Truth and Falsity in Catholic Journalism

I have had frequent occasions as a writer, then editor, and finally editor-in-chief, to consider exactly what it is that I spend my time on as I write for the Torch. What is the point of Catholic journalism? If it has a particular angle, what is it? Is it either empty and void, or dangerous as an inherently biased source? I have accumulated a series of insights, albeit disconnected ones, that perhaps you may profit from, reader.

Why don’t we begin with a definition of bias? Per the Merriam-WebsterDictionary, it is “an inclination of temperament or outlook, especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment (prejudice).” Thus, bias tends to distort the truth through subjective interpretation.

When we lay that alongside a Catholic perspective of truth and reporting, there will be found some adequacies and inadequacies in such a definition.

Truth is, as Aquinas states in De Veritate, the correspondence of being and the knower, or “the conformity of the thing and the intellect.” It’s knowing something as it is, or as nearly as possible. Thus, to report the truth in a newspaper is to report on things as close to their actual happening as possible given human limitations of perception and knowledge. In so doing, we abscond as far as possible from prejudice, humbly acknowledging the limits of individual perception.

Well, what’s the further problem? Can’t we leave it there?

Let me make this suggestion: There is some lack of clarity around the usage of the word bias. It is frequently assumed, it seems to me, that a lack of bias equates to truth; I disagree. I do not think that truth and the lack of bias (as it is usually understood) are necessarily synonymous terms.

There is one sense in which a lack of prejudice does tend to lead to truth: Truth and falsity are not equal opponents. The truth has absolute priority of existence; falsity is a surd in Creation resulting from sin. Truth, the Logos, the Son, has always been with the Father. The father of lies, meanwhile, is a creature.

But in another way, lack of prejudice does not equate to truth, for it is also a fact held by Christianity that the world is a spiritual battlefield in which evil and falsity do have power, else there would be no strife. Pontius Pilate speaks for fallen mankind when he mocks truth. So it is that, for practical purposes, we are accustomed to treating falsehood as an equal and opposite opponent of truth in a kind of dualism. Or, barring that extreme of an outlook, we still acknowledge that truth is often a difficult thing to actually strive after and attain.

I hope the foregoing is not terribly controversial, at least given the premises of Catholicism. But there’s more that follows. Because of our worldly reality, falsity is a real possibility, even a powerful temptation. So it is that we speak of bias as a prejudice, a refusal to understand other possible perspectives. 

Like falsity, truth also is not just a passive choice, some mere objectivity; in this world suffused with moral quandaries, to speak what is really the case is a positive decision to the exclusion of its many opposite falsehoods. Statistically, there are far more wrong interpretations of events than right ones.

Two things follow from the facts of truth’s transcendent priority but also falsity’s worldly power. First, every Catholic, and consequently every Catholic enterprise, has an absolute allegiance to truth, nay, to Truth, the personal one; not because Truth belongs to an individual (no nonsense of “your” and “my” truth) but because it is a Person to which we belong. Furthermore, it is a positive decision to live in truth and spread it, not a mere absence of falsity. That latter option is what I think is the common notion of objectivity, which is rife with a sort of passivity that I find unsatisfactory. One must have a positive allegiance to truth, not just a removal of prejudice.

Let’s see how this plays out practically. An important implication of Catholicism is that a journalist, out of the principles both of charity and prudence, must never speculate on the motives of a person without certain knowledge. To do so with doubtful evidence is easily the occasion of slander.

Yet Catholic moral theology teaches that, while motivation and circumstances are important components of an action that an outsider cannot accurately judge, the most important criterion of morality is the act itself. There are things inherently right or wrong that always bear a kind of stain no matter how noble and mitigating the circumstances may be. Even if a person may be wholly excused from guilt, it does not make the act itself good; the act remains culpable.

Another way to explain that principle is that I reject a fact/value distinction. Morality pertains not just to the subjective realm but the objective as well; a non-compliant person cannot be convicted, but a guilty act can be condemned nonetheless. Doing so would not be a prejudice, but simply a judicious move in favor of truth, of moral truth.

There is, then, within Catholic journalism the possibility, and even the responsibility, of morally critiquing any objective component of an act or event it may report on. The Church has not and never will hold a distinction of values and morals from things. Journalism must be balanced and charitable, but never amoral.

That being said, I must repeat that it is the duty of a Catholic to recall to a reader what is really the case, what really happened, and furthermore to charitably abstain from speculating on motives without due investigation. 

Therefore, you might say that I am ‘biased’ to the Truth. If you want to be less dramatic, I am positively interested in Truth for its own sake. It follows, it seems to me, from being Catholic.

There are other things that follow from a Catholic perspective on journalism. For instance, it cannot be sensationalist; truth is spread not for the sake of drama or views, but for its own sake. The desire to make a splash, get in on the latest scoop, won’t do.

This somewhat amusing weakness of modern journalism was pointed out aptly by Chesterton; newspapers report to you that Lord Jones is dead without ever telling you he was alive to begin with. A humorous example, perhaps, but indicating the slanted worldview that results from a sensationalist approach.

Catholic journalism should powerfully tackle ongoing problems, but never for the sake of causing controversy or even weighing into it. The truth is already perilous enough to speak without rashly rushing to dramatics.

Well, I hope you tolerated my ramblings well enough. Whether or not you attained any philosophical insights, I remain your faithful editor-in-chief here at the Torch.