ReligionWise

At the Crossroads of Journalism and Faith - Sharlee DiMenichi

• Institute for Religious and Cultural Understanding • Season 4 • Episode 10

Share episode

How do religious journalists navigate the intersection of faith values and public issues? Sharlee DiMenichi of Friends Journal discusses her reporting on a variety of contemporary issues, including Quaker responses to immigration policy, climate change, and economic justice. We explore how religious principles translate into political action and humanitarian work across diverse communities, and how faith-based journalism might contribute unique perspectives to public discourse while helping rebuild trust in today's fragmented media environment.

Show Notes:

Send us a text

Chip Gruen:

Welcome to ReligionWise. I'm your host Chip Gruen. Today I'm really excited to welcome Sharlee DiMenichi, a staff writer for the Friends Journal, which is the primary publication of the Religious Society of Friends. You might know them as Quakers. Sharlee is a longtime friend of the Institute for Religious and Cultural Understanding, and in fact, we've had her on WorldViews our on campus in person conversation that explores religious diversity to talk about her own religious identity as a member of the Society of Friends. In our conversation today, we'll dive into the really complex material around religious journalists and how they navigate in an increasingly challenging media landscape. Few people are better positioned to talk about these challenges than Sharlee, who works at this nexus of professional journalism and faith community representation. Religious journalism presents, as you might imagine, a unique set of opportunities and tensions. On the one hand, these publications have a dedicated readership and a financial model that is based in that readership that provides a little bit of insulation from the economic pressures that have hit mainstream media. But on the other hand, journalists in this space are balancing their professional standards of objectivity with their role as members of faith communities in those values and those perspectives, in this case, Quaker tradition. So Sharlee's work is very interesting in that it deals with large scale policy issues, from the environmental concerns and policy around immigration as two good examples, but then also on the spiritual concerns that are influenced by Quaker mission and Quaker values and perspectives, and so she does both kinds of reporting, and I think it's interesting to see both sides of the interviews of the kinds of scale that she tackles. So this brings up a number of interesting questions, how do you maintain journalistic integrity while writing for and from a religious community when you're reporting on politically contentious issues, as we see Sharlee reports on immigration enforcement, climate policy, how does a Quaker journalist honor the ethics that she has sort of sworn to as a journalist, and those Quaker commitments to peace and equality and social justice. Does writing for a religious publication offer freedoms that mainstream outlets don't, or does it create a different set of constraints because of the audience and the context of the publication itself? So we'll think about all these issues in the context of Sharlee's reporting, which is both domestic and international, the global nature of the Quaker movement presents additional complexity. How does a journalist report on communities that share core religious principles but express them differently in different cultural and political contexts? And then we'll also think about larger issues about for example, trust. It's not only about trusting individuals and their ability to gather and produce information that is trustworthy and that you have high confidence in. Also related to that is the idea of public confidence in institutions that institutions we hear, you know, distrust of media, distrust of educational institutions, public institutions. And we could think about publications in the same vein, do people trust the written word? Does the institution of the Society of Friends, or the Friends Journal, fall into that suspicion as well. Does one have to be an insider to those groups to have that high level of confidence and trust in order to consume information that is produced through that journal? So this is another part of the world that we're living in when people might be more willing to trust the individual post that is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated on public media, rather than put that trust in an institution that has some professional credibility and longevity. So I think that's something else to think about when we're thinking about media outlets, and in particular, smaller publications or smaller journals that have a important place in the collection and transmission of information, right? It's not just about politics and policy, it's about consumption of information and epistemology, how do we know what we know? How do we trust sources? How do we think about the way that information is gathered and produced and shared, which is not only affected by social media and the fragmentation of our media landscape, but is also, of course, influenced by algorithms, how information is shared, and the divisions that we see in our world. Finally, I just want to mention the idea of perspective and objectivity here that there is no claim by the Friends Journal that is anything other than a journal that is steeped in the values and the perspectives of the Quaker worldview. And so I think it's useful for us in this our post modern age to really consider perspective and objectivity and what do we mean when we say news, and what do we mean when we talk about the point of view that is based in a religious organization? So of course, with the Quaker worldview, it is very tolerant of difference, and you'll hear some of that today, that there is not as much shared theologically, doctrinally, within a Quaker community, as you might expect from, say, a Catholic community. And so, on the one hand, this is a religious publication. On the other hand, it's one that embraces diversity of thought, diversity of perspective, that being said, I think it's important to think about the institutions that sit behind our media and sit behind the information that we consume, and at least have that conversation about how our worldviews might affect the work that we produce. I will note that there is no paywall on the Friends Journal, so we will put links to some of Sharlee's articles there. I encourage you to go and read some of her work for yourself. We can also provide a link for the print publication that you can order a subscription and support the Friends Journal and Sharlee DiMenichi's journalism there. So all that being said, it's my pleasure to welcome Sharlee DiMenichi to the podcast. Enjoy. Sharlee DiMenichi, thanks for being on ReligionWise.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Thank you so much for having me.

