Q&A: From sports news to the Good News

Meet Mark Haas, the new Public Relations Director for the archdiocese

Aaron Lambert

Mark Haas thought he would be a sports anchor for much of his career. God had other plans.

Now, Haas is the new Director of Public Relations for the Archdiocese of Denver — a position that the communications office for the archdiocese has never traditionally had. Haas has enjoyed a fruitful career as a TV sports anchor — including a four-year stint on CBS 4 here in Denver — and brings a unique skillset to the archdiocese.

So how did Haas go from being a sports anchor covering the Denver Broncos on Super Bowl 50 to the director of public relations for the Archdiocese of Denver? We sat down with him to find out.

Denver Catholic: What sort of background do you come from?

Mark Haas: I grew up in Fort Collins and became very interested in the combination of sports and media, so I wanted to create a career out of that. I went to the University of Southern California, and then spent the next 12 years working my way through small television markets, with stops in St. George, Utah, Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Calif., and then four years here in Denver at CBS 4. I’ve spent my career working on the media side, so I have an understanding of how newsrooms work and I’m hoping that in this role, knowing how journalists work will help me to spread the stories and message of the Church in northern Colorado.

DC: How does a sports anchor end up as a PR director for the Catholic Church?

MH: I was born and raised Catholic, and like a lot of young adults, I went through some ups and downs in terms of my faith, but in the tough times, I’ve always been drawn back to a relationship with the Church and with God. Especially within the last year – I thought I was going to have a long career doing sports television. It was something I liked, it was something I enjoyed, it was something I thought I was good at. But I was faced with an unexpected job loss, and looking at what was important to me in terms of staying in Colorado, starting my family here and wanting to find a career that had value, I really turned the situation over to God. To best of my ability, I said, “Whatever you have planned for me next, I’ll do.” Through a long process of applying for jobs, interviewing for jobs, and trying to figure out what my skills could translate to, I ended up at the archdiocese and found a group of people that saw some value in my previous experiences and how I could translate them into some new experiences. There was a disappointment in leaving a career I loved, but there is excitement now in getting to start a new chapter and work for my Church and work in a capacity where I can better live and grow my faith.

DC: What are your goals as the PR director for the archdiocese?

MH: I think that for a long time local news coverage, in general, focused mostly on negative stories, but I’ve seen that start to change and local media give more attention to positive stories, and is there any better news than the news of Jesus Christ? My goal is to help highlight some of the great things that are happening in the Catholic Church and to make sure people are aware of the services that are offered by the Catholic Church.

I’ve also seen in my career, that many people have a negative opinion of the media and are hesitant to trust them, but it’s been my experience with the reporters, anchors and journalists I’ve worked with that they sincerely want to do a good job – they want to tell fair and truthful stories. So, my goal is to bridge the gap and be a great liaison between the media and Catholic Church, helping the local outlets do their job, and inviting them to tell our great stories.

DC: Who’s the most famous person that you’ve met?

MH: Peyton Manning. Peyton was very smart with the media and he knew how to avoid questions that he didn’t like. During tough times with the Broncos, he had a way of making a joke that we would all kind of bite on and that would become the headline as opposed to talking about the struggles with the team. He was very skilled – but professional – with the media.

COMING UP: Why 42 had to be impeached twenty years ago

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

Twenty years ago this month, I found myself seriously double-booked, so to speak.

The editing of the first volume of my John Paul II biography, Witness to Hope, was entering the ninth inning, and I was furiously engaged in exchanging edited and re-edited copy with my editors in New York. At the same time, the Clinton impeachment drama was cresting. And as I had long done speechwriting for Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I spent week after week of split time, working on John Paul II from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., then switching to impeachment for a couple of hours before returning to Witness to Hope in the evening.

It was not the optimal way to work but it had to be done, even if it seemed likely that the president would be acquitted in a Senate trial. On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives voted two articles of impeachment and senior House members, including Mr. Hyde, solemnly walked the two articles across the Capitol and presented them to the Senate’s leaders. On toward midnight, Henry Hyde called me and, referring to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, “We’re not going to make it. Trent won’t fight; I saw it in his eyes.” After a long moment I replied that, if we were going to lose, we had a duty to lay down a record with which history would have to reckon.

Which is what the great Henry Hyde did during the January 1999 Senate trial, where he bent every effort to prevent the proceedings from descending into farce.

For Hyde, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was an unavoidable piece of nasty business. It was not a matter of partisan score-settling, nor was it a matter of punishing a president for gross behavior with an intern in the White House. It was a matter of defending the rule of law. As Henry put it to me when it seemed clear that the president had perjured himself and obstructed justice, “There are over a hundred people in federal prisons for these crimes. How can the chief law enforcement officer of the United States be guilty of them and stay in office?”

Impeachment is a political process and it was clear by mid-fall of 1998 that the politics were not breaking toward removing the president from office. They had been pointed that way over the summer, though. And as the pressures built, it seemed as if the Clinton presidency might end as Richard Nixon’s had: Party elders, in this case Democrats, would go to the White House, explain that it was over, and ask the president to resign for the sake of the country. Then around Labor Day that year, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and other columnists began suggesting that, if Clinton were impeached and convicted, the sexual revolution would be over, the yahoos of reaction would have won, and we’d be back to something resembling Salem, Massachusetts, during the witchcraft insanity.

That was preposterous. It was also effective. And within days, at least in Washington, you could fill the templates shifting: This wasn’t about the rule of law, it was about sex and the yahoos couldn’t be allowed to win. (That Henry Hyde was the leader of the pro-life forces in Congress neatly fit this storyline, of course, abortion being a major plank in the platform of the sexual revolution.)

So once the game was redefined — Are you for or against the puritanical yahoos? — there was little chance to wrench the political process back to what it was really about: the rule of law. In his opening speech during the president’s trial, Henry Hyde tried valiantly to refocus the argument, insisting that high office did not absolve a man from obeying his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and his oath swearing to tell the truth to a federal grand jury. To suggest that it did was to “break the covenant of trust” between president and people, dissolving “the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice.”

It wasn’t a winning argument. But it was the right argument. And on this 20th anniversary, the nation should remember with gratitude those like Henry Hyde who, under fierce assault, stood for the rule of law.

Featured image by Gage Skidmore | Flickr