But let me start out by reviewing what happened when Ms Cohen visited the parish on Wednesday, February 24. I gave the broad outlines in this post. Based on remarks Ms Cohen made on that day and at other times, she is clearly aware that, at minimum, the parish, the vestry, and Fr Kelley feel that they've had a consistently bad deal from the Ledger. On February 17, soon after the squatters were evicted, she showed up at the parish and tried to interview Fr Kelley but was effectively screened by Mrs Kelley. In the course of that attempt, she said, "I guess Fr Kelley hates me and doesn't want to talk to me."
I would say that I'm certain Fr Kelley prays for those who wish him ill, but all things considered, Ms Cohen is probably not at the top of that particular prayer list. On the other hand, Fr Kelley and those around him would prefer that unserious individuals not waste his time, and along with other friends of the parish and the vestry, I would guess that our collective estimate of Ms Cohen is that she is not a serious individual. Our encounter with her last week hasn't changed that judgment.
Her version of events is that, on February 24, she showed up at the parish wanting to take a photo of Fr Kelley. When our group of friends and volunteers met her in the courtyard, she asked if she could take his picture. Fr Kelley, still vested from noon mass, said, "Sure" and held still. Ms Cohen said she didn't like posed photos and instead said she wanted to take a photo of Fr Kelley in his office, being Fr Kelley naturally or something. The parish treasurer, already having determined that the idea of Ms Cohen going anyplace with Fr Kelley without witnesses was a non-starter, began diverting things to a meeting room where others could be present.
So we eventually repaired to the parish hall, with Ms Cohen beginning to ask questions, some of which were along the line of why people like Mr Bruce didn't like her. (Ms Cohen, for the record, I neither like you nor dislike you; I would simply prefer not to occupy my time dealing with you.)
I would also point out that Ms Cohen's arrival superseded a previous meeting the parish treasurer and I had scheduled to discuss finances. We all had better things to do, in fact -- but we thought it might be beneficial to meet with her. She continued with more detailed questions -- Fr Kelley, the parish treasurer, and several other knowledgeable friends of the parish were present, and we began to give her comprehensive answers. She announced that a piece on the St Mary's restoration would be the lead article in the March issue. She was immensely proud of herself when she announced, "I'm going to call it 'The Bells of St Mary's'!" (One great part of being retired is I no longer have to tell my bosses what a great idea something like that is.)
Apparently realizing she was getting a story, though, she said she hadn't brought her notebook and left to get it. A friend of the parish shook his head that a "reporter" wouldn't have her notebook along. When she returned with the notebook, it seemed plain that her intent was to gather information for an in-depth article on what had happened to the parish. And it certainly reinforced the idea that her purpose was more than just getting a candid shot of Fr Kelley, which she already had. And, as I noted last week, the meeting went on for more than 90 minutes. She asked, among other things, for the names of all the key dissidents, how much money had actually been spent on legal fees, and our estimates of Mrs Bush's character and motives.
The problem was that on February 17, Ms Cohen already ran a story in the Ledger's on-line edition covering the simple fact of the eviction. The great bulk of that story, though, covered Mrs Bush's version of events, notwithstanding the courts had been giving that version short shrift for several years and, by Ms Cohen's own remarks, Mrs Bush had destroyed her reputation in the community. Fr Kelley certainly e-mailed at the time that this story was unacceptable from the vestry's viewpoint.
So those of us who met with Ms Cohen on February 24 felt that, in giving her 90 minutes of our time and fully answering her detailed questions, we'd get a better shake. Not a chance. Yesterday's story, despite the parish's gracious willingness to meet with her and answer her extensive questions, was practically a verbatim copy of the February 17 story containing Mrs Bush's version of events, with absolutely no additional information that might have come from our February 24 meeting, despite the detailed notes Ms Cohen appeared to take -- and despite Ms Cohen's apparent representation that the picture had become much clearer.
The parish treasurer's response was, " Since I was there with [John Bruce], Fr. Kelley, Pierre and Ms. Cohen I have to agree that the article doesn't reflect much of what was discussed. Puzzling indeed. My question to Ms. Cohen would be, 'Why bother to ask questions of those involved in a dispute if you have no intention of reflecting their responses?'" Ms Cohen's earlier reply to me was,
I never planned on writing a full story about Father Kelley for our March 2016 edition. Remember, I came to the church only with a camera and then the conversation evolved and I went back to retrieve a notebook. We have online readers only, but by far, most read the paper in its printed format. Therefore, the news that Father Kelley has prevailed is new to a great majority of our readership and that is why I focused our print story to that.Whew, maybe Q and A with Fr Kelley, and maybe a video! She hasn't decided! If we're real, real credulous, we'll forgive her and even do everything she wants all this month in hopes that maybe we'll be on video! Er, Ms Cohen, how stupid and gullible do you think we are?I do plan on a story about Father Kelley for our April edition, which I detailed to my staff in a reporter’s meeting this morning. Likely, this piece will be a Q and A with Father Kelley and I am also considering producing a video story on the issue. I have not decided.
Later in the day, she called my home and got my wife on the phone. I told her I'd rather not deal with Ms Cohen -- but apparently Ms Cohen nevertheless went on at great length with my wife. She's sorry for any misunderstanding. It was just that she found Fr Kelley so impressive she just had to go on meeting with him and stayed out of deference. She greatly admires Fr Kelley. In fact, now she's thinking of joining the St Mary of the Angels parish.
Here's the problem: Ms Cohen is a communicant at St James Episcopal on Wilshire Boulevard, which has a school. Her child is in the school. She gets a discount on tuition there by pledging at that parish. Coming over to St Mary's? Ain't gonna happen. Er, Ms Cohen, how stupid and gullible do you think we are?
UPDATE: Ms Cohen notes, "I have two sons. One is a junior at Georgetown University. The other is a freshman at Boston College. I no longer attend St. James Church."
That's fine that her family is doing so well. However, I see no reason to give any greater credence to her suggestion that she's suddenly so drawn to Fr Kelley that she'll maybe now join St Mary's. If she chooses to do so, let her simply do it and not make promises of something she might do, especially if such promises might be interpreted as manipulation.
My own take on all this is basically that, indeed, Ms Cohen is an unserious person. Not malicious, just not very smart, a bit lazy, and eager to go with the flow. She probably thought, however briefly, that maybe she could run a comprehensive story on St Mary's, giving the actual perspectives of both sides, with the vestry's version supported with detailed reference to dates, places, people, and events. Except (as she more or less implied to my wife), that would involve work. And beyond that, she's still terrified of Mrs Bush, as some in the community apparently still are. So best to go with the same old story that just gives Mrs Bush's version of events.
Even a fourth rate journalist is still, it would seem, a journalist.
