible -- and reachable -- is an important first step.

W Smith,

In defense of Margaret -- not that she needs defending -- she has written at least three posts on this subject and I don't think she has been giving the media a pass. She, unlike a lot of writers, is following a story to see where it takes her, rather than deciding the end of the story before she even writes it. I hope that makes sense.

When I was evangelical, I was the PR person for a Christian institution that had a terrible reputation. Bills had gone unpaid for media advertising, etc., and when I would go to functions, reporters would literally walk off after I told them where I worked. People at the school often had the knee-jerk reaction that the media wasn't fair to us because they didn't cover "this event," or "that event," which usually weren't newsworthy anyway. In reality, though, it was our bad reputation and our isolation from the rest of the community that had gotten us where we were. It was that lack of "transparency" that Zoe wrote about the other day that people were sensing.

My boss had a very good understanding of PR, and he gave me free reign to take people out to eat (only one reporter -- an AP one -- turned me down for ethical reasons -- she at lunch went me, but insisted we go Dutch). He also had me write an article where we more or less came clean about the financial problems of the past (it wasn't a problem of dishonesty on the part of any individual, but of poor money management) and we sent it to a large Christian newspaper. In retrospect, we probably should have sent it locally, too.

Anyway, I cannot express the difference these one-on-one contacts with reporters made. I was not quoted one time in any article or on TV (I'd rather be invisible), but I made sure some of our more articulate and personable people were. This happened not because I was super PR girl or anything, but because I really made it my job to make reporters' jobs easier.

I definitely think reporters are individually biased, and like Margaret said, there is probably an institutionally biased, but getting too hung up on that probably won't accomplish much.However, I know from my own working experience that establishing relationships does bear fruit. And -- as far as colorful quotes go: a writer will take them from anybody, no matter whether that source is conservative or liberal. This is why Pat Buchanan and Peggy Noonan get quoted a lot -- because they are articulate and give interesting quotes. Just a thought.

Gotta go...primary vocation calls.

God bless, Maureen

Margaret,

From the perspective of someone who is working in PR right now in the secular arena (and I'm no pro, but I work with many), I think that the tactics you mention are right on, but the skills to get them there are more than most priests are going to have at their disposal.

PR is a lot of behind-the-scenes work, and while it's very proactive, its also quite reactive. In PR, you're always looking for the hook - what's the current theme of the news cycle, where is what we're doing going to tie in, what trends are emerging that we can latch onto?

I think that experienced third parties (PR pros) need to be involved, helping to identify the answers to these questions and fielding the appropriate responders. In so doing, the relationships are created organically, and then there's a better chance of those people being called up again in the future.

The pope's visit would be a perfect example. He's coming to DC, so why not contact the religion reporters in the area and offer them access to local priests - particularly those who have studied in Rome or have met the Holy Father - as third parties? Simply make them available, and the reporters have the choice. For local papers, however, a local source is a great option - it appeals to the reading audience and increases accessibility.

In a way, Catholic PR is like evangelization - it's all about looking for common ground between the secular media and the Catholic experts and figuring out how to build on it to get the right messages across.

I find the lack of contact between faithful Catholics and the culture, the political structures, the media etc.. absolutely inexusable. The one big glaring virtue to the American system is the ability to get on the horn, get on the ballot, get off your butt, and change the world for Christ.

I have spoken to newspaper editors who have admitted to me that they would like to go to bat on this or that topic- ex. taking the palestinian narrative more seriously- but they are pressured by who calls, how many call, and do they request a sit-down meeting. If a tiny minority of pro-Israeli American Jews can shape our Congress, our Presidency, our Media, so soundly with good old fashonied organizing- what is wrong with us?

I have found most Catholic parishes barely interested in shaping the political landscape of which the pastors and faithful moan and groan about all the time. Minorities have to stand up and be counted or they will be overlooked or oppressed- history shows this over and over. Catholics are so bound by the devil with the Pro-Life camps pitted against the Social Justice camps- it is a clear divide/conquer strategy and most Catholics I know are being played like fiddles- Catholic Left- Catholic Right- how about straight Catholic- Dorothy Day/Mother Teresa- One Church- liberal give the conservative his due, conservative give the liberal his- you both make some sense.

