[/blockquote] It is journalistically irresponsible to continue to write that the breakaway bishops represent 100,000 people and that these people have left the Episcopal Church when the bishops have provided no evidence that this is the case, and there are so many reasons to doubt the accuracy of their claim.” — Jim Naughton, director of communications for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, writing on the diocese’s blog.[/blockquote]
Maybe this is true. Who knows? But a journalistic effort to get an accurate read on the true actual size of the new Anglican group would be completely irrelevant without a similar journalistic effort to get an accurate read on the true actual size of the remaining Episcopal group.
I have to admit I am curious enough to pitch in $100 to finance the study.
From Jim Naughton:
“It is journalistically irresponsible to continue to write that the breakaway bishops represent 100,000 people and that these people have left the Episcopal Church when the bishops have provided no evidence that this is the case, and there are so many reasons to doubt the accuracy of their claim.”
Not from Jim McNaughton:
“It is journalistically irresponsible to continue to write that TEC represents 2,300,000 (sometimes 2,400,000) and that these people have remained in the Episcopal Church when the bishops have provided no evidence that this is the case, and there are so many reasons to doubt the accuracy of their claim.”
Jim Naughton is either displaying his ignorance here, or more likely is deliberately making a very misleading statement to try to make his opponents look bad. The 100K figure for the ASA (average Sunday attendance) in the new Anglican entity called the Anglican Church in North America is pretty solidly established.
But the point is this: No one in the ACNA is claiming, Naughton naughtily suggests, that all those 100K people “left TEC.” Of course not. It includes the REC and other conservative groups that aren’t breakaways, at least in any plausible or current sense, from TEC.
Naughton is knocking down a straw man. It’s a totally bogus argument. And yes, it’s downright “snarky” in a reprehensible and irresponsible way. He is the one who is being an irresponsible journalist here. He is acting as a propagandist instead.
[/blockquote] It is journalistically irresponsible to continue to write that the breakaway bishops represent 100,000 people and that these people have left the Episcopal Church when the bishops have provided no evidence that this is the case, and there are so many reasons to doubt the accuracy of their claim.” — Jim Naughton, director of communications for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, writing on the diocese’s blog.[/blockquote]
Maybe this is true. Who knows? But a journalistic effort to get an accurate read on the true actual size of the new Anglican group would be completely irrelevant without a similar journalistic effort to get an accurate read on the true actual size of the remaining Episcopal group.
I have to admit I am curious enough to pitch in $100 to finance the study.
From Jim Naughton:
“It is journalistically irresponsible to continue to write that the breakaway bishops represent 100,000 people and that these people have left the Episcopal Church when the bishops have provided no evidence that this is the case, and there are so many reasons to doubt the accuracy of their claim.”
“It is journalistically irresponsible to continue to write that TEC represents 2,300,000 (sometimes 2,400,000) and that these people have remained in the Episcopal Church when the bishops have provided no evidence that this is the case, and there are so many reasons to doubt the accuracy of their claim.”
Jim Naughton is either displaying his ignorance here, or more likely is deliberately making a very misleading statement to try to make his opponents look bad. The 100K figure for the ASA (average Sunday attendance) in the new Anglican entity called the Anglican Church in North America is pretty solidly established.
But the point is this: No one in the ACNA is claiming, Naughton naughtily suggests, that all those 100K people “left TEC.” Of course not. It includes the REC and other conservative groups that aren’t breakaways, at least in any plausible or current sense, from TEC.
Naughton is knocking down a straw man. It’s a totally bogus argument. And yes, it’s downright “snarky” in a reprehensible and irresponsible way. He is the one who is being an irresponsible journalist here. He is acting as a propagandist instead.
Surprise, Surprise.
David Handy+
Well, just remember: all that glitters is not gold.
[i] [Naughton] is acting as a propagandist [/i]
That’s now his job. What an ending for someone who formerly headed the Poynter Foundation!