BAKERFIELD (CA)
Bakersfield Californian
June 15, 2019
By Robert Price
Reader: This article (“Suspended priest Craig Harrison, back from self-exile, formulates his defense,” June 9) is a load of crap. Once again Robert Price is doing Monsignor Craig Harrison’s bidding. Is this what The Californian is about now? Trying to protect an alleged child predator before the investigation even completes?
Has this paper ever, in its entire history, gone to interview a person suspected of child abuse before charges were filed to see how they are handling the suspicion and planning out their defense? Of course not. This is absolutely, mind numbingly, insane.
This paper and reporter have zero credibility. So done.
Tell me what the purpose of this article was, if not to give Craig some helpful, fluffy PR? Literally, what are the need-to-know facts this hot take is dishing us? Nothing. That’s what.
— Bran Ram, from Facebook
Price: If I’m doing Monsignor Harrison’s bidding (once again?), it has to be news to him. For the two weeks prior to that column’s publication, I had been trying to convince him, through his attorney, to sit down with me and talk about his circumstances. He finally agreed, but with no small amount of trepidation. I guess you could say he relented and did my bidding.
You might be correct that The Californian has never interviewed a person suspected of child abuse before charges were filed. Why? Because we rarely learn about cases of alleged child abuse until after charges are filed. That’s what makes this case unique and therefore, in my mind, worthy of special attention. Harrison has not been charged but, as your words seem to confirm, has been saddled with a presumption of guilt. The aspect of the story that struck me was the extrajudicial limbo in which he finds himself. Guilty or innocent, his life is in a holding pattern. My intent was to portray that state of affairs. Not paint him innocent, not paint him guilty — just illustrate his awkward purgatory.
Reader: What an absolutely pathetic article. Are there now six victims or just five? Are there unknown victims? How deep is the investigation going? But yet, The Californian wants to support the alleged suspect and to hell with all the victims.
— Steve Loftus, from Facebook
Price: The Californian wants to support the alleged suspect and to hell with all the victims? Well, we’d better make some changes because the weight of “con” stories vs. “pro” is way out of whack.
By my count we have published 20 staff-written articles that provide details or background on one or more of the accusations against Harrison. We broke the story in the first place. We tracked down and were the first to interview the two men whose accusations precipitated Harrison’s suspension. Parishioners and other supporters of Harrison’s were every bit as livid about that coverage, especially the work of reporter Stacey Shepard, as today’s critics appear to be.
By my count we have published four staff-written articles that shed a different light on the situation without dwelling on the specifics of the accusations. One was our coverage of the rally of support held at Harrison’s parish. Our story mentioned the anti-abuse demonstrators who showed up for the occasion, so it was hardly a strictly pro-Harrison story, even though I’ll label it as one for our present purposes. Another was my interview with Roy Keenan, one of Harrison’s sons, whose personal story is tragically harrowing in its own right. Another was Harrison’s statement about the accusations against him. And now we’ve got the column of mine you’re referencing.
Twenty to four might indeed strike many as biased — in precisely the opposite direction you suggest.
Reader: Bakersfield Californian, stop doing spin stories on this man. It’s clear you have some hidden reason. He is accused of sexually abusing children and you do stories on him like he is the victim. Sick and tired of hearing about this person.
— Linda Flores, from Facebook
Price: As soon as you come up with the hidden reason, please share.
I’m sorry you’re sick and tired of hearing about Craig Harrison. One like-minded reader phoned me to declare that no one is interested in hearing more about him (even though she said she read every word of that column herself). The fact is, this Craig Harrison-comes-home column is one of The Californian’s most-read stories of the year thus far. Our analytics show readership in Ao Nang, Thailand; Medellin, Colombia; Melbourne, Australia; the Santuario di Bom Jesus di Monte pilgrimage site in Portugal; Minato, Tokyo, Japan; the Borgomanero commune of northern Italy; and Budapest, Hungary. Including North America, I count five continents.
•••
Reader: Thanks for your article about Monsignor Craig. It was interesting and well written. I am a casual friend of Monsignor Craig and a strong supporter. I am very concerned that revealing that he is “living in his home on 20th street in Bakersfield” (with a photo) may lead some anti-Catholic, anti-Craig person to go there.
— Allan Wilson
Price: Fair point. The photo caption specified his street; my story was more vague about the location of his home. Perhaps the caption should have been fuzzier, but there are probably a hundred houses on Harrison’s very long street. Our standard phrasing in reporting locations is, for example, the 100 block of Maple Street – but that’s for crime stories and obviously this is a different animal.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.