Try and think like an editor, for goodness sakes. What would make this story more newsworthy today than it would be tomorrow? Nothing. This story could run next week in the religion section, next month at the tail end of a "News of the Weird" type filler, or tomorrow as a lead editorial. There's no essential reason it needs to run right now-- when someone actually goes to court, when actual evidence of "embarrassment" or "loss of reputation" is presented-- those are "events" on which a larger story might hang, and then possibly grow. Among others, I have made the major news outlets and a good number of individual reporters and editors aware of this story, but reputable news organizations are in the news business, not the SCANDAL! industry. Right now, as far as news goes, it is worth following, but it doesn't have legs.
Currently, there are a number of issues of compelling interest in the world press, and, for a change, stories the public is actaully following. (While, last August, this whole harassment problem might have been immediately picked up.) This Quotes story does have merit, and a small degree of newsworthiness, but it has no pressing need to be told at the moment. Keep reminding your contacts, and on some particularly slow day, some bored middleweight might want to inflate a blurb into a minor piece of investigative reportage. Stranger things have happened.
On a more likely venue of media exposure, I have been in contact with some nationally syndicated writers on this topic, and there's agreement that there are principles involved in this case which would make it a viable subject for an American audience, and there is a justifiable tone of outrage which might suit a certain type of commentator. At present, those columnists who seem to be most interested are either among the (seeming legions of) Catholic conservatives or Libertarians-- not exactly my usual crowd, but I wasn't sure who would pick up on this. (The Right will generally not criticize any Christian religion, and the Left has enough problems with I.D.ers and a Faith-based Administration to take on a small-fry problem like this.) Again, the problem is that this is the sort of evergreen piece that could be written now and run any time in the next year, to no appreciable difference (from the columnist's perspective). Still, it has a few juicy details, and anyone with contacts in this field might find a receptive audience.
Now, if someone wants to be smart and figure out a way to make this story both compelling and have some genuine immediacy, go to it.
