I guess Roy Rivenberg wouldn't have a problem teaching a journalism class at Bob Jones University either.

"Christian Journalism" sounds like a code word for "biased, right-wing journalism."

Roy Rivenburg (it's with a "u," Joseph!) is a veteran reporter, a masterful writer, and a friend from whom I have learned a lot. Why is it so awful that he would teach anyone how to do a good job in journalism? Or would Joseph and Nancy (and LA Observed) prefer that journalists -- from any perspective -- come into the field with little training and less knowledge? Sheesh!

It would seem to me that exposing journalism students -- of any stripe -- to the best in the business would be a good thing.

Well, that's a pretty facile generalization.

What if it were "Catholic journalism" or "Jewish Journalism"? Point is, the threat is that folks like Rivenburg can be suspected nw of heavily-biased journalism, and thus he's worthy of a more-critical eye.

But to be fair, there's not a journalist in the world that does not inject some modicum of bias into his or her reporting by the way s/he arrays and relays the facts chosen to illustrate a piece of news when any cultural or socio-political issue is at stake.

Until we have the technology to record and play back unedited the thoughts of principal sources and subjects of news stories to juxtapose them with their words and actions, even the best journalism will contain some interpretive bias. (And were that to happen, we'd be left with something unmanageably dull.) Even clinical "car-killed-man" cop briefs come filtered through the reporting officer's view of the scene.

It's the nature of human storytelling that we rely on journalists to distill it all down for us. Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart are equally capable of imparting "news." You just have to know how high to adjust your personal bullsh*t filter.

(Sorry, I was responding to Nancy's post one above)

What Mack and Mark said.

Nancy, you represent a subset of the population apparently unable to draw distinctions between being religiously observant and being biased. A shame, but very common.

I'm a reporter, and a Christian, at a large media company. The papers that my company owns have maybe 200 reporters and we all work in the same facility.

There are also copy editors and graphic design folks, etc.

I know of only one Protestant (me) and one practising Roman Catholic in the entire newsroom. I know of maybe 5 lapsed Roman Catholics.

The rest are either vitriolic in their anti-Christianity, apathetic, Jewish, Buddhist or otherwise.

Compared to the communities we write for, Christians are WAY underrepresented. As are Blacks for that matter.

I don't think people need to worry any time soon about Christians having any dominant role in the newsroom.

We should worry about the fact that our reporters and editors are completely out of touch with the world we write for.

Religion is an irrational response to Death. Unable to deal with the fact of mortality an Invisible Benevolent Despot of a Daddy is manufactured to reward us all with a slice of equally invisible pie in the sky in the "next world." With our eyes distract by the promise of the "next world" what goes on in this one is more easily controlled by the "pious" who when not othewise engaged in amounting tax-free financial "contributions," rape the children put in their care.

The sooner we dispose of this nonsense, the better.

This is it, folks. One life to a customer. Make the most of it.

What should trouble people is why the World Journalism Institute is pretending that it never knew Jack Kelley.

I wrote to the head urging him to acknowledge the association. He's refused to reply.

So much for their claim of being ardent lovers of truth.

I must say that I generally agree with Ehrenstein's take on religion.

However: there's no denying that every society on this planet has religions and that nearly all humans recognize some "spiritual" aspect of their lives.

Someday science will discover the gland which secretes spirituality into the human body ... until then we have to deal with the religious nature of our species.

If our default position is "people who believe in God are misguided fools" there will be (excuse the expression) hell to pay.

David, the point of Christianity (and most of the major religions) is that there are intangible, eternal principles, such as Truth and Justice, and hence an inherent tendency of the universe toward good. The main concern of the major religions is that people (including many who pretend to belong to the religion) are far more interested in tangible things and so they cease to believe in the intangible ones. In the Christian/Jewish/Muslim value system, there's no fundamental difference between someone who worships a golden calf and someone who worships George Bush, the Almighty Dollar, Power, or *anything* other than Truth and Justice.

Don't blame the religions for the flaws of their followers. And even though they may lag the vanguard, the churches, synagogues and mosques remain one of the bulwarks against the abandonment of the quest for social justice and grassroots democracy.

John Ashcroft, Osama bin Laden and Arik Sharon notwithstanding.

The WJI says, "...Christians did not stand-up for God in the newsrooms, these cultural institutions went into declension...."

You mean like nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and ablative? Well, of COURSE, then.

Good point Mack, but why train a critical eye on Rivenburg's future articles when you can look at what he's already written. From what I've read, I can't tell he's Catholic - and his politics seem all over the place. If anything, I guessed he was somewhat liberal.

Roy has long been one of my favorite LAT writers (his profile on Cal Worthington a few years back was terrific). Given his published track record and explanation, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that his journalism-teaching seminars at the WJI has not influenced his work.

"The main concern of the major religions is that people (including many who pretend to belong to the religion) are far more interested in tangible things and so they cease to believe in the intangible ones."

I can't think of anything more tangible that the LOOT accumulated by the major religions of the world.

If they're so interested in intangibility then money should not be involved in any way shape or form.

It seems to me that training college kids to be good journalists is a worthy calling, no matter their religion.

It also seems to me that comments questioning the validity of that religion are -- or ought to be -- irrelevant to this discussion. I disagree with atheism -- and New Age mysticism and Paganism for that matter -- but if there were such a thing as an actively atheistic or New Age or Pagan j-school, I would still hope those kids are learning good journalism from somebody.

I also have to say that I agree with "Can't Leave My Name" that there is an anti-Christian bias in many newsrooms, and frankly, this discussion has demonstrated that to a certain degree. "Christian" does not equal "fundamentalist" nor does it mean "conservative." There are such things as liberal and moderate Christians, too, you know, though not apparently among the organizers of the World Journalism Institute. But I do get sick and tired of having so many people, particularly in the media, use "Christian" as shorthand for "mean-sprited bigot" (or, in the words of another respondent, "biased right-winger"). This must be, to a considerably less extreme degree, of course, a little bit like how Muslims feel when ignorant people assume that all Muslims use their religion as an excuse for hatred.

"But I do get sick and tired of having so many people, particularly in the media, use "Christian" as shorthand for "mean-sprited bigot" (or, in the words of another respondent, "biased right-winger"). "

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

And their fruits are damned rotten!!!

A media company with over 200 reporters and Can't Leave My Name can only find one Protestant and one practicing Catholic? I call bullshit on that. It may be that CLMN's colleagues either don't feel the need to decorate their desks with crucifixes, or just don't believe their religious beliefs are of interest to others, and God bless 'em for that.

I've worked with many evangelical Christians of all faiths, and I can tell you that while they're not heavily represented in the newsrooms I know, they're by no means non-existent and have ways of making their presence felt. One, a court reporter, was very fond of writing long accounts of sentencings, at which the convicted felons explained how they got that way. (Hint: It frequently involved PORNOGRAPHY.) Another wrote whiny op-ed pieces about how persecuted Christians are, because no one ever makes movies about rabbis who molest altar boys. Still another policed the language of all within earshot, lest someone take the name of the Lord in vain in his presence.

I see no shortage of God in the newspapers I read, and the smaller the circulation, the more explicit it is. If the WJI wants to train more, let them start with Jack Kelley as Lesson No. 1.

I have to disagree with some of the comments above. I also work for a large metro newspaper, and the folks in our newsroom (including myself) openly discuss our activities outside the business, including our religious affiliations and activities. The difference here, of course, is that we do not openly inject our reporting with the baggage of our religious perspectives. It's a disservice to our readers to wear religion on our sleeves, just as much as it would be wrong to openly campaign for a candidate or advocate any other specific political position. Sure, I have rights to self-expression, but they should be left out of the reporting. These "journalists" teaching at a "Christian journalism school" clearly have decided to leave all possibility of objectivity at the doorstep so they can teach a young group of aspiring "journalists" how to slant their reporting to meet the agenda of the right-wing morality police. And yet there are many who will think this is a wonderful thing because they view the media as being more liberal than themselves. I challenge those who believe this way to examine the efforts of the right-wing media to support the current president and tell me that it's either "fair" or "balanced" in any way. We in the media aren't perfect (who is?) but we certainly get tired of being told how slanted our views are by the same people who watch and listen to openly slanted right-wing commentary masquerading as real and objective news.

I wonder -- would there be the same level of scrutiny if this reporter was teaching a seminar to Native American journalists or gay and lesbian journalists?

