Christians within Journalism: Applications for People of Faith Entering the Field

Christians within Journalism 1

Running head: CHRISTIANS WITHIN JOURNALISM

Christians within Journalism:

Applications for People of Faith Entering the Field

Jen Slothower

A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for graduation

in the Honors Program

Liberty University

Spring 2008

Christians within Journalism 2

Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis

This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the

Honors Program of Liberty University.

____________________________

Clifford W. Kelly, Ph.D.

Chairman of Thesis

_____________________________

Lynnda S. Beavers, Ph.D.

Committee Member

_____________________________

David Baggett, Ph.D.

Committee Member

_____________________________

James Nutter, D.A.

Honors Director

_____________________________

Date

Christians within Journalism 3

Abstract

This thesis seeks to provide practical advice for an evangelical Christian entering the

field of journalism. Two ways for Christians to work within journalism were examined

throughout the research process: one, Christian publications and two, Christian people

working at secular publications, which is given the bulk of the attention. Research

included various books and articles on journalism, journalism history, and people of faith

in various occupations. Marvin Olasky, a leader in Christian journalism, was

interviewed, as was Dr. David Aikman, a Christian who worked within secular

journalism. The results of this research provide information for Christians entering

secular journalism, from a look at journalism’s past, to problems journalism has in the

present, to what Christians can do in journalism in the future. Information is presented to

encourage Christians who plan to spread Christ by working in secular journalism.

Christians within Journalism 4

Christians within Journalism:

Applications for People of Faith Entering the Field

Introduction

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us

which are saved, it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18, King James Version).

In the past few decades, the secular world has seen an onslaught of Christians

inserting themselves or their beliefs into the professional world again. These Christians

assume positions once held by people of the faith hundreds of years ago only to be

relinquished in the past century. Men and women have taken their religious beliefs back

into politics, academia, and the media. Christian television, books, magazines, and

political activist groups are commonplace. In the 2008 presidential race, both Time and

Newsweek devoted columns and sidebars to areas in which religion influences politics,

and special features on faith are widely read by the magazines’ subscribers in a country

that only years before had tried hard to separate religion from current events and faith

from living.

On the side of religion supporters, the change has been met with excitement and

an ever-increasing push to continue to make religion part of news and everyday life. This

is especially true in journalism, which is an obvious vehicle for championing worldviews.

David Outten, in a personal interview with George Wallace for a thesis about biblical

newspaper journalism, said:

As a journalist, a Christian has a tremendous opportunity to share God’s truth, not

only to those he personally comes in contact with, but a large audience hungry for

understanding. Furthermore, if Christians stay out of journalism, they leave the

Christians within Journalism 5

entire business of explaining of current events to those who do not believe in God.

(as cited in Wallace, 1991, p. 117)

While Christians are pleased with the changes within journalism, there are many people

who would rather have the predominately secular field of journalism be free of all

religious influence. Attacks from the nonreligious can be expected, but even some

religious people fear that the world of journalism will somehow be tainted by Christian

beliefs. Deborah Krause (2006), the academic dean of the ecumenically-minded Eden

Seminary, says, “Not everyone is enamored with the concept of ‘Christian journalists’

bringing their biblical perspective to the media work that they do. ‘I say, welcome to the

American Taliban’” (as cited in Corrigan, p. 18). Krause’s main fear is that Christians

will assert one view over the views of others, which will bring difficulties not only as

people of faith see matters differently from the world but also as people of different faith

then share their interpretation of issues adamantly. The “chauvinistic” attitudes of

Christians within the media will only cause more problems (as cited in Corrigan, 2006, p.

18), whereas regular journalism presumably would not face such concerns.

The criticism of Krause and others can be expected since Christians have often

erred in the past. Common are modern-day crusades of evangelicals trying to change the

world only to alienate unbelievers through hypocrisy, ignorant thinking, or strident

imposition. Still, Christians must pursue the mandate to reach the unsaved world for

Christ, and thus they must devise a way to get Christians into secular fields in a way that

they can be a help, not a hindrance.

