Archbishop Charles J. Chaput: The religion beat is where 'our defining freedoms meet'

A free press is part of the American identity. It’s also one of our essential institutions. A responsible press and a faith shaped by the God of charity and justice share two things in common: a concern for human dignity, and an interest in truth.

This is why — to be specific — journalism coverage of religion is so important.

Believers and non-believers might define that word “truth” differently, and the differences might be serious. But an honest search for it creates a kind of maturity. And that maturity enables us to build a decent, common future through our choices here and now.

Freedom means that our choices matter. And our mistakes have consequences. That’s why so many people, increasingly today, seem to want a rescue from the burden of personal responsibility; deliverance from the work of thinking critically about themselves, their world, their mortality and the purpose of their lives.

We all struggle with these temptations. Americans as a people are no exception.

So I can imagine an America without a genuinely free and fair press. And I can imagine an America with much less religious faith. We’re well on the way to getting both. But in either case, the result will be a very different America and a betrayal of the generations that built it.

So are most journalists truly secular? No, many seem to practice their own one true religion

It happens almost every time I write a GetReligion post about former New York Times editor Bill Keller and how the great Gray Lady -- the world's most influential newspaper -- handles coverage of controversial events and trends tied to religion, culture and morality.

Someone, either in email, online comments or even in face-to-face chatter, will say that Times people struggle with these topics because (a) elite journalists know that religious people are stupid and deserve to have their beliefs mangled or because (b) the Times newsroom is full of people who, truth be told, hate religion.

Obviously, belief (a) tends to show up among liberal readers (and critics of this here weblog) and belief (b) is popular on the cultural and religious right. Truth be told, both of these beliefs are wrong and fail to explain the patterns seen day after day in the hallowed pages of the Times.

I bring this up because of the recent post that ran with the headline, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends: 'Why Readers See The Times As Liberal'." That post was also the hook for this week's "Crossroads" podcast. Click here to tune that in.

During my chat with host Todd Wilken, I mentioned a famous article that is highly relevant to this topic, a PressThink essay by journalism professor Jay Rosen of New York University entitled "Journalism Is Itself a Religion."

Wilken asked me to take a shot at explaining what that headline means. Actually, it's easier to let Rosen do that.

So let's look at two parts of his essay. First, there is a discussion of "The Journalist's Creed," which references an oath written by Walter Williams, dean of the University of Missouri School of Journalism from 1908-1935. Basically, Rosen argues, we are dealing with a very idealistic form of secular faith. This first statement is, he noted, rather "tame" and points toward some brand of civil religion.

Let us attend.