Other special-interest groups often are applauded for asserting themselves into the media's realm, and gleaning as much from 'mainstream' experts as they can. For instance, the Rocky Mountain News in Denver recently launched a pretty concerted effort to connect with the area's Hispanic community, including grooming potential journalists, particularly those with Hispanic backgrounds

But insert Christians as the group in question, and a backlash unfolds. Why should they be treated any differently? To me, this only further validates the reality that a bias in the media does exist against Christians.

Actually, in response to Joseph, Bob Jones himself IS a "guest teacher" with WJI.

The concern is that by teaching journalists to write with a particular point of view, rather than a point of view in general, you are training more Jack Kelley's, writers who, when the story doesn't conform, will just make things up.

Remember, Jayson Blair didn't really make things up, he was simply lazy, so he stole.

Skip Bayless, another WJI consultant or whatever, did something similar to Kelley at when he wrote the Wake of the News Column in the Chicago Tribune. This was after Dodger catcher Chad Kreuter (sp?) went into the crowd at Wrigley after a few fans. Two days later, Bayless wrote a hand-wringing society's going to hell column and as an example he wrote about an aimless, nameless 25 y.o. underemployed frat boy who spent his days getting drunk at Cub games. His subject, however, seemed apocryphal. What tipped me off, besides the neat and pat conformity between frat boy's character flaws as seemless personification of societal decay -- his aimlessness, his self-destructive hedonism, etc. -- was how a drunk underemployed 25 y.o living alone with no real parental monetary support other than rent could afford lower level and bleacher seats @ Wrigley Field at least two, three times a week. Anyone who's been to Wrigley in the last few years knows that tickets and beer alone can cost at least one bill.

I e-mailed Chris Malcolm, who was then the online sports editor, about the B.S. in Bayless' column. I was then the editor of a then-cool motorsports website, and he always responded fairly promptly, and when he didn't, I suspected that I wasn't alone.

After it was published Bayless let the story die. He left the Trib not long after, but not after first driving out Bernie Lincicome, successor to the Chicago/Royko School of grouchy writing, although failed to drive out Sammy Sosa. He also made the sin of predicting that Cade McNown, the most hated Chicago sports figure in many years, would be a Pro-Bowl caliber QB.

Anyway, my point is not to bury Bayless, he does that himself with every column he writes (St. Joe's= Elite 8, Stanford=Bye-Bye) but that there is a genuine concern of ideology waging the dog here, that if the point of view doesn't fit the story, just make the story up. I suppose that American journalism has a long and inglorious history of doing just that, but do we really want to go back to the days of yellow journalism?

Also, what exactly is a "Christian" perspective. Is it Roman Catholic, with an Aquinian world-view, or mainline Protestant? Gnostic? Liberal Episcopal, where same sex marriages are performed? Eastern Orthodox, with the Platonic tradition of using negatives to prove positives?

Christian values are deeply imbedded within Western thought and society, even among the hated human secularists. We are revolted when the Saudi's produce videos on how to properly beat your wife, and are aghast when suicide bombers are hailed as heroes within the Islamic world because Western Christian thought does not promote wife beating (Russian Orthodoxy did, at one time) and its very much against suicide in any form. Atheists and agnostics support "just wars," which is an Augustinian and Christian idea. So to say that WJI promotes "Christian" perspectives is garbage. WJI promotes an evangelical Protestant perspective. The "Christian" label is simply newspeak for fundamentalism.

So why, as a practicing Roman Catholic should I even listen to anything from anyone connected to WJI? Since most of the journalists involved are probably Protestant, why should a Catholic, who believes in one holy and apostolic church, adhere to a "perspective" promoted by Protestant heretics who are all going to hell anyway.

See where this leads ...

Journalists are not & should not be required to be Atheists or to be of any other religious persuasion. However, they Definitely Should support the Constitutional Separation of Church & State as a condition of their employment. That is what these Fundies Oppose & why they should not be hired - Ever. Further Anyone who opposes theocracy is digging their own grave, or that of their children or grandchildren, if they in any way contribute to the education of these dangerous monstrosities. It's Onward Christian Soldiers (& MaleMuslim) time folks... we need to wake up.

The mission of the World Journalism Institute is to overcome the culture's efforts to eclipse God by providing a counter-thrust to the secular media, as well as the tepid and non-discerning Christian media. To this end, WJI helps train aspiring Biblically-minded journalists.

Are they training journalists, or soldiers of God who want to infiltrate secular media and sow "Biblically-minded" messages into secular coverage?

I'm all for pushing more voices into the mainstream press. I just want full disclosure on any writer's agenda. Any "journalist" grinding a special-interest axe ought to make clear disclosure to both editors and readers.

And yes, Matt Branaugh, that applies to any journalist who flacks a special interest cause inside their work(see recent debate on this site about whether the late Frank del Olmo should be revered more for his journalism, or his advocacy for La Raza in the executive suite at the LA Times).

David says, "If they're so interested in intangibility then money should not be involved in any way shape or form."

Except as something to give away to reduce the sufferings of others.

You'll find that in many congregations.

And, humans being humans, you will find Moneylove in others.

_______________

M.L. Hamm, you are incorrect about Blair simply being a plagiarist. He made up, among other things, the description of the Lynch farm for his reporting on Jessica Lynch.

Fair enough. Should have been more specific, but I believe it was his plagiarism discovered by the San Antionio reporter that brought attention to him. And he didn't make up entire stories to fit a point of view, he made up facts to fill in details for the stories he stole.

I'm not defending the slob ...

"I wonder -- would there be the same level of scrutiny if this reporter was teaching a seminar to Native American journalists or gay and lesbian journalists?"

I'm sure you're aware of the fact the Phil Bronstein took a lesbian couple off the gay marriage beay at the San Francisco Chronicle when he learned that they had been married at city hall.

All this blather about "Christians" is of import now that Mel Gibosn's NASCAR Jesus has proven to be such a box office hit. Serious journalist should expect more thuggery from the "God-fearing" in the future. And there's no doubt it's out to infect the newsroom.

Any day now I'm expecting a "Jews, Muslims, heathens and athiests need not apply" sign to be posted.

Teaching journalists to do a good job is generally a good thing. However, if you're good at teaching journalism, you should do it someplace else. Doing it for the WJI means that you're giving skills to students who want to go out and lie to their readers. Go teach someplace where the students aren't self-selected for bullshit.

On the term "Christian":
I think that the rise of born-again Christians are a major factor in the conflation of Christians with "biased right-winger." Yes, "Christian" can embody all the Christian faiths but increasingly it seems applied to evangelicals, who are more likely to call themselves Christian than a Catholic or a Methodist.

On Rivenburg teaching at WJI:
I actually think it was quite noble of Rivenburg to not write off those students. I, for one, would prefer that Christian journalism students be exposed to experienced, mainstream journalists. Perhaps they will be less likely to dismiss valid journalistic practices out of a misguided belief that they were constructed by non-believers.

On God:
If an all-powerful deity really wanted Ehrenstein to believe in him wouldn't he jsimply manifest himself in a manner that would be guaranteed to convince an athiest?

I don't have any more of a problem with teaching journalism to students at a Christian institute than I would with any other form of outside employment for a journalist. (Which is to say: Get your top editor's permission, recuse yourself from covering the institution where you teach and any related issues, and disclose your connection promptly and fully if the subject ever comes up.)

As a lifelong Christian and a journalist for 20 years, I'd say the biz needs courageous compassionate, dedicated people -- of any religious persuasion or none at all -- so badly that it shouldn't be too picky about what institute they come from. Just hold such folks to the same professional standards as everyone else, and any problems will work themselves out soon enough.

The real story on Roy Rivenburg's ethics as a journalist can be found with a thorough perusal of the web site at http://www.michelthomas.org.

This is a web site put up by friends of Michel Thomas, whom Rivenburg falsely portrayed as fraud in a lengthy profile of Thomas in April 2001.

Thomas, now 90, lost his family to Auschwitz and fought with the French Resistance and US Counter Intelligence Corps in WWII. John LeCarre has called him "one of the bravest men you will ever read about."

Rivenburg ignored a mountain of evidence Thomas and his biographer showed him, then misled sources to elicit quotes falsely painting Thomas as a phony Dachau liberator, and as a wannabe CIC Agent. The sources later recanted their statements when shown the evidence Rivenburg knew, but did not disclose.

Rivenburg also implied Thomas fabricated or exaggerated his role in rescuing the Nazi Party's worldwide membership card files from destruction in the closing days of the war. The leading expert in the world on captured German war documents, Robert Wolfe, has written and testified that Thomas made a historic contribution when he saved these files from destruction in May 1945.