Chip Gruen:

So I want to start, as I often do, with a little bit of biography of who you are and how you came to your line of work. So what drew you to focus on, well as a journalist in Quaker news and perspectives, or maybe another way to put this, is you know which came first, your own affiliations with the Society of Friends, ie Quakerism or journalism?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, I've been a Quaker since 2001 and I was a long time reader and subscriber to Friends Journal. I turned to them a lot for spiritual reflections as well as book reviews. And I'm an avid reader, so I wanted to write book reviews, and I contacted the book review editors who assigned me several reviews over four years on a freelance basis. That was how I got in touch with the idea of writing for Friends Journal. I contemplated pursuing an additional master's degree in theological writing, and I happened to tell an elementary school colleague I was teaching part time and writing part time at the time, I told an elementary school colleague about this plan I intended to do it after retiring many decades away, and the colleague said I should consider that God might be calling me to do that type of writing sooner than retirement. And the very same day, three Friends from my meeting emailed me information about the job opening at Friends Journal. It felt kind of like a divine leading.

Chip Gruen:

Oh, okay, well, that's good. That's a very clear connection, then, isn't it? So one of the things more generally about journalism today, about journalism in the contemporary world, is that there is a real lack of support for printed work and a ubiquity of information, even if it's unreliable, untrustworthy information, you know, but it is often not only available, but free, and then drying up of revenue streams to support in depth, detail oriented reporting, like you do. And I would guess that you can speak to this also given that you've had some years in the career now that you have seen this shift as well. So can you talk a little bit about these challenges, how they've affected your work, how they've affected the Friends Journal and your reporting? I can't imagine that your publication is immune to the overall market forces. But maybe there are mitigating circumstances because of the kind of periodical that it is.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Yes, we definitely have some mitigating circumstances. Thank goodness. We rely heavily on donors, subscribers and advertisers. Being a monthly publication allows me to do long form in depth writing that I couldn't do at a daily newspaper for the most part, I would say the main mitigating factor is that we have my excellent colleague Sara Gada, who is the Director of Development, and she coordinates with people who are really generous with their estate planning, also with their donations while they're still here. And we also have my colleague, Margaret Wood, who keeps the ad dollars steadily flowing. I have to say, Quakers are very generous. Many of them are up in years, so they have accumulated enough wealth that they can share. We actually just got a $600,000 grant to add staff in Africa and Latin America. So I feel like we're really blessed to have that kind of support.

Chip Gruen:

If you don't have these numbers off top mind, we can, we can go in another direction. But you know, you saying that I'm curious about the global reach, about numbers of subscribers, about numbers of issues in print, like, how big of a endeavor is the Friends Journal?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, we have about 22,000 people who read us online. Many of them come from North America, but there are some people around the world who also read us, and we have about 4000 print subscribers. And thankfully, our content online is free, so you can access it without a paywall.

