When Pope Francis is relevant

Today marks Pope Francis' one-year anniversary in the papacy. Since I work in Catholic media, I hear and write about him quite a bit. I thought about him as I read this week's assignment from "The Elements of Journalism" on engagement and relevance.

When considering sensationalism, what only is engaging vs. what actually is relevant and what may be "fun and fascinating" but really is not the most important, the thought crossed my mind that a fair amount of reporting on the pope falls into this trap. Pope Francis sells — it's true. However, because of that, the public receives plenty of useless information, and many people use the pope as a springboard for varying agendas. This is true of both Catholic and secular media alike. I am probably guilty of it myself at times.

As much as people proclaim him to be so radical, he's not the first to shake things up in the Church. In the end, he is not doing anything that extraordinary compared to his predecessors. And yet, every word that he speaks becomes Gospel. Don't get me wrong — I fell in love with Pope Francis when he first stepped out on that balcony, gave a tiny wave and said "buena sera" — but I confess I got a little tired of hearing about him at one point, because we heard everything.

We have also run into bad reporting, whether when Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, wrote his interview from memory instead of recording it or at least taking notes, or when so many news sources took Pope Francis' words "Who am I to judge?" widely out of context.

Anyone covering Pope Francis, whether Catholic or secular, can take a step back and ask the question of relevance and truth. What does the public really need to know? How does what Pope Francis is doing impact a broader context? Does my story lead to the truth?

And next time Pope Francis rubs his face because he's tired or loses his cap — however endearing as it may be — I really don't need to know about it.