Thomas fought back with everything he had, suing the Times and Rivenburg for defamation. He lost the case, but not because the Times tried to defend the truth or accuracy of Rivenburg's reporting. Over 350 people have sent letters to the Times protesting the article, and asking the Times to re-report the story of Thomas's life in light of the overwhelming evidence that has been put forth, including testimonials from still-living WWII comrades, and extensive documentation from the National Archives, and opinions from experts around the world. Thomas even testified at a mock trial at Berkeley about the case last year, to get the evidence of his life into a public forum.

When the Times published a series of angry letters in response to Rivenburg's "cheap shot" journalism, they also included one that appeared to approve of the article. Except that the alleged writer of that letter never wrote it. His sworn Declaration stating this appears on the web site. It was apparently cobbled together from emails the man exchanged with Rivenburg prior to publication of the article. (See the Declaration of Conrad McCormick on the web site at www.michelthomas.org) Rivenburg has never responded to questions about this, or many other issues raised about his reporting in this article.

The Times and Rivenburg have ducked any comment on all the evidence they have been presented, and Times editor John Carroll recently stated to an audience at Berkeley that Thomas's 'claims' were 'preposterous,' that if you believed Thomas he 'single-handedly won WWII for us.' He said he was proud of the article, and that the paper stands behind every word of it.

It is a story of media bullying unlike any I have ever encountered. The Times has hidden behind the First Amendment, and let stand a false and misleading profile of an extraordinary man. And no one in the US media have called them to account, with the sole exception of Howard Kaplan, in his article in the Jewish Journal published March 5th.

Roy Rivenburg (it's with a "u," Joseph!) is a veteran reporter, a masterful writer, and a friend from whom I have learned a lot. Why is it so awful that he would teach anyone how to do a good job in journalism?

You make no point at all. Why it's awful is because he speaks under the aegis of an institution whose beliefs are purportedly completely incompatible with his own. I tend to lose respect in a big hurry for people who do things like that.

No matter how strapped for cash someone might be, nobody should willfully work for a group so insipid they can't even bring themselves to sign an agreement with them.

The group he spoke to makes it clear that the Bible is their ultimate stylebook. When you stand and willfully teach under the aegis of an institution like that, your credentials enhance the credentials of that institution. You say it's OK to be there, as Bush said it was OK to be at Bob Jones Univesity by being there.

I really don't care if the Times hires wall-to-wall fundies (I can always get my news elsewhere); what I do care about is how low a given writer will stoop to make a buck.

As a journalist for a major U.S. newspaper who is also Christian, I find it sad that Christianity remains the *only* component of American life that is OK to spit upon in newsrooms. We would never attack race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference, or allow it to be attacked, in our newsrooms the way we allow Christianity to be spit on. I for one am sick of being labeled a "wacko" for my beliefs, however alien they may seem to others.

I for one am sick of being labeled a "wacko" for my beliefs, however alien they may seem to others.

One example, please. Just one.

[i]"By their fruits ye shall know them."

And their fruits are damned rotten!!![/]

Sheesh, who's being bigoted now? I will say one more time that I think any discussion of the validity of the religion in question is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is, as I understand it, is it unethical for a school to teach journalism with a particular religious emphasis?

I don't know -- I would have to see how they do it, I guess, instead of merely speculating. But I do know that ethics are crucial to being a good journalist, and every good journalist has to draw on every strength he has in order to maintain those ethics. For all of us, it is or ought to be our sense of the duty we owe the public. For some of us, belief systems, be they religious or humanistic or whatever, help maintain that sense of duty. Jack Kelley is supposed to be a Christian and he lied and lied and lied; other journalists with completely different religious (or anti-religious -- it sounds as though Jayson Blair basically worshipped cocaine) have also lied and lied and lied. Can we draw any conclusions from this?

Yes, we can. There are people out there who will lie and lie and lie, and unfortunately, some of them are reporters. We can also conclude, or so it seems to me, that instilling a dedication to the truth ought to be the primary mission of every j-school. I don't think it is -- I think they give some lip service to it, I think they mistakenly think this is something their students already know, but I don't think they spend much class time on it, and that includes wholly secular schools.

We have a big problem here, and I am not talking about the WJI.

This:

Are they training journalists, or soldiers of God who want to infiltrate secular media and sow "Biblically-minded" messages into secular coverage?

and this:

Perhaps they will be less likely to dismiss valid journalistic practices out of a misguided belief that they were constructed by non-believers.

and this:

However, they Definitely Should support the Constitutional Separation of Church & State as a condition of their employment. That is what these Fundies Oppose & why they should not be hired - Ever.

demonstrate an incredibly ignorant view of the history of Christianity and journalism.

From where, pray tell, do you think your "valid journalistic practices" came? Did Hearst descend the Catskills with an AP Stylebook etched in stone?

The ideas of speaking the truth (no matter how it hurts), protecting sources, maintaining freedom of the press, keeping churches free from state intervention (not necessarily keeping government free from anything non-atheistic) have been inherited from the worldview of 17th-century Puritans.

So why does the World Journalism Institue exist? Could it be because most journalists in America today are so stone stupid about anything religious that they can seriously believe "fundamentalist" Christians and "fundamentalist" Muslims have similar beliefs? Or that their own philosophy of relativism doesn't color their view of the world?

P.S. If "Steve" had done some basic journalism, he would have seen that the "Bob Jones" that teaches at WJI is not the same Bob Jones who runs the university. The Bob Jones of WJI is the grandson of the university guy. Bob Jones IV has studied at Bob Jones University, Notre Dame, and that swamp of fundy redneck intolerance (shudder) George Washington University.

Funny how the Christian majority screams anti-christian bias after stepping on the rights of anyone in their path for centuries. Is that irony?

If Christians want to be journalists, they can go to any old journalism school. So, Indiana Jon, to answer your question of why does the World Journalism Institue exist? I'd have to guess: To teach the already-converted to bring their viewpoint to American newsrooms in ways the WJI approves.

No one would argue that most journalists, like most Americans, are ignorant of religious practices outside their own. I can think of no other reason for my evangelical neighbor in the newsroom to tell me I'm going to hell because I bought my son a Ouija board.

I've got no problem with Christians in the newsroom. I've got a big problem with secret infiltrators on a mission from God to sow Biblical messages into the secular press.

It's not about religion, it's about bias and disclosure. Good journalists try to keep their biases out of the coverage, and disclose affiliations or beliefs that may color their work.

Masquerading as an objective journalist when you intend to tilt your stories is a bullshit game whatever the cause -- pro-God/anti-God; pro-left/pro-right; pro-gay/anti-gay; pro-choice/anti-abortion; meateater/vegan, etc etc etc.

I will say one more time that I think any discussion of the validity of the religion in question is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is, as I understand it, is it unethical for a school to teach journalism with a particular religious emphasis?

On the contrary. The despicable nature of religion in general is the core of the problem here. If someone were running a school to teach scientific attitudes to journalists, that'd be great. The difference is that science encourages skeptical thinking, and religion suppresses it. People whose minds are in chains are not qualified to be reporters.

Ah, so if your neighbor does that, that must mean that all Christians are exactly the same, right? 'Cause, funny enough, I don't have any problem with Ouija boards. I don't personally know anybody who does, though I don't doubt your story.

You asked for an example of how someone might be labeled a wacko just for being a particular religion, Barbara. Well, what do you think you've done right here? You've just written as though every Christian, or at least every conservative Christian, thinks that buying one's kids silly games is enough to send that person to hell. That doesn't seem a little...confrontational to you?

I'd still like to know what, EXACTLY, the particular religion being taught at this school has to do with the actual subject of this thread. Most of the people who have posted seem to be interested in that topic, but some of you seem to be enjoying your chance to knock religion without having to suffer any consequences.

Wow, Jesus is getting more comments than that Loh chick! Have you guys run out of puns on her last name or something?

"The despicable nature of religion in general is the core of the problem here. If someone were running a school to teach scientific attitudes to journalists, that'd be great. The difference is that science encourages skeptical thinking, and religion suppresses it. People whose minds are in chains are not qualified to be reporters."

So if you've made up your mind about *all* religious people throughout the world...whose mind is in "chains"? There's more than one way to be intolerant, and you've just demonstrated it. Congratulations.

But you are wrong, Captain. That is not the subject of this discussion. That's just something that you particularly want to discuss 'cause it gives you a kick.

Do anyone know the curriculum of the WJI? Is it sound or not? Is it accredited? There are lot of Jesuit schools that have excellent j-programs. Is this really that different? I don't know -- that's why I'm asking.

From the course descriptions at WJI's website:

May Term Journalism Course: Journalism in the Capital
...This eight week bootcamp program will challenge students to integrate their Christian faith, their journalism practice, and their culture in a unified fashion aptly fit for today's mainstream newsrooms.

