Shining light on sexual abuse

Films generally rely on drama to attract the attention of viewers. And with viewers’ attention spans becoming shorter and shorter, a drama like Spotlight is a rarity.

The film tells the story of the investigation by a team at the Boston Globe newspaper, beginning in 2001, of cases of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests in the Boston diocese.

 

 

That investigation took many months of sustained, difficult work. And the film is faithful in showing the careful, persistent work that journalism requires, especially in uncovering a story of such magnitude.

Marty Baron, an outsider—“an unmarried man of the Jewish faith who hates baseball”—arrives from Miami as the new editor of the Globe and assigns a team of journalists to investigate allegations against John Geoghan, an unfrocked priest accused of molesting more than 80 boys.

The paper’s “spotlight” team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative unit in the United States, is led by editor Walter “Robby” Robinson and includes reporters Michael Rezendes, Matt Carroll and Sacha Pfeiffer. They interview victims and try to unseal sensitive documents.

They run into many roadblocks. The cases brought against various priests were settled in mediation, and the information about those cases is sealed and unavailable.

The culture of Boston is infused with the sense that the Catholic Church is an important and necessary player in the city’s life. Robinson keeps hearing warnings to back off. The church does many good things; you don’t want to spoil that.

As part of their investigation, they interview some victims who are now adults. These are the most moving scenes in the film. While the abuse happened when they were young boys and they are now grown men, it’s clear their souls are broken. We get a glimpse of track marks on one man’s arm. Another man explains that he’s now sober but struggled for years with addiction.

A greater damage to these victims, however, is that the abuse helped destroy their faith in God. Even Rezendes, the reporter, who, like most of the others, grew up Catholic, says that while he hasn’t gone to church in years, he always thought he would return. Now, it’s clear, he won’t.

Pfeiffer, while going door to door, encounters the retired priest who had molested one of the men she had talked to earlier. He admits what he did, then adds, “but I never felt gratified myself,” as if that made it OK.

The film is especially good in its attention to detail. It gets so much right about journalism—how diligent reporters must be to obtain multiple sources, how they have to write everything down, how every piece of information is important.

In one scene, Rezendes is talking with a lawyer named Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci) about addenda to court documents. Garabedian says, “You don’t know the half of it.” Like a good reporter, Rezendes says, “Tell me the half of it.” And that leads to a key piece of evidence in breaking the story.

When they’ve turned in their initial story (they end up publishing over 600), Baron, the editor-in-chief, is copyediting the piece and says, “Too many adjectives.”

The film also shows that Robinson had a chance to break this story five years earlier but buried it and didn’t pursue the information he received.

Spotlight is an outstanding film that shows the power of the press in exposing the injustices of powers, like the Catholic Church, that try to hide their sins “for the greater good.”

Only the news that's allowed

I imagine few of you read Columbia Journalism Review, which I receive at work and which is a key periodical in my profession as a journalist. This mag offers insights into trends in the industry and uncovers interesting stories of journalists and their work.

One point CJR makes often is that the industry has changed dramatically over the years in ways that have serious consequences for our citizenry and learning the truth about what’s happening in our country and around the world. For example, here’s a quote from CJR I’m using in the magazine I help edit, The Mennonite (in our August issue, page 11): “Six companies dominate TV news, radio, online, movies and publishing. Another eight or nine control most of the nation’s newspapers.”

What this means is that for much of what you read in these media, “the news that’s fit to print” (the tagline for the New York Times) means the news that won’t hurt the business of the corporation that runs that news outlet. There are alternative sources of news out there, but they don’t reach many people, and their funds are limited.

Anyway, the July/August issue of CJR offers an example of this in a story called “Cell Coverage.” CJR’s Alysia Santo interviews Paul Wright, who began his journalism career behind bars. He spent 17 years in prison and was released in 2003. While in Washington State’s prison system, he co-founded Prison Legal News.

PLN began as a 10-page newsletter but is now a 56-page monthly magazine (hmm, just like The Mennonite) with subscribers in all 50 states and several other countries.

In the interview, Wright tells how he came to start this newsletter. He says he was surprised by the treatment of prisoners and decided that “regardless of what I’d been convicted of, I deserved to be treated better than I was.”

Wright studied law in prison and filed complaints about the violence and racism he witnessed. In 1990, he witnessed a beating of a black inmate by white guards and wrote press releases about it to all the media outlets he knew but got no response. So he ran the story in PLN, and prison officials “infracted” him for “lying” about staff. Later they put him in solitary confinement.

Wright says: “One of the ironies was that I got no media interest in the beatings themselves, but my being retaliated against for writing about the beatings made it to the front page of The Seattle Times.”

He says one of the reasons he started PLN was to make people aware of what happens in American prisons, which he says is “pretty indefensible.” He says he can only try to make people aware of what’s going on. “If people don’t care about it once they know, I can’t do anything about apathy. But I can do something about ignorance.”

Wright talks about private companies profiting from using prison labor, including some of the world’s largest. “Microsoft and Starbucks used prison labor for packaging,” he says. “Boeing had prisoners making aircraft parts. Planet Hollywood, Eddie Bauer and Union Bay were all using prisoners as garment manufacturers. The height of irony was when Nintendo was using inmates at Twin Rivers Correction Center, which houses Washington’s sex-offender treatment program, to package children’s video games.”

In 1994, Wright says, a conservative Republican named Jack Metcalf was running for Congress in the district where Wright was in prison. Metcalf campaigned on being tough on crime and supporting the death penalty. But he was using a company that employed prisoners to do his telemarketing.

Wright called a lawyer friend who had media contacts about running a story about this. But The Seattle Times and the Post-Intelligencer said this was not a noteworthy issue. So two alternative papers, Counter-Punch and The Stranger, broke the story a week after the election. Eventually it became a page one story in The Seattle Times.

Let me add one more of Wright’s stories, and then I’ll stop.

In 2007, PLN settled a censorship lawsuit against the state of California. But when Wright talked to the Los Angeles court reporter for the LA Times, he said, “Well, we don’t really think this is of interest to our readers.” Wright points out to him that “Los Angeles County sends more people to prison than any other county in California, so surely those prisoners have family members that are going to be affected by these changes.” The reporter says, “That’s not really our advertising demographic.”

There it is in a nutshell. It’s about the money and about what’s good for the corporation that owns the media outlet. I know there are many dedicated reporters that want to break such stories, but in many cases their hands are tied. The advertisers pay the bill and get to make the rules. It used to be that subscribers paid the bill, but too few people subscribe nowadays.

If you want to take this as encouragement to subscribe to a newspaper, go ahead, though I’m not too hopeful. If you want to take this as encouragement to dig for sources that tell us what’s happening to mostly voiceless people such as prisoners, please do. Dig.