Covering the abuse scandal the second time around

Over at Get Religion, Mollie Ziegler points out this Pew Forum study on the media coverage of the recent wave of clergy sex abuse allegations — the most scrutiny the Church has received since the story first broke in 2002.

From mid-March (when the pope’s role in a decades-old abuse case in Germany came under scrutiny) through late April, clergy sexual abuse was the eighth biggest story in the mainstream media, beating out coverage of nuclear weapons policy and the Tea Party movement. The biggest week of coverage was March 22-28, when news organizations reported on the failure of Vatican officials years ago, including the future pope, to defrock an American priest who had abused nearly 200 deaf boys. The church scandal was the fourth biggest topic in the mainstream news that week.

The coverage in other parts of the world has been more intense than it has here in the States this time around — understandably so, as most of the stories have involved priests of other countries. Another major difference in the reporting this go-round is the scrutiny brought to bear on the pope: The report says that more than half (51.6%) of the news stories from this six-week period involve Pope Benedict. (To put that in perspective: Eight years ago, John Paul II was mentioned in only 15.5% of abuse stories.)

One possible explanation for the difference may be that Benedict has closer direct ties to the issue than John Paul — both as prefect of the CDF overseeing some of these abuse cases and as the archbishop of Munich when one abusive priest was returned to ministry. But that hardly accounts for the huge disparity between his share of the coverage — more than half! — and those actually involved in abuse or its cover up: Father Maciel, for instance, or Cardinal Sean Brady, the leader of the Church in Ireland who stands accused of trying to silence victims of one abusive priest (both 1.6% of the share of stories).

The Pew Report suggests that the focus on the pope has to do with what has been “perceived as clumsy Vatican efforts at damage control.” Mollie has a different perspective, suggesting that media outlets went gunning for the pope, and when that wasn’t successful, they let the issue drop (accounting for the sharp drop-off in stories after that initial six-week frenzy):

I think that most media outlets who wanted in on the action took their best shot against the Pope and nothing really paid off. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the after-effect of this most recent wave of media coverage will be truly hurtful to the church, as Ross Douthat argues at The Atlantic. Whether the coverage was fair overall is another question. But I think things died down because these reports tried to bring Benedict down. And when it didn’t work, folks lost interest. If these same reports had tried a different approach — less focused on Benedict XVI and more focused on the institutional problems that led to the situation, I think things might have been different.

Looking at the numbers, it’s hard to read the situation any other way. Abuse allegations against mid-level priests and bishops are nothing new; but if you can bring down the man at the top, that’s a story. The media couldn’t, of course — but you can’t say they didn’t try.