June Term Course: Journalism in Gotham
...The eight-week program will challenge Christian students to integrate their faith, their journalism practice, and their understanding of our current culture in a unified fashion aptly fit for today's mainstream newsrooms.

July Term Course: Journalism in Tinsel Town
...This eight-week program will challenge students to integrate their Christian faith, journalism practice, and culture in a unified fashion aptly fit for today's mainstream newsroom.

This news is truly shocking. I turn to the L.A. Times for unbiased reporting on things like: "Is Bush lying or just fibbing?" or "Do all anti-immigrant groups hate immigrants, or just 99% of them?" or "Did Stalin really kill all those people, or did they die from a comet or something?"

Instead, I get a Xian reporter who should be sent to the nearest reeducation camp tout de suite.

Um, Mark, I just checked the website, and that's not what it says. Are you joking? If so, why? I asked a serious question that deserved a serious answer, even if it was only "Why don't you check it yourself?"

Note to Kathleen -- if you don't like being tarred with the fundamentalist brush, then moderate Christians like you must become as vocal as them in getting your beliefs out on public display -- including through the gantlet of either irreligious or fundamentalist writers.
Note to various posters above -- while here we're talking about fundamentalist Christianity, other religious fundamentalisms are problematic elsewhere. That of course includes fundamentalist Islam but also fundamentalist Judaism. And it's not just limited to western monotheism.
The supposedly enlightened East saw Mahatma Gandhi assassinated by a Hindu fanatic and is now led in goverment by the Hindu Nationalist Party.

David Ehrenstein's hysterical diatribes against anyone ignorant enough to believe in anything beyond the visible physical universe certainly provide a useful corrective here, in case anyone was under the mistaken notion that proud bias and ignorant polemics were strictly a function of the right. Way to restore some balance, David! (Hard to believe I used to be an admirer of yours, and all the harder every time you write into a journalistic website with your outrightly hateful missive of the day... or hour, in this case.)

Amy: Here's the link to their course descriptions. Under each course, follow the "click for more of this course" link to get the specific text I cited above...

http://www.worldji.com/courses.asp

I did that, Mark -- why else would I question you? Here's what I got:

"Journalism in the Capital May 16 to June 4, 2004 This eight week intensive credit course for college students will be conducted in conjunction with Regent University. Three weeks of classes (May 16-June 4) will be conducted at the beautiful new Regent campus in Old Town Alexandria, VA. Five weeks of reporting assignments back home complete the course. Three transferable graduate semester credits will be awarded by Regent University. Our faculty will include outstanding Christian journalists and journalism academics from the Washington, DC area."

...and...

Journalism in Gotham
June 13 to July 2, 2004
This eight-week college level journalism course is set in the exciting media capital of New York City on the extraordinary urban campus of The King's College in The Empire State Building. The course highlights the need for Christians to accurately and faithfully report on events in media and corporate culture from the media capital of the world, New York City. Our outstanding faculty will come from newsrooms and colleges around New York City."

And so on. That's not what you posted. That's not even all that close to what you reproduced. Maybe they've changed the copy since you checked?

Kathleen (not Amy, sorry for the earlier typo):

Under each course summary you cite above, there is a link that says "Click for more about this course".

If you click on that link, you'll find the text I referenced above, in the first paragraph summry of "Course Information."

I see. Well, let's just say that I think the actual course descriptions that I posted are more descriptive and also what *I* was wondering about. So like I said, I should have just checked for myself.

Actually, I gotta say that the descriptions don't sound bad at all to me, assuming they mean all that stuff about "accurately and faithfully."

As for the rise of the Christian Right...who gives the extremists all that publicity? Could it be...the media?

I think that at least part -- though not all -- of that phenomenon can't be attributed to drastic increase in the numbers of extremists -- because there has not been that much of an increase. I am sure there has been some, because difficult times seem to breed extremists off all types, evidently even anti-church extremists. But I am also sure that part of that rise has been fueled by the media's sick fascination with the spectacular and the extreme. Ordinary ol' people going to church or temple or whatever, living their lives, doing the best they can, just isn't all that much fun to cover, is it? It's a lot more interesting to cover the Church of Hitler the Messiah rather than the local temple or a nearby Presbyterian, Baptist, or Mennonite congregation, so that's what gets covered.

You're welcome.

if you reject evolution, then you are ipso facto un-qualified to be a journalist at a mainstream newspaper. in rejecting evolution, you reject all modern science. if your "journalism school" espouses expressly anti-modernist pro-Theocratic tenets as its worldview, please remain unsurprised when non-millenialists and modernists (e.g. people who recognize that the earth is, like, round, and stuff) are freaked out.

Note to various posters above -- while here we're talking about fundamentalist Christianity, other religious fundamentalisms are problematic elsewhere. That of course includes fundamentalist Islam but also fundamentalist Judaism. And it's not just limited to western monotheism.

That's right! It includes fundamentalist relativism, too. That would be the deep, unshakable belief that all religions are either 1) the same, or 2) equally dog crap. Journalism's fundamentalist relativism is the philosophy that is coloring this entire thread. Even gentle Kathleen succombs to it by using the worthless "extremist" label, which is meaningless, except in how it points out the bias/viewpoint of the writer.

I agree with Barbara that "No one would argue that most journalists, like most Americans, are ignorant of religious practices outside their own." But American journalists go further by being ignorant of their own beliefs.

if your "journalism school" espouses expressly anti-modernist pro-Theocratic tenets as its worldview, please remain unsurprised when non-millenialists and modernists (e.g. people who recognize that the earth is, like, round, and stuff) are freaked out.

Robert Green, if you really exist -- if there is such a thing as existence -- and are not just a random array of pixels on my monitor, may I say that, trust me, your freaking out does not surprise me.

You're right about "extremist," Jon -- I was trying to avoid "fundamentalist" because that is a word that people think they understand while they actually do not, plus I wanted to hit both sides of the spectrum. "Extremist" was the best I could come up with. But that doesn't mean it's not "crap," of course.

Anyway, it's very entertaining (no, I'm not being at all sarcastic) to read your remarks after Robert Green's because his post shows that either: He thinks all Christians reject evolution, which of course is not true, and that would perfectly demonstrate his ignorance about religion, and thus your main point; or that he is willing to pretend that we are all alike because that makes it easier for him to make a point. It's all so much cleaner when you can use a simplistic generalization.

I'm not sure which is better. Or worse, depending on one's point of view.

It may please you to know, Robert, that you are starting to freak me out. I know that all atheists and agnostics and other doubters/questioners aren't as rabidly partisan as you appear to be, because I know some, but it is opinions like yours that convince religious people that there is no way they will get balanced treatment in the media.

I'd like to ask you: Is it possible for *you* to cover a religious issue in a fair and balanced manner? Can you do so without spashing your bias all over the place? If not, maybe people like you are part of the reason why places like WJI exist.

I have been Roy Rivenburg's colleague since 1990, and as Style Editor of the Times, was his editor for a good chunk of the last two years. I personally edited his Recall Madness column and have tortured countless other examples of his always fine, and always fair prose. To imply that Roy brings a bias to his work is ludicrous on its face. Roy is a dogged reporter and is one of the few writers in this country who combines both an extraordinary talent for humor with a passion for investigation. That Roy chooses to teach journalism to Christian students is irrelevant to his work at the Times. His religious beliefs are his business and his alone. They have never intruded on his work; in fact, they have given him a valuable perspective that has only enhanced his work. I can tell you this because Roy and I differ on just about every aspect of politics and religion; we are about as opposite as you can get. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this man's work, which frankly, speaks for itself.

Kathleen,

Thank you and good point.

Hey, I reject Darwinism and arch-materialism. Now Mr. Green just has to hunt me down and have me fired. (Hint: I live in a red state.)

Of course, if Mr. Green would rather argue with me, which part of the material universe holds logic, eh?

Does Mr. Green hate Christianity? If he does, does he keep a half-pound of hate in his pocket? Where does hate exist if the only thing that exists is matter? So of course I believe in immaterial things. Anyone who argues with that believes in it, too.

In the meantime, somewhere out there at major metropolitan newspapers, are people very much like Mr. Green, looking at readership figures and wondering why people would trust a politician before they would trust a journalist.

