EpiScope

Here's a fine example of why I am ticked at Episcopal News Service – EpiScope in particular today.

A friend sent me this link to EpiScope today. EpiScope wrote:

The pre-Lambeth Conference articles are appearing in major media outlets as the Conference opening nears. Here are today's Associated Press interview with the Presiding Bishop which appeared nationwide, and a discussion with Arizona Bishop Kirk Smith. Then, there is the sham "ambush" journalism in the Telegraph (UK), not listed here!

Links to the AP and Smith stories were included. But EpiScope provided no link to the article they characterized as "sham 'ambush' journalism." Of course, Google is our friend. I did a bit of searching, and found the article that ticked off (frightened?) the EpiScope writer.

"Sham ambush journalism"? How childish is that? I expect more from ENS staff.

Fortunately, there is at least one grown-up in the room. Jim Naughton reported as a journalist would. He cited the stupid Telegraph article and dismembered it, tore it apart, sentence by sentence and phrase by phrase. Now why the hell didn't the ENS staffer do that???

The Telegraph article was stupid. A decent journalist was able to tear it apart. Why did the EpiScope writer flee as if the Telegraph story were the abomination of desolation?

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I criticize what has become of the Episcopal "News" Service in the last few months.

One commenter on this blog suggested we rename ENS as "Empty News Service." I'm inclined to agree with him. For a couple of years, ENS had journalists who were willing to go toe-to-toe against journalistic errors. I don't know whether there's been staff turnover at ENS, or whether the ENS staff has been told to "stand down." But this is a good example of the kind of change I'm perceiving and lamenting.