If Catholics had their act together, we wouldn't be the butt of so much unholy humor, we wouldn't be destroying Iraqis and creating enraged jihadists at every turn, we wouldn't be killing our offspring and cheering right to choose death for our kids, we wouldn't be fighting a losing cause in standing up to a divorce/gay oversexualized culture, we wouldn't be calling social programs 'the beast", we wouldn't be questioning the value of faith-based organizations, we wouldn't have a global economy built on the backs of Chinese slave laborers and poor, desperate workers trapped in corrupt/failed nations with border guards keeping everyone and everything just in place so that the elites can keep their station secured, Hollywood wouldn't be making Da Vinci Code movies anymore than they are likely to make a Protocols of Zion film...but alas, American Catholics are either too wimpy, or too caught up in the exciting idiocies of party politics, to be of much service to the world for Christ's poor and vulnerable.

The only reason we are so powerless in America is that we are so clueless as to what freedom we have here in America- we are like the cave-dweller in Plato's parable gazing at shadows, missing out on the direct sunlight so easily found.

about priest's being underequipped is a good one. However, they don't have to be defenseless in the PR arena. I apologize...here's another back in the day example (I also used to work in fast food, if you want cutting-edge examples in that field... just kidding): The national arm of a trade organization I used to do PR for offered a "spokesperson training" workshop for the rank and file membership, made up mostly of small business owners. The purpose behind the workshop was that someone in the field would be a lot more effective and believable in promoting the industry than someone in PR would be.

The workshop lasted a day, we provided lunch, and we had the PR vice president from the national association and a former reporter from Chicago come in and teach them how to handle an interview, what their rights were, and to avoid being misquoted, etc. Each association member was videotaped twice that day doing mock interviews. The first time, each member was interviewed without any preparation. Then everybody learned some tricks of the trade, and were re-interviewed on tape. You could see a big difference.

The woman who spearheaded this workshop left the national association and has struck out on her own with the Chicago reporter and offers these workshops. I thought about talking to my bishop about getting in touch with her to see if we could do something like this in my diocese. Our bishop is great, but I don't know if he would have an interest in this. Anyway, Margaret's latest post on this made me think about it.

Maureen

I was thinking more about Steve's post and Tim's post, and the fact someone would need to keep up with trends and story ideas for priests or other Church spokespeople. Is this something the Morley Institute could develop -- some kind of orthodox Catholic PR firm in D.C. that could avail itself to local dioceses? Most things would need to happen on the local level to be effective, but it would be good if diocese staffers had staff in Washington they could call. Also, this group could distribute information and ideas via email and through publications to bishops, etc.

Maureen

Maureen, I'd love to take that PR class you described. Which brings me to your second point: I'm probably the last person to ask about setting up a PR firm. Heh. It's a good idea, though...

Tim, I am so with you man. I'd like to post your comment on my blog. It's like (wasn't it Edmund Burke?) said: "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I ought to track down this study, but an old priest friend of mine was telling me about a study by (Shoot! what is that big polling organization?) that the Catholic Church in America is like this sleeping giant. If it ever wanted to do almost anything it could muster overwhelming resources. I don't know if we have been divided or if we just divide ourselves--I think part of it is that Catholics have historically tried too hard to prove to the country that we are patriotic and not part of a Popish plot.

Jefferson said "an enlightened citizenry is indispensible for the proper functioning of a republic". In this mass media age it is tough to stay on top of things and remain enlightened of what the heck is going on. But the people who want to tear this nation apart sure do. In addition to good PR, we need Catholics who go into journalism and other professions of the "chatting class" who are paid to know and do their job. Then the rest of us need to pay attention.

BTW, I think Inside Catholic is doing an excellent job, and I like the diversity and debate not just with those who comment, but also between contributors--and how the contributors are able to take criticism from each other in stride. These are healthy signs methinks.