If journalists trained at WJI want to point out the good that's been done by religious organizations and the morals instilled by religious beliefs, that's fine. But will they also point out all of the evil carried out in the name of God? Of course, if you're carrying out the evil -- flying planes into buildings, exterminating Jews, burning "witches," smiting heretics, punishing infidels, drafting racist or anti-whatever-religion housing covenants, preserving "the natural order of things," etc. etc. -- you're just carrying out God's will, aren't you? What's the sense in being a member of any religion if you can't pronounce yourself among the chosen? It makes me wish I was more religious; I'd be able to get away with a lot in the name of divine inspiration, and I could be good 'n self-righteous if anyone says my beliefs aren't the ONLY true beliefs.
To quote Max von Sydow in "Hannah and Her Sisters," "If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
Belief in God? Fine. Organized religion? Phooey!

But I am also sure that part of that rise has been fueled by the media's sick fascination with the spectacular and the extreme. Ordinary ol' people going to church or temple or whatever, living their lives, doing the best they can, just isn't all that much fun to cover, is it?

Well, more importantly, it ain't news.

In reference to the earlier post about Michel Thomas, there is a reason why, in this era of reporters going after the Jayson Blairs, Steven Glasses and Jack Kelleys of the business, no media have challenged Rivenburg's story about Thomas. Because anyone who looks into it soon realizes LAT editor John Carrol spoke the truth when he said Thomas' story is preposterous. Thomas claims the LAT falsely implied he was a civilian employee of the military instead of a fully credentialed Army officer, but he has never produced a military service identification number or discharge papers. Thomas biographer Christopher Robbins conceded to the LAT that his account of Thomas accompanying the very first troops who liberated Dachau was mistaken. But he hasn't explained how that story got into his book, given that the introduction says Thomas checked every fact for accuracy. And so on. Thomas claims he escaped from WWII concentration and slave labor camps about half a dozen times. In one case, he voluntarily returned when he found out his release had been granted because his girlfriend performed a sexual favor for a guard. Not wanting to be freed under such circumstances, he checked back into the camp and escaped again. Nothing preposterous about that!

Robin Abacarian wrote:

> I can tell you this because Roy and I
> differ on just about every aspect of
> politics and religion; we are about as
> opposite as you can get.

That's good to know because I still recall Ms. Abacarian expressing disapproval over the brother of Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unibomber, informing law enforcement officials that his sibling probably was the crazed serial killer. Nothing more foolish, if not outright dangerous, than weird liberal thinking, where felons are given more benefit of the doubt (and leeway) than the past, current or future victims of such dangerous people.

As for most journalists and where they are trained or educated: Don't a high percentage of them attend places where secularism and liberalism, if not leftism, are treated as sort of a religion? I'm referring to the typical college campus and ideology of most professors.

the problem, as i see it, is not that mr. rivenburg is associated with any sort of religious organziation, even one whose goal is admittedly to inject more religiosity into mainstream journalism.

the problem is that the la times let rivenburg write an article about such a hot-button issue that is so often decried by the religious right, without the caveat of explaining his connection to such an organization.

it would rather be like letting david irving write about the influence of israel in american politics without mentioning that he is an avowed holocaust denier.

if not a conflict of interest, it is certainly an agenda-based engine upon which the viewpoint of the article was propigated.

"Hard to believe I used to be an admirer of yours"

Hard to believe you're anything other than a troll, "Chucky."

" flying planes into buildings, exterminating Jews, burning "witches," smiting heretics, punishing infidels, drafting racist or anti-whatever-religion housing covenants, preserving "the natural order of things," etc. etc. -- you're just carrying out God's will, aren't you?"

Sing Out Louise!

And sign with your real name, next time. We won't report you to John Ashcroft.

Skippy, as other posts have noted, Christians are all over the map on hot button issues such as this. Since WJI doesn't require its guest lecturers or students to adhere to any set political beliefs, your objection makes no sense. Rivenburg told laobserved that the assignment wasn't his idea. Anyone who writes about this topic would presumably have an opinion on it. So the real test is whether the article was fair. And if you think it isn't, you should blame the entire paper, because any number of editors had to see and approve it before it ever got into print.

Trombone: your post of 6:15 PM last night was also made at atrios blogspot last night, under the nom de plume "Saxophone"

Trombone / Saxophone: As I've just asked over on the Atrios blog, are you Roy RIvenburg? If not, who are you? If you are Roy, it's nice to see you have finally surfaced to defend your article, however pathetically. Why were you unwilling to defend it in a public forum, such as the mock trial held at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall last April? What is the source of your animus to a 90 year-old Jewish holocaust survivor and WWII hero? Can we work something out where you will come out from the shadows for an honest and open debate of the facts?

Oh, and by the way, Trombone/Saxophone/ Roy or Defender-of-Roy, if you are Roy, since we invited your participation in the mock trial via emails, Fedexed letters to you, your editor and publisher, and faxes to your attorneys, why did you lie to the press inquiries you got just before the mock trial and claim you had never been invited to participate?

FACTS ABOUT ROY RIVENBURG AND THE WORLD JOURNALISM INSTITUTE: PART ONE

Who Is Roy Rivenburg?

Roy Rivenburg is a staff reporter for the Los Angeles Times who has written primarily humor columns since the early 1990s. His column, "Off-Kilter" was discontinued by the Times in 1998, but he continues to publish it on the internet at http://www.offkilter.org. Typical columns are on subjects like "What Would Jesus Drive" or his award-winning piece on clairvoyance in dogs.

Roy Rivenburg lives in his native Orange County. He is a Roman Catholic whose writings suggest skepticism about the claims of Christian fundamentalists, yet he has strong Christian beliefs himself, as these must be demonstrated in order to become a faculty member of the World Journalism Institute, or WJI. Mr. Rivenburg has passed the litmus test of Christian faith required to become a faculty member of the WJI, and in June 2002 he taught a course entitled "The Mechanics of Biblical Journalism" at the Masters College of Santa Clarita, California, a fundamentalist Christian college in the outer ring of suburban Los Angeles.

Mr. Rivenburg's 1985 Masters thesis at Columbia University was entitled "Deliverance from the Devil" and was a survey of the landscape of American exorcists, from "mainstream" Catholic priests to more dubious practitioners of this particular form of religious purification.

The World Journalism Institute's stated mission can be found at the organization's web site, http://www.worldji.com/why.asp. This states in part:

"In this age of mass secular media, the mission of the World Journalism Institute is to overcome the culture's efforts to eclipse God by providing a counter-thrust to the secular media, as well as the tepid and non-discerning Christian media. To this end, WJI must engage the journalism establishment earnestly at the frontiers of human news to uncover the currently obscured Word and truth of God by being faithful eyewitnesses to His activities. By helping train aspiring Biblically-minded journalists, WJI can lift the spiritually impoverished public to the renewing grace of God, and to this end we must press our unwilling materialistic-naturalistic newsroom culture itself into the strategic service of the universal and unrelenting claims of the Lord of the cosmos. To accomplish this journalistic task, a focused, rigorous and highly theological approach to Christian journalism is needed to train Christian journalists to "stand in the gap" (Ezekiel 22:30) and be "watchmen" for our society. God's fingerprints and footprints are on everything that exists. Everything is theological. The crisis in our culture is more theological than political or economic. WJI's journalism courses strive to be that training ground for a new wind of Christian journalists. In setting the tone for this vision of Christian journalism, Carl Henry has said,

We need editors who speak critically not only of the secular press but self-critically of evangelical ambiguities, hesitancies, and compromises. The ultimate justification of an evangelical press is the illumination of God's Word and of its demands upon our generation."

FACTS ABOUT ROY RIVENBURG AND THE WORLD JOURNALISM INSTITUTE: PART TWO

WJI's spiritual legacy springs from L. Nelson Bell, the founder of the WJI's predecessor organization. "A Brief History of the World Journalism Institute", on the WJI's web site, states that L. Nelson Bell was the founder of the Southern Presbyterian Journal, first published in 1942. The Southern Presbyterian Journal's avowed purpose was "to challenge the assumptions and the activities of the liberals, and to return the church to its biblical moorings." Bell was Billy Graham's father-in-law, and was "not only a member of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's board of directors, but also an extremely influential personal advisor and trouble shooter for the preacher" according to the Wheaton College archive where Bell's papers are kept, (see http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/318.htm).

The Southern Presbyterian Journal's Board of Directors changed the name of the organization to God's World Publications in 1981. World Magazine is the house organ of God's World Publications of Asheville, NC; their newest division is the World Journalism Institute.

