This is a data file meant to be read by an RSS reader. See http://www.wjla.com/rss/index.html for more information. Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:23:00 EST News en-us Copyright 2008, Allbritton Communications Company [CDATA[We need to make every effort to cover every issue in the most fair and objective manner possible....]] [CDATA[The Presidential primaries are over, and it appears the Democrats have a presumptive nominee in Senator Barack Obama. The battle between Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton attracted much attention because of the historic connotations of having either the first woman nominee or the first African American nominee. The Republican race has received less attention, but it, too, has had its own share of drama. It is easy to forget that at this time last year, John McCain's candidacy had been all but given up for dead. That he is now the presumptive GOP nominee is also a fascinating, if less historic, narrative.

Lots of issues have come to the forefront as a result of this primary campaign. For Democrats, this campaign has exposed deep fissures over race and gender issues. For both parties, the issue of religion has come up in the most unexpected ways, spotlighting the interplay of religion and politics. Once upon a time, the two subjects were not discussed in polite company. As recently as 30 years ago, people of the cloth seemed to worry more about saving souls than endorsing candidates, at least publicly. Politicians kept their religious views close to the vest. But all that has changed in recent years, and whether it's good or bad I'll leave that for others to judge. One thing is certain, politics and religion are mixing today and that mix has created heartburn for candidates.

Obama and McCain have had pastor problems. First, there was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his fiery and controversial sermons some deemed Anti-American. Then, there were John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Hagee made statements some deemed anti-Catholic and still other highly controversial remarks about Hitler and the Holocaust. Parsley's comments criticizing Islam were deemed anti-Muslim by some.

The latest religious storm struck when the Reverend Michael Pfleger delivered racially-charged remarks mocking Hillary Clinton,prompting Obama to resign from his church. The clip of the remarks was shown widely on cable news, sparking much outrage. Now, Cardinal Francis George has temporarily removed Fr. Pfleger from his post so he can reflect on what he said.



Another priest in New York delivered a prayer at a New York State Republican fundraising dinner May 29, 2008.



Some bloggers have given these comments by Monsignor Jim Lisante attention, but this clip hasn't been played in a loop on cable news the way Rev. Pfleger's comments were. No church officials, to my knowledge, have temporarily removed him from his post so he can reflect on his remarks. Whether that should happen is strictly up to Catholic Church officials.

What troubles me as a journalist is whether we're picking and choosing which controversies get the kind of attention that spurs action. If Msgr. Lisante's remarks had been as widely played on cable television as Fr. Pfleger's, would New York’s Cardinal Edward Egan take action similar to that taken by Chicago's Cardinal George? How do we in the media decide which remarks are controversial or offensive enough to merit widespread coverage? Were Fr. Pfleger's remarks more controversial because of the pulpit theatrics, or perhaps because they were delivered at Obama's now former church in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy? Were Msgr. Lisante's comments less controversial because they were delivered in a prayer/invocation at a dinner with no theatrics? Did Msgr. Lisante's remarks garner less attention because of the news cycle? Do they warrant more attention and scrutiny?

These are all questions we in the media should ponder because above all else, we need to make every effort to cover every issue in the most fair and objective manner possible. In this case, two priests made controversial, some might even say inflammatory remarks. Media coverage of the two is different. Outcomes for the priests involved are, so far, different. Has the media played a role in those different outcomes? Again, all are points worth pondering.]] http://www.wjla.com/blogs/kirk/umm.html Beverly Kirk Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:23:00 EST http://www.wjla.com/blogs/kirk/1085/umm.html