KSH: Yesterday's Erroneous Front Page Local paper story on Saint Andrew's Departure

Please, please do not link to this story or email it without sending Lydia Evans’ letter already posted earlier also.

Here is the article. Take special note of the following. This section:

[The Rev. Steve] Wood said his parish has “tried to handle (the disagreement) as gracefully as possible and as non-reactively as possible.” He said he did not think the bishop was interested in pursuing legal action against the parish, adding that the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence’s decision to remain part of the Episcopal Church “enabled” St. Andrew’s to leave it

originally was missing the word NOT between did and think. That is, in the originally published version Steve Wood was depicted as saying he DID think Mark Lawrence would pursue legal action, whereas Steve said in fact the OPPOSITE. It is because of errors of this magnitude, as well as the complete misprepresentation of the US Supreme Court situation, that I was unable to post this artiucle and the second smaller related article yesterday. It would simply have caused too much confusion. Please do not add to the confusion yourselves–KSH.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * South Carolina, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, Media, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Departing Parishes, TEC Diocesan Conventions/Diocesan Councils

8 comments on “KSH: Yesterday's Erroneous Front Page Local paper story on Saint Andrew's Departure

  1. freihofercook says:

    Reading this and Lydia Evans’ letter below, I do not understand why the Charleston Post and Courier (I think that is the name) has this reporter on this beat. These are very basic errors he is making.

  2. Creighton+ says:

    It is sad when the local paper and journalist do such a poor job or maybe seek to be more sensational than the facts indicate. Thanks Lydia for setting the record straight.

    God bless you all, Bishop Lawrence, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of SC, the Diocese and St. Andrews Mt. Pleasant as you work it all out.

  3. APB says:

    There was a time when a major newspaper would have genuinely skilled reporters covering specialty issues. These days, whether it is religion, technology, science, etc, they are usually generalists for whom this is a sideline. Years ago I asked one of the few excellent technology and space reporters about this. He agreed, predicting it would get worse rather than better. He said something to the effect that if the typical science reporter did the same quality job on sports, he would be gone in a week. The same seems to apply to religion, though the mandated Politically Correct slant it much more pronounced.

  4. Milton says:

    Perhaps it was a Freudian slip? 😉

  5. New Reformation Advocate says:

    Naughty, Milton.

    Kendall, good call. Alas, it doesn’t help when journalists make such a serious blunder in reporting something so important and controversial.

    David Handy+

  6. gregshore says:

    The reporter in question, Adam Parker, emailed Steve Wood with an apology early in the morning and had the online version corrected soon after. He submitted his story with the word ‘not’ in the text. He’s a good guy and has worked hard to understand all of the nuances and history of the issues in TEC and DioSC.

  7. Blue Cat Man says:

    Gregshore, How are you sure that the original story was correct in having the word “not”. If what you say is true,then it begs the question, who at the newspaper changed the text and deleted the word? Interesting. More evidence of interference by one of the PB supporters??

  8. Kendall Harmon says:

    #7, that kind of thing is much better explained as having occurred by a copying or editing mistake.