WJI and God's World Publications were publicly criticized in the national press in February 2000, when the conservative New York Times columnist William Safire attacked Marvin Olasky, the editor of "World Magazine" the flagship publication of God's World Publications. Safire accused Olasky and his organization of "religio-political sleaze" when they published an attack on John McCain a few days before the South Carolina primary. The article was written by Bob Jones, IV, son of the present head of Bob Jones University. In the article, McCain was smeared as an inattentive husband with an insinuation that he did not care about his wife's addiction to painkillers. McCain was also described as using "liberal, even Marxist, terminology" in his discussions of tax policy.

Olasky's books are on the required reading list for the summer course Mr. Rivenburg taught at Master's College for the WJI.

Nelson Bell's spiritual heir Billy Graham recently received embarrassing publicity when the National Archives released tapes of a meeting he held with President Nixon at a prayer breakfast in 1972. In the meeting, Graham told Nixon that he agreed left-wing Jews dominate the news media, and said that the Jewish "stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain." While Graham apologized for the comments, the revelation prompted Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League to issue a press release, stating that "It is shameful that one of America's most respected religious leaders and a spiritual advisor to Presidents believed and espoused age-old classical anti-Semitic canards."

However much Mr. Rivenburg identifies with the religious and political agenda of the WJI, further indication of his skeptical bent is given by links he has posted on http://www.offkilter.org, his self-published web site named after his discontinued column.

One of those links is to the web site of an organization called "Ship of Fools" (http://www.ship-of-fools.com). Ship of Fools is described by Simon Jenkins, the editor and founder of the magazine, as "see[ing] ourselves as both serious and satirical, entertaining and thought-provoking, helping Christians to do some head-scratching about their faith, and inviting people of other faiths, or of no particular faith, to talk to us. Ship of Fools, subtitled 'the magazine of Christian unrest', was launched on April Fools' Day 1998."

Offkilter.org also has a link to http://www.snopes2.com, a web site devoted to debunking urban legends. Plainly, Roy Rivenburg considers himself a man who is not easily taken in by those who would practice on his, or others', gullibility. He is also a man who has shown great persistence and determination in battling perceived injustice, as evinced by his epic 1990 legal battle in San Diego County to overturn a $50 speeding ticket he received for going nearly 50 mph in a 35 mph zone. In his fifteen-page, thoroughly researched appellate brief, he showed a mastery of the technical intricacies of the California Transportation Department's Traffic Survey regulations, in what may have been the most exhaustive legal effort ever undertaken to overturn a minor moving violation.

Mr. Rivenburg is thus revealed by his own web site and public record as a man of apparently strong Christian beliefs, who is a faculty member of an organization that fits the profile of a radical Christian fundamentalist organization. This organization is committed to infiltrating the secular media with Christian journalists. Mr. Rivenburg also sees himself as a skeptic who takes pride in not being taken in, whether by urban legends or, in the case of Michel Thomas, someone he decided to portray as an aging Jewish charlatan.

If you'd like an example of a problem at the L.A. Times, consider this post and the follow-up.

Summary: L.A. City opened a new Office of Immigrant Affairs. The L.A. Times report repeated comments made by a non-profit organization welcoming the new office. Not only that, in the press release from the mayor's office they had a quote from that group as well. Doing a little bit of googling, I discovered an allegation that the non-profit might have unsavory ties to the Mexican consulate.

I don't know whether that allegation is true or not. However, one thing I do know is that there's an extremely small chance that the L.A. Times would investigate those allegations.

Bias, complicity, or just an unwillingness to do their job? I don't know.

I love how every now and then when a post gets enough attention, Lone Wacko will show up and post something completely unrelated, stumping for traffic to his latest right-wing bigoted screed.

Dude, at least post something related to the topic at hand. Your racist immigrant-bashing is simply dull.

--Kynn

What about 'em LAKERS!

I have been asked by Kevin Roderick to use my real name here. As I told him in an email, I am not particularly reluctant to reveal my identity in a forum where others reveal theirs,but I would like to see the policy of requiring names to be revealed to be applied consistently here.

My name is Alex Kline, I am a private investigator who worked on Michel Thomas's legal team. I have appeared on several radio programs and appeared on-camera on Court TV, and in numerous other public forums, discussing this case, without hiding my identity or role in this matter. The person posting as "Trombone" -- who I suspect is Roy Rivenburg -- has not disclosed his identity, although over at atrios he was identified as making posts from the LA Times server.

I am one of several people who have assisted Michel Thomas in his battle with the LA Times and Roy Rivenburg, under the banner of the "Friends of Michel Thomas." For some time, I have done so pro bono, because I remain outraged that the Times and Rivenburg have gotten away with such a mean-spirited and false smear of an extraordinary man, whose family was murdered by the Nazis, and who fought with distinction to defeat them six decades ago. I did not know Thomas when I began work on his case in 2001, but as I worked on the case, my outrage grew. I saw the evidence Rivenburg ignored prior to publishing his article, then found more evidence that proved beyond any doubt that what Rivenburg implied was false about Michel Thomas was in fact true. I appreciate being given this form to make some points about this case, and hope that "Trombone" will reveal who he is. If it is Roy Rivenburg, I again reiterate my desire for an open and fair debate on the evidence. He has already declined to participate in such an event, when he refused to appear at the mock trial that was held of Michel Thomas v. Los Angeles Times and Roy Rivenburg. It was held at UC Berkeley's Law school last April.

If Mr. Rivenburg has the guts to step out and defend his reporting, I would be most interested in his answers to the following questions:

1) How did he come to write the profile of Michel Thomas in early 2001? Did someone put him up to it? Who?

2) Why did he ignore so much of the evidence he was presented about Michel Thomas's WWII experiences, such as the photos Michel Thomas took at the Dachau crematorium, for which he still retains the negatives? What about the original signed statements of the crematorium workers, in German, that Thomas showed him: did he assume these were fakes? If so, why?

3) Why did Rivenburg focus myopically on a technical detail such as Thomas's acknowledged lack of a US military ID number, and never mention in his article his interview of Ted Kraus, Thomas's still-living Army comrade who served with him in Germany during 1945-46 as a fellow Agent in the US Counter Intelligence Corps? Why did he ignore the many WWII-era letters from Thomas's superiors commending his superior perfomance in combat intelligence and with the Army's Counter Intelligence Corps?

4) In trying to portray Thomas as a phony Dachau liberator, Rivenburg quoted Felix Sparks, the Lt. Col. who led the first troops into Dachau, as saying that Thomas was not with his troops that day. Yet Sparks later signed a letter stating that Thomas could very easily have gone to the camp that day without his knowledge -- the letter is posted on our website. Sparks further stated that Rivenburg said to him, "This guy Thomas says he was with you when you went into Dachau" -- but Thomas never made any such statement, and had never heard of Felix Sparks until he read Rivenburg's article. How does Rivenburg explain this apparent attempt to mislead a source in order to elicit a damaging quote about Thomas?

5) Rivenburg used the same tactic with Hugh Foster, an expert on the liberation of Dachau. Foster also signed a letter -- again posted on our website -- indicating Rivenburg misled him by not revealing crucial evidence Rivenburg knew but did not reveal to Foster. Foster recanted his statements quoted by Rivenburg and said he is satisfied Michel Thomas was at Dachau on the day of liberation. Why did Rivenburg not reveal so much crucial information to Foster when he contacted him? Does Rivenburg still claim there is any doubt that Thomas was in the camp on April 29, 1945?

6) Rivenburg implied that Thomas' account of rescuing the Nazi Party's worldwide membership card files in May 1945 was bogus. Thomas says he found the mountains of documents in a paper mill near Munich, where the SS had sent them to be pulped in the closing days of the war. The leading expert in the world on captured German war documents, Robert Wolfe, reviewed extensive documentation at the National Archives, and examined a key document -- an original letter bearing Himmler's signature -- that Thomas took from the paper mill and has kept to this day. He has written an extensive scholarly evaluation of the evidence and states that he is confident Michel Thomas's account is true. He also testified to that effect at the mock trial held at Berkeley's law school last April, calling Thomas's rescue of the files a "historic contribution." Does Rivenburg still insist that Thomas did not rescue these files? If so, how can he argue away the detailed and scholarly opinion of Robert Wolfe?

7) Conrad McCormick, whom Rivenburg interviewed and quoted in his article, signed a sworn Declaration -- again, posted on our web site -- stating that he never wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor which the Times published over his name in their Letters column in early May 2001. McCormick stated that he recognized some of the text of the letter from email correspondence he exchanged with Rivenburg prior to the article's publication. Did Rivenburg convert McCormick's emails to him into a phony Letter-to-the-Editor, apparently expressing approval of his own article? If not, how did that Letter appear in the paper?

These are just a few of the many questions Roy Rivenburg refuses to answer. There are many more...