Chip Gruen:

All right, that's great. So our stated purpose on ReligionWise is to consider the intersection between religion and public life, and given your role as a journalist for a religious publication, you seem to be right at the nexus of those two things. Can you talk about your experience is as a journalist who, on the one hand, has a set of professional expectations about what journalism is and how you work, and as somebody who works for this Quaker publication, as a Quaker yourself, which has its own set of values. Do you find those two things always work hand in hand? Is there ever a stress or a pressure between those two things?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, I would say the most notable time that I experienced tension between those two things is when sources ask for financial support or help with fundraising, because Quakers really believe in community and equality. So sharing financial resources is something we'd normally be willing to do, but donating to sources as a journalist would be a conflict of interest. So you know, I have to maintain a critical distance from sources. I can't exert any undue influence over their answers. So sometimes that's really hard for me to have to tell sources. You know, I'm sorry that I can't really be a fundraiser or give you any money.

Chip Gruen:

Yeah, and your work, I mean, you we'll talk about some of your particular pieces as we move forward in our conversation today, but your work takes you to places where certainly funds would be helpful and necessary, right all around the world and here at home as well.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Yes, yes. And the only exception, actually, to the idea of not being able to fundraise is for natural disasters, because there's not really, you know, disagreement about whether there should be relief for natural disasters.

Chip Gruen:

So the Quaker tradition has really been one of the stalwarts over the last several hundred years for religious freedom in the United States, often aligning against government interests, in the defense of individual religious liberty, against governmental claims about what's needed for the public good. One of your recent articles entitled Quakers Sue DHS Over Immigration Enforcement and Religious Freedom. So this was dated in February, so you'll have to get us up to speed on on updating us here a few months later. But that article chronicles how the church has sought to keep ICE and other law enforcement from investigating and arresting suspected undocumented people within places of worship, and I know there's been rulings and policy changes on that now. Can you talk a little bit about, a you know, that particular instance of the Quaker tradition wanting to stand up against governmental I think what many of us would consider overreach and two that as a value in the Quaker tradition more generally.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Sure. Some Quakers that I interviewed talked about how quickly they were able to unite around the decision to join the lawsuit. And for context, Quaker, decision making is notoriously slow. Sometimes people will review an idea for up to several years before committing. So these folks who were committing to join the lawsuit, it took them a matter of perhaps an hour.

Chip Gruen:

Oh, wow.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Just because they had these values of thinking that, you know, they wanted to stand up for religious freedom. They wanted to stand up for people who have undocumented status, who are often joining them for worship or receiving social services at their meetings. So early Quakers were religious dissenters, they were imprisoned, such as George Fox for his refusal to swear oaths in court. James Nayler was incarcerated for blasphemy. He rode a donkey into Bristol, England, imitating Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. So Quakers have thus strongly favored separation of church and state because of their history of imprisonment. Interestingly, the lawsuit refers to a decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn versus Cuomo in which the US Supreme Court decided that gathering communally for worship was essential to religious liberty, and the government had to prove that it had a very compelling interest in abridging that liberty that couldn't be met in another way that was one of the a piece of case law that was referenced in the lawsuit.

Chip Gruen:

And is that lawsuit still winding its way through? Yet, it's if my memory from the headlines is

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Yes, it is. There was a preliminary injunction issued, I believe, shortly after my article, and it's still being decided correct that things kind of move on through executive order, even as the courts are deliberating yes? Yes.

