Keep an eye on the Boston Globe tomorrow. I was interviewed for an article that is putatively about how blogs are contributing to the Fr. Walter Cuenin story (there are others?), but the reporter seemed to focus a lot on my brother and whether I had any personal connection to Cuenin (I don’t). I think he’s trying to find some kind of connection or conspiracy (there isn’t).
As longtime readers know, I’ve been writing about Cuenin (and any other heterodox dissenters) since the day I started this blog at the beginning of July 2001.
The reporter did say that he was looking to show that apart from those protesting Cuenin’s resignation there are many others who think it’s a good thing. If that’s the thrust of the story, then good.
So go ahead and read the story in the newspaper tomorrow and then come here for the rest of the story.
I think you might be unrealistically optimistic to think something like that will be the _thrust_ of any story which appears in the Globe.
My best guess is that, if it shows up at all, is that the story will end up as being an intrinsically disingenous, thinly veiled hatchet-job against those who think it’s a good thing, which would be par for the course in their reporting.
Of course, there’s always hope for change. I will be pleasantly surprised to be wrong.
Haven’t found the story yet; maybe Sunday?
Incidentally, I think the most recent two Globe religion reporters have been pretty good. Michael Paulson seems to try to be fair to everybody, and it was often a pleasure to read a piece by his predecessor Diego Ribedaneira. (I didn’t read Jim Franklin often enough to have an opinion.)
Paulson is a parishioner at Our Lady’s, but hasn’t disclosed this fact in the stories he’s written on the parish or Cuenin. I think that’s a mistake.
And I certainly don’t think he’s been fair. To myeyes, his bias is obvious.