Alex,

Thanks for clarifying your identity and purpose in coming here. You've made your point and given people a link to click on if they want more info on your crusade. Enough. Pursue your grievance on your own bandwidth.

Kevin

Kevin:

I have never looked at a weblog before, or participated in one, though I've heard a lot about them. I appreciate your letting us make our points about Mr. Rivenburg here, and will look into adding a web log to our own web site.

Alex

I'm just amazed to learn that Rivenburg actually had an editor at all through much of the past two years. Those cringeworthy Recall stories I thought flew into the paper completely under all radar.

And people have been accusing *me* of lacking a sense of humor lately!

Come on, Joseph! Those were good!

THIS IS A POSTING FROM ROBERT WOLFE, WHO SERVED FOR 34 YEARS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, AND CHAIRED THE 1974 CONFERENCE ON CAPTURED GERMAN WAR DOCUMENTS. MOST SCHOLARS AGREE THAT HE IS THE LEADING EXPERT IN THE WORLD ON CAPTURED GERMAN WAR DOCUMENTS. I APPRISED HIM OF THE POSTINGS OF THE PERSON I BELIEVE IS ROY RIVENBURG ("Trombone" here). HE RESPONDS AS FOLLOWS:

Whoever "Saxophone" or "Trombone" may be; the fact is he has launched an anonymous and unsubstantiated public attack on my scholarship.
Long before I ever met or corresponded with Michel Thomas, I had written about the Berlin Document Center (BDC) and the origins of the Nazi Party membership files deposited there. Published by the National Archives in 1994, my essay documented the odyssey of the Nazi Party records from the time of their capture at the Freimann paper mill in May 1945, their assemblage and shipment to the BDC, and their treatment and disposition thereafter through 1994. The sole salient missing fact was the identity of the member of the 45th Division CIC who had discovered and arranged for the preservation of those seized records.
From that May 1945 discovery to the first publicity about the capture of the Nazi Party files, the records were being quietly but desultorily processed--through no fault of the initial discoverer who had long since moved on. Only in September 1945 did Stefan Heym become aware of the matter, and indulging his Communist spleen against capitalist America, chose to credit the self-serving story of Hans Huber, the German paper-mill manager. In September, Major William D. Browne of Third Army's Munich MG detachment learned that Huber had reported the existence of the files awaiting pulping at his Freimann mill "to a CIC agent 'in early May 1945," which conforms to the dates given by Michel Thomas. Browne thereupon brought the records still remaining at Freimann into Munich for processing, and conducted an investigation to document the origins, status, and disposition of the records.
With this compilation of incontrovertible evidence of the odyssey of the Nazi Party records, I needed only to examine the few historically unimportant original documents that Michel Thomas had taken (and retained) in early May 1945. Thomas did this to persuade Seventh Army's Munich Military Government detachment of the urgent need to remove the massive collection of irreplaceable records from the Freimann mill to a secure and sterile environment.
On our first meeting in 2002, after a minimal greeting to Mr. Thomas, I took the original documents from his hands and examined their external and internal characteristics (letterhead, paper stock, type fonts, and physical condition). As archival consultant to the State Department, during two tours totaling six weeks at the BDC in 1969 and 1970 I had acted in the capacity of Center Director in advising and training the German BDC branch chiefs. There and at the National Archives I had had much experience in examining and authenticating innumerable Nazi Party files. Based on that experience and the cumulative evidence, at that point I arrived at the firm conclusion that "[t]here is no plausible scenario by which Thomas could have come into possession of this original document other than having found it himself at the mill."
Michel Thomas was functioning as a CIC agent in every sense, except that his lack of American citizenship prevented his signing reports. That fact has been corroborated in official records by Capt. Rudolf W. Guenther, Thomas' company commander; by recent testimony of two of his CIC colleagues, Ted Krauss and Walter Wimer; and by mention of "Agent Thomas" in CIC official history. His status was admittedly unusual, an extraordinary ad hoc procedure prompted by his enormous value to CIC tasks. This is explained and documented in my signed statement, which has been posted at http://www.michelthomas.org.

Robert Wolfe

Sheesh. What part of "enough" don't you guys understand?

Thank you Patterico!

On the upside, their posts make for thrilling, suspenseful reading...

See Signorile re: Rivenburg & WJI at:

http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=9899

See Rivenburg re: Signorile

http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters

Let me start by saying that I've just read almost this whole discussion and it's certainly heated at points!
Be careful for blasting someone else's views as intolerant when you won't tolerate theirs! Everyone has views that disagree with others. Don't throw a hissy fit when someone expresses theirs and you don't agree. Please.

I am a student at a Christian university studying journalism and for the record let me state that I think WJI's philosophy of journalism is horrible. I'm reading their textbook right now for one of my own classes as a forum from which to discuss how NOT to be a biased journalist even though I am, and will always be, a Christian.

I know that many people do not agree with what I believe about God and many other topics. And, although I readily admit that I don't have it all figured out, I will say (in a blog, never in an article) that I do think these people are wrong. Isn't that what having beliefs is all about? Believing some things and rejecting others?

However, I also know that when I write for mainstream media, my readers want to know the facts, not what I think about who's wrong or right. i know that I don't like to open the paper or turn on the nightly news and hear someone like captain nemo blasting away at what i believe. So I'm not going to do it in a journalistic forum, either. If I did, who would listen to me? I might as well go and write for a small Christian publication and have no impact on mainstream media or its audience.

Please, don't blast everyone who is a Christian from a career in journalism. Or those who have spoken once or twice at a place like WJI. People get to the place they are at in life by all different means. Should we start investigating the family backgrounds of anyone who wants to work in journalism? You went to church on Easter too many times, sorry you don't qualify? Judge Roy Rivenburg and others by their words printed on the page, not the people they hold discussion with. Journalists rub shoulders with people of extreme and not so extreme biases all the time...isn't that part of the job??

Roy Rivenburg's name can no longer be found on the World Journalism Institute's web site as a guest teacher, implying that the recent controversy about his work there has dissuaded him from further associating with the organization.

He has posted his reply to Michelangelo Signorile here under his own name, but the identity of "Trombone" remains a mystery.

Mr. Rivenburg, since you monitor these posts, where and when will you answer the questions posted above about your article about Michel Thomas? Perhaps we could set a web log up on our website, where you could respond?

Laura, though I'm sorry to hear the WSJ textbook is so horrid, I am glad to (finally) read a response from someone who has actual knowledge of this institution instead of merely guessing -- which is what most of the rest of us seem to have been doing.

If the recent scandals have taught those of us in the journalism world anything, they ought to have taught us that the most important quality a reporter can have is a devotion to telling the truth as best as he or she can. All reporters need to use whatever resources they have to fulfill that duty. If one of those resources is religion -- as it is for me, and evidently for you as well -- I don't understand how anybody can say that's wrong. All I personally have asked of the reporters who have worked for me is that they fulfill their duty to the readers; I don't much care what ethical basis they use to do so.

Re: these comments by facts@micheltomas.org: "Trombone / Saxophone: As I've just asked over on the Atrios blog, are you Roy RIvenburg? If not, who are you? If you are Roy, it's nice to see you have finally surfaced to defend your article, however pathetically. Why were you unwilling to defend it in a public forum, such as the mock trial held at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall last April?"

As facts@michelthomas.org knows all too well it wasn't even necessary for Rivenburg to testify at the mock trial at UC Berkeley regarding Thomas v. LA Times. Even without Rivenburg there and with nobody from the LA Times side of the case testifying, the"designated experts" still ruled that the courts were right to rule AGAINST Thomas and to deny the appeal. In other words, Thomas lost again, strictly on the merits of the case.

"Kazoo" is an ad salesman for a newspaper in New York, whose true name I will not post here. Almost two years ago, he went to Michel Thomas's office to demand payment for an ad, which Mr. Thomas stood ready to pay, and later did pay, but "Kazoo" became so abusive to Thomas and his staff that he had to be forcibly removed from the building and was later arrested by the New York City Police for aggravated harassment. He continued the harassment and was arrested a second time last summer. His name links to the email address "enemiesofmichelthomas@yahoo.com."

"Kazoo" is very angry that his criminal conduct has cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees, which he has been forced to spend to avoid being fined or imprisoned. He refuses to desist from his campaign of harassment of Mr. Thomas and myself, and has been an enthusiastic champion of Mr. Rivenburg's profile of Michel Thomas.

"Kazoo" -- whom I tried to help on the one occasion I spoke to him in late 2002 -- has threatened me, and my family, in dozens of emails, faxes, and voice mails, over the past year and a half. His campaign is motivated, apparently, by resentment of my public defense of the reputation of Michel Thomas. I have never said an unkind word to the man. I guess it's the old "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" mentality.