Chip Gruen:

Yeah, I mean, this is kind of a larger, I mean, a larger issue, a larger question. But it seems to me that there are many religious communities, not just the United States, and not just in the contemporary world, that have sought a balance, often in the form of compromise with secular authorities like this is a story as old as time, right that to be, to be on the right side of government sentiment is to have favored status is to be able to practice as you wish you know. And we hope that we're beyond that with our First Amendment rights. But here we are, but the potential benefits of a bene benevolent government towards religious communities are just so vast, right, that a cozy relationship is sought after, right, is continually sought after. But Quaker attitudes seem really different. So you talked a little bit about, you know, the historical past and how Quakerism is sort of borne out. I mean, it's got a rebellious spirit at its heart, to some extent, but that this affects the values, it affects the belief and practice, the community, and really the identity of Quakerism. Can you put a little flesh on that and talk about that?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Sure, sure. So Quaker attitudes, I would say, tend to differ somewhat from those of other religious groups when it comes to a close relationship with various levels of government, we tend modern Quakers tend to admire those in our religion who advocated for abolition of slavery, but we do well to remember that it took Quakers a full century to disavow slavery. Many Quakers actually held enslaved people in bondage, which is something that isn't widely thought about. I think our Quaker heroes are those who stood up to a government that endorsed atrocities such as slavery. But as I said, that stance was a long time in coming, and we actually at Friends Journal, we recently accepted a piece about the importance of resistance by enslaved Africans in ending Quaker slave holding how the enslaved people's resistance actually helped persuade the Quaker slaveholders to disavow slavery. Another example is conscientious objection to war and conscription. Quakers were part of the historic peace churches, which include Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and Church of the Brethren. Federal law allowed us to opt out of joining the military because of our objection to killing others, but state draft boards often did not apply that exemption, as they should have. So the American Friends Service Committee was formed to offer alternate service opportunities to conscientious objectors who were Quaker. Some Quakers don't believe in even running for political office because they don't want to have a close relationship with the government. However, others think of working in politics as a way to bring their Quaker values to bear on public life, so there is a sense of a range of views about whether to get involved in politics.

Chip Gruen:

Interesting. So I'm wondering how that value, or that set of values, also affects the journalism that you do and the publication as a whole. I mean, I'm just going to throw out a little comparison here, but I remember being a kid and listening to public radio with my dad and hearing dispatches from the Christian Science Monitor all the time. And there was a way in which there was a disconnect between Christian Science and the Christian Science Monitor, which was just a behemoth of a news organization, a news outlet that kind of was able to cross boundaries into the mainstream. Do you think that the Friends Journal is able to do that? Would you say that your publication is a publication that is sort of most readable and targeted by people with Friends sympathies, or is it more? Is it, is it also for general readership?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, I would love to think that lots of people who are not Quakers would enjoy reading it. However, we definitely do target Quakers ourselves. Yeah, we feel like we need a space to consider how spirituality intersects with public life from a Quaker perspective. So we definitely target other Friends as readers.

Chip Gruen:

So we've made allusion already in our conversation about Quaker tradition being active and vibrant, not only in the United States, but all over the world, and I know that your reporting has taken you all around the world as well. So can you tell us about some of your experiences reporting on issues important to Quaker communities internationally, whether that be that there are international Quaker communities or that the concerns of domestic US Quakers, reach across boundaries in other parts of the world.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Sure. So understanding experientially what it means to live with limited material resources can inspire empathy and fellow feeling for people in economic need, that leads to a culture of generosity and care, one of the key values that I learned about when I went to South Africa was that of Ubuntu, which means I am because we are, or that's how it's translated into English. So I interviewed Esther Mombo, who is a Quaker and a professor of history in Kenya, she talks about Ubuntu, promoting the idea of sharing resources rather than hoarding them for oneself. She talked about how, when Kenya was colonized, a lot of that was destroyed, and people were encouraged to become more individualistic in their economic thinking as well as their social thinking, and folks are trying to reclaim Ubuntu in the post colonial era. Also, climate change is another place that Friends around the world may have some different experiences. In the global south, it has been a lot worse. Climate change makes dry places even drier and increases the risk of flooding. So both phenomena have caused food insecurity in Bolivia, community based organizations such as those I reported on in Bolivia and Kenya have organized tree planting projects to conserve water as well as efforts to provide seed potatoes to farmers whose crops have been devastated. So those are some of the ways that my reporting has reached across boundaries, like highlighting that work, there was a young woman that I interviewed, Mercy Miroya, when I was in South Africa, who she was part of an organization to replace eucalyptus trees, which are very water. They need a lot of water, and she was replacing them with native trees that didn't consume as much water, and that helped reduce the aridity that was happening. Yeah, and I also interviewed Emma Condori Mamani from Bolivia, and she was the organizer of the seed potato program. There was a devastating drought followed by a devastating flood that destroyed the potato crops, which are a staple in the highlands of Bolivia. So I talked with her about that, and she also wrote her own article about the experience of starting that program.

Chip Gruen:

So you can see on the one hand, that there are things that are maybe not universal values, but certainly progressive values that we would recognize right like climate stability, food security, you know, peace and prosperity, you know, in communities, those sorts of things. But then there are also, you know, as you go into these communities, I imagine that there might also be local particularity that you need to pay attention to, that the worldview of those people in South Africa or in Bolivia might be different. Have you run into challenges in thinking about, not only things that we think of as as sort of more universal human values to alleviate poverty and want, versus these things that are culturally attuned that might be a little bit more challenging to have your readings readers recognize?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

I think what comes to mind is some Friends in Africa tend to be more Christ centered than some Friends in North America. The meeting that I go to has a variety of beliefs. I'm one of the few Christ centered Quakers in my meeting. Other people, we actually have some atheists who worship with us, well, I guess they're not worshiping, they meet with us. And we also have people who practice Native American religions. There's just a real variety. But the the people that I interviewed when I was in South Africa, who came from around the continent, most of them have a focus on Christ in terms of their worship, and there they tend to be very biblically based.

Chip Gruen:

How does that affect the content of the journal as a whole then? I mean, is the, I mean, this is maybe a semantic question, but is the, is the Friends Journal a Christian publication, or is it? Is it gone beyond that to a Quakerism that means something a little bit different?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

I wouldn't describe us necessarily as a Christian publication, because we have a pretty wide variety of views. There definitely are Christians who write for us, Christian Quakers and but we also are having an upcoming issue all about non theist Quakers. We have a new Bible study column, which does tend to often have a Christian perspective, but we're also open to people studying the Bible from a different perspective. We just recently launched that column so it isn't fully fleshed out.

Chip Gruen:

Interesting. So you know, over the last several weeks, I've been reviewing your body of work and looking at not just article by article, but the corpus of things that you've written for the Friends Journal. And it seems like there are really two big baskets that we can talk about, we can talk about policy and law, and we've mentioned some of those things already. And then there are things that are more intimate. So I'm thinking particular about an article entitled, Dear God Help Me Here, that considered the work and practice of those who work with the terminally ill, which included hospice workers and chaplains, etc. Can you talk about those two kinds of categories or two kinds of stories, the challenges they present? Are they similar in ways that I don't see between, say, those more intimate pieces and those things that are much more about public life and public law and public policy.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, starting with some similarities. One of the main similarities is in the questions that I ask sources, whether I'm writing about the larger issues or the more intimate ones. I always ask which spiritual practices sustain you in your endeavors, and I also talk about what Quaker values motivate them. Those are two questions that are in every interview. But when I'm writing about the more personal stories, one of my big differences is that I have to be very careful to take steps to deal with secondary trauma, because the depth of empathy that I experience in an interview can be a bit overwhelming. So at Columbia Journalism School, where I graduate, graduated from, they have the Dart Center, which offers advice about trauma and journalists. So that has been very helpful to follow some of that advice. My usual practices are to take frequent walks between intense interviews, as well as to journal and do yoga regularly. Um, and this is sort of in contrast to when you think about a traditional newsroom, like people go out to the bar after their time reporting, you know. So I feel like there are better ways to kind of help you with your secondary trauma. Um, and I also have a lot of support from my Quaker meeting. People always are holding my work in the light. And that really, really helps to know that there's that investment, like in my emotional sustainability and my spiritual practice.