While Mr. Rivenburg and I have certainly had our disagreements, he has at least never resorted to threatening me or my family, nor has he insulted me or used profanity, as "Kazoo" has done repeatedly. I wonder if Mr. Rivenburg is happy to have allies such as "Kazoo"? If not, it would be nice for him to state that publicly.

Readers of these postings have already commented on the bitterness of the exchanges. Let me be clear: I have no personal animus to Mr. Rivenburg. I actually find some of his writing funny, and we share a mutual admiration for the late great Mike Royko, who was my favorite columnist when I was a kid.

As an amateur historian of WWII and the holocaust, I found the research required by this case extremely compelling. One of the outcomes was that a fact of some significance to historians was proven beyond any reasonable dispute: the identity of the CIC Agent who rescued the Nazi Party's worldwide membership card files from destruction in May 1945. These files had an enormous impact on the subsequent history of Germany and Europe, as they allowed the Allies to determine who had and who had not been a member of the Nazi Party.

When the litigation against the Times concluded, and I was no longer barred from contacting Mr. Rivenburg as an adverse party, I emailed him and asked him to contact me, on his terms, to discuss some of the issues of the case.

I retain a sincere desire to know the answers to the questions I have posted, as I spent many hours preparing Mr. Thomas's defamation case, and the research I perfomed raised those questions. I have asked Mr. Rivenburg on a couple of occasions over the past year, in emails that I think were respectful and polite, to meet with me, or at least to respond, whether publicly or privately. He has refused, and continues to refuse.

The questions remain unanswered. It is those questions that should be of interest to Mr. Rivenburg's journalistic colleagues, because they relate to his practices as a journalist, not to his religious affiliation. He has been relatively forthright in responding to the issues raised about his now apparently-discontinued faculty position with the World Journalism Institute. But the questions we have posed are, we believe, much tougher ones for him to answer.

I think he refuses to answer them because to answer honestly would reveal that he either deliberately tried to smear Michel Thomas in his article, by ignoring so much evidence, or that he simply did a very poor job of researching the facts. The former suggests malevolence, the latter sloppy journalism.

In either case, nothing to be proud of. But as a practicing Catholic, he undoubtedly knows that one of the most powerful and successful rites of Catholicism is the relief experienced by the penitent. So, why not just come clean and put this whole thing behind you Roy? If you did not like Michel Thomas, or thought the style in which his biography was written was 'preposterous' that's fair game. But it's not fair game to imply that proven facts of his life were false when you had abundant evidence to the contrary shown to you before you wrote the article, and even more such evidence shown to you afterwards, when you were sued.

I respond very reluctantly to facts@michelthomas.org’s (hereafter just Facts) vitriolic character assassination above against Kazoo. I say “reluctantly” because this is a discussion about Roy Rivenburg and not about Michel Thomas, but it appears that the Rivenburg discussion has pretty much run its course so I beg the readers’ indulgence.

First of all, I am not who Facts says I am, even though I am proud to admit that I am a card carrying member of Enemies of Michel Thomas, a broad-based international organization dedicated to debunking the Michel Thomas myth and revealing his perfidy, skullduggery, and shenanigans. I am just a searcher for the truth living in Pacific Palisades. I would prefer to use my real name here, but refrain from doing so only because I am all too aware of Michel Thomas’s long sad history of litigiousness against those who disagree with him. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Facts for publicizing our organization, and for anyone interested in further information about Enemies of Michel Thomas please feel free to contact us at the e-mail address Facts has so graciously supplied.

Does it strike anyone as a bit bizarre that Facts should respond as he did to my straightforward comment that Mr. Rivenburg’s presence was hardly needed at the mock trial at Berkeley, since the “designated experts” at that mock trial agreed with the courts decisions against Thomas even without Mr. Rivenburg’s presence? I bring up what I feel is an important fact related to Fact’s mean-spirited attack on Mr. Rivenburg and Facts responds with a lengthy personal attack against someone unrelated to this discussion group when he doesn’t even know who Kazoo is. Yes it is bizarre, but totally true to form for Michel Thomas and his “Friends.’

On the substance of Facts’s character assassination, the object of Fact’s spleen, “the ad salesman for a newspaper in New York,” is the president of Enemies of Michel Thomas and a man of honor and courage who has stood up for two years now to a psychopathic barrage by Thomas’s well-funded and –manned organization. I am not going to bore you with a tit for tat analysis of Facts’s silly personal slander. Let me just say that this meeting between the ad salesman and Thomas was 5 months after the ad ran; Thomas always refused to pay for the ad and never “stood ready to pay” as Facts states. In other words, if he was ready to pay why didn’t he pay. Why in the world would the ad salesman get abusive if Thomas was trying to pay him? And then he paid just recently after almost 2 years and over $10,000 of legal costs. The disingenuousness of Facts’s slander speaks for itself.

In conclusion, when all is said and done it is hard to understand why Thomas and Facts (the Thomas organizations’s bagman and muscle on the west coast) persist when the courts and legal opinion have so consistently ruled against them. Thomas lost his case against the LA Times and Roy Rivenburg as well as the appeal. His charges against the ad salesman in New York were dropped when the Manhattan DA refused to prosecute. The “designated experts” at the mock trial in Berkeley agreed with the verdict in favor of the Times and against Thomas. Thomas I guess is just a senile stubborn old man who can’t face reality and Facts must just have nothing better to do than to abuse people in chat room and elsewhere. Thanks again all for hearing me out.

Kazoo

I would like to first of all apologize to Mr. Roderick for using his fine site to respond to an unsolicited malicious personal attack by Alex Kline of facts@michelthomas.org. Such a forum is truly not the place for such airing of dirty laundry, but this is something that Kline clearly started on your blog so I feel I must respond.

Kazoo, a colleague of mine at Enemies of Michel Thomas, recently notified me that Alex Kline. “the bagman and muscle for the Michel Thomas Organization “(as Kazoo so appropriately put it), had in the midst of a discussion on Roy Rivenburg and the World Journalism Institute, thinking that Kazoo was me, launched into a pretty sick not to mention totally false attack on me.

I am not going to dwell on Thomas and Kline’s stiffing of the Jewish Forward newspaper. Only to say that what was a pretty straightforward commercial dispute (people try to stiff me all the time) degenerated into a nasty personal assault by Thomas and Kline. As Kazoo mentions, rather than pay a measly little invoice Thomas and Kline preferred to lie to me, threaten me, have his office security physically abuse me, have me thrown in jail (twice); forced me to retain a lawyer, and now they feel they must go after me online. All because the Forward’s fine coverage of Thomas v. Los Angeles Times was too balanced for them and didn’t take Thomas’s side in that dispute. These are truly sick people.

I’ve got my theory about Kline, which actually has a good Hollywood angle so might fit in nicely in this LA blog. Kline’s brother is the actor Kevin Kline and his sister the filmmaker and producer Kate Kline May. Furthermore his father was an illustrious record store owner and opera buff in St. Louis. Anyway my theory is that as a two-bit private investigator in San Francisco and clearly the black sheep of the otherwise impressive Kline family, Alex has latched onto the Michel Thomas issue as his psychological crutch to show that he too can be a big man. Problem is Michel Thomas is hardly a sympathique character. Roy Rivenburg in his fine article in the LA Times reveals him to be a joke and the courts have unanimously concurred. So Alex finds himself latched to a rapidly sinking ship. Does anyone else on this site find Alex’s obsessive ranting and raving about Thomas and Rivenburg a bit extreme? I get the impression that if one were to ask Alex how the weather was today he would give you a long analysis of the weather at Dachau in 1945 when Michel Thomas was supposedly there.

I find it humorous that Alex should get so twitched at being totally ignored by Mr. Rivenburg. After all for two years I begged Alex to settle OUR little dispute, and he totally ignored ME choosing instead to viciously try to destroy me. Roy keep up the good work and Alex get a life.

Charlie Liebling
President, Enemies of Michel Thomas

Charlie:

Are you any relation to the great opera singer and coach, Estelle Liebling?

Alex:

Funny you should ask; I’ve actually been wondering how long it would take you to wonder about that. Ah Dear Estelle, your father’s beloved voice coach in NYC. Heh you’re the big private investigator with time on his hands; you should be able to figure this one out by yourself, especially since there aren’t many Liebling lines in NY. But then again you never did manage to figure out my relation to S.L. at the Sun before you launched into your crazy character assassination with him (hint: to get you started plug our last names in Google and let it fly).