Chip Gruen:

So as you're thinking about sort of self care as a as a journalist, and you know, maybe the wells needing to be replenished right around some of those kinds of stories. How are your Is there a particular beat that you cover, or do you develop stories out of your own contacts? I mean, how do you divide those multiple baskets of stories. How do you know what you're working on next? And so, for example, if you think I need something with little more distance, you know, can you do that?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, we have themed issues, so we plan those out about 18 months in advance. So I do a brainstorming session about every six weeks to come up with ideas for future stories, and then we also get together as a staff and brainstorm. So everybody, even folks who are not like doing direct reporting, everybody will brainstorm ideas for the future issues. And I'm able to work on a lot of things simultaneously. So if I'm getting too much intensity, like I can put in some less intense interviews to break it up, because I'm always working ahead. So I have a variety of things to choose from.

Chip Gruen:

So what are some things that are on your docket now? What are you looking forward to and working on working on the next several months?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Okay, well, let's see. I'm working on a story about the anniversary of Obergefell v Hodges, which is the Supreme Court decision that said that same sex marriage is legal. So Quakers were discussing this in the 1980s and 90s, about whether to take same sex couples into the care of the meeting in terms of having them be married. We call it under the care of the meeting, so the meeting takes your relationship under its wing and supports you if you have any conflicts and or you know, even if you're not having conflicts, it's just a supportive environment. So I've been interviewing folks who were instrumental in discussing what we call minutes, which were passed at the time. A minute is a statement of support for a certain thing. So there were meetings in the early 90s who decided to pass minutes of support for same sex marriage before the Obergefell v Hodges case was decided. So that has been just fascinating talking about that history. I also am preparing a story about Quaker meetings in North America that have a majority indigenous membership. So that has been very interesting. I've done a few articles about relations between Quaker meetings and indigenous people, including discussions of Quaker involvement in indigenous boarding schools. So I'm glad to be able to continue in that vein.

Chip Gruen:

Nice. So I want to ask you to kind of look into your crystal ball a little bit here, because I think even though your publication doesn't sort of fit standard, you know, our standard definitions of what mainstream media looks like, I feel like you have a very good eye on some of the publication pressures and some of the the changes that are happening. Are we in a sustainable place around journalism right now? Do you see that there's going to be something that changes? Are we in a death spiral? What, what do you see happening in the next, you know, half a generation around journalism? Because it seems like there is a, you know, having good information is important to us, and we seem to be in a difficult place right now.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

One of my main concerns with regard to this is the many news deserts across the country. So there used to be, most communities had two, at least two, local newspapers that were dailies. That is becoming rarer and rarer. One thing that gives me hope, though, well, first, let me elaborate on that. That means a lack of coverage of municipal governments and school boards, which can have surely a lot of influence on individual voters in a community, but also sometimes they take on issues of national, you know, importance at the local level. But one thing that gives me hope is Report for America, which is an organization that seeks to to place reporters in underserved areas. Report for America pays half the reporter's salary and the newsrooms that hire them pay 25% and local donors pay 25% so I feel like we're shifting to a more philanthropic model of journalism. That has its own ethical questions that are raised, but I think that we are evolving away from an advertising based journalistic enterprise.

Chip Gruen:

So you know, thinking about ethical problems and the conundrum of where we are, it seems like the sort of the cornerstone of that conversation is about trust. You know that you need your readers to trust you. You know you need to have sort of the personal characteristics and even the writing style and the publications that you work for to be pillars of the community, as we used to say, which is different from just what pops up on Facebook or whatever people might happen to read. Can you talk about the importance of trust, about how you go about or your publication goes about, building trust with readers? You know how important it is to to be a fixture, right? Rather than something that just happens to pop up on somebody's news feed?

Sharlee DiMenichi:

I think one of the essential things that one needs to generate that trust is the ability to understand multiple vantage points and the willingness to maintain a critical distance from the opinions of the sources that you're interviewing. This comes up in such things as reporting on the conflict in Israel-Palestine, there's a clear difference between journalism and PR, and a lot of people don't understand that. So I'd love to see more media literacy being taught so that people can see, you know, if they have something that pops up in their news feed, they can evaluate the motivations of the writer. They can evaluate them, the moral convictions of the writer, what that person's goals are, and also think about whether that person is reporting fully and with enough critical distance. I think there's, unfortunately, a lack of media literacy classes in public schools.

Chip Gruen:

Yeah. Yeah. it's interesting. I mean, this is you're kind of speaking my language a little bit because in my my work. I mean, what I'm always trying to get students to balance on the one hand, empathy, which you've mentioned right already, like you want to be empathetic to you want to understand the situation of the people you're encountering, but on the other hand, critical inquiry and critical analysis that sits on the other side right, and to hold those two things in tension, it seems to me, would be an important skill you know, for for your line of work as well.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Yes, and one thing this brings to mind is one of one of the things that I try to do is to include, when I'm reporting on an interview, I try to include the quote that the person would most like included, and the quote that they would least like included. And I also try to ask questions that allow someone to talk about for example, I'll come up with a question that might have been posed by someone's critic and allow them to address that. And I feel like I'm serving the reader in that way by allowing the person to address the question, but also raising the issue that the critic would have raised.

Chip Gruen:

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That's very good. In a similar light, one of the questions I like to include in these conversations to sort of give you the opportunity to think about or to talk about or to share something that I might be myopic about, you know, something that that I don't have the, you know, the perspective to be empathetic to this concern. So what am I leaving out? What am I not seeing? What is important to you, for our listeners to come away with today about Quakerism, the confluence of Quakerism and journalism, the place of journalism in the contemporary world? Any, any of those issues.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Well, I would say Quakerism offers a chance for people to do deep listening, whether it be in an interview with a source, or deep listening to the divine when we're in meeting. And I think one thing I would love for people to know is that we try to practice a spiritual openness, and when we sit in expectant worship, we don't really have we don't know what's going to come out of that, we wait for the divine to speak to us. I think also I would love for people to know that we try to work to be a welcoming community. We try to practice equality, and we have fallen short historically in some of those things, but I think the desire is sincerely there for us to to do that.

Chip Gruen:

So I want to follow up just one thing. I think. I've not thought about this before, but there are many religious traditions that that value the idea of listening, you know, and Quakerism being one of them. But I never thought about the skills, if we can talk about worship skills, right? The skills associated with that might overlap with the skills of being a journalist, that you're doing something very similar and having expectations, but maybe those expectations are not focused, right? Are not geared towards one set of outcomes.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

Yes, I think that's true. And I think, well, I have to say that I am a somewhat imperfect participant in waiting worship, because my mind sometimes wanders. But when I am doing it well, I feel like I'm in a space where I'm very receptive. And I try to be in that space when I'm doing interviews as well, to try to be receptive, and even though I have to guide the conversation with questions, I try to allow folks to expand and elaborate, out of a deep respect for them, I feel like that's kind of a spiritual conviction that I bring to the table, that I really want to treat my sources with a lot of care and respect.

Chip Gruen:

All right. So I want to encourage everybody to look down in the show notes of your podcast app, and we will link to several of Sharlee DiMenichi articles so you can go and read for yourself. And with that, I want to thank you very much for coming on ReligionWise. This has been a pleasure.

Sharlee DiMenichi:

My pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.

Chip Gruen:

This has been ReligionWise, a podcast produced by the Institute for Religious and Cultural Understanding of Muhlenberg College. ReligionWise is produced and directed by Christine Flicker. For more information about additional programming, or to make an inquiry about a speaking engagement, please visit our website at religionandculture.com There you'll find our contact information, links to other programming and have the opportunity to support the work of the Institute. Please subscribe to ReligionWise, wherever you get your podcasts, we look forward to seeing you next time.