Many schools of thought exist for how Christians should operate within secular

fields, and journalism has its own unique wrinkles and dynamics in the discussion. For

Christians within Journalism 6

example, some think that religion can be covered like any other event – like a stock car

race or foreign election, for example. That which is seen by the secular world as merely

“religious” events, however, can actually be life-changing matters of conviction and the

perceived truth to Christians. Men and women of faith attest that religion is not just

another facet of life; rather, it is something that can change lives and perspectives,

something that can make this world a better place in a way that no sports team or

government program can do.

Christians enter all facets of life with a worldview intact that not only says their

God has all the answers, but also that they need to share him. The field of journalism is

no exception, although the way Christian journalists share their faith in Christ may be

more subtle. Mainstream journalism does not necessarily understand the workings of

faith, however. Eric Alterman (2003) wrote that religion is “by definition, a matter of

faith. How is a reporter trained in ‘who, what, when, where, and why’ to treat reports of,

say, a miracle or a visitation?” (p. 104). After hearing about objectivity and facts in

journalism schools, reporters are right to be skeptical of anything they cannot see, prove,

or back up with an authoritative source.

Therefore, Christians entering journalism are likely to find hostilities as their

convictions are insinuated in their work. They must not only survive in this field,

however, but also thrive if they are to be effective witnesses for Christ. Christians can

succeed within journalism, but first they must understand their Biblical convictions

(including having a Biblical worldview), then they must understand the vast field of

journalism and the many problem areas within, and finally they must be prepared to deal

with the hostilities and misunderstandings between religion and the media before forging

Christians within Journalism 7

a productive future within journalism for other people of the faith. The Christian

journalist who does it right will be an asset because he or she will do a job well with

utmost regard to people, ethics, and the overall improvement of the world and those

within.

A Christian can succeed in the world of journalism as both a strong Christian and

a strong journalist. The purpose of this thesis is to give practical application to Christians

entering journalism today.

Presuppositions

The following paper, which is devoted to how Christians can thrive within

journalism, will examine basic Biblical convictions, journalism as a craft, and the

potential problem areas and tensions between the media and religion. Several

presuppositions must first be proposed to clarify the foundational terms within the subject

of “Christians within journalism.” First, although in the minds of Christians there should

not be a distinction between Christian and secular worlds (for the whole world is fallen,

and Christians are to be in the world and not of it), unfortunately, both the secular world

and Christian subcultures have separated Christianity from the rest of the world. Thus, it

is necessary to sometimes refer to the “secular world.” Second, the journalism examined

will predominantly be American journalism. Third, the study of Christians within

journalism will be primarily devoted to an individual Christian entering a secular field

rather than groups of Christians or Christian organizations and publications. Finally,

Christian must be explained, since the term is used differently by many people. The

Christian in this paper will be an evangelical Christian, though many of the conclusions

Christians within Journalism 8

will have a wider application to many professing Christians. The Barna Group’s (2008)

definition for this Christian says:

‘Evangelicals’ meet the born again criteria plus seven other conditions. Those

include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have

a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-

Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible

only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on

earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God

as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still

rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church

attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church they attend.

(“Definition of evangelical Christian,” para. 3)

This thesis will attempt to give practical advice to an individual rather than devote

attention to every specific code or situation in journalism. For the purposes of this study,

“Christianity,” “the faith,” and “religion” will all be used interchangeably.

Introduction to Biblical Implications

A Christian journalist must first understand the Biblical implications of the faith.

Although time cannot be devoted to a comprehensive synopsis of how the Bible instructs

a Christian to live, a basic foundation can be identified. Those who follow Christ must

realize first that they have distinct responsibilities and second, that there is a need for a

God-centered perspective. Once these areas are examined, a Christian can make practical

application for the journalistic world.

Christians within Journalism 9

Responsibilities of Christians

The first Biblical implication is that, as a follower of Christ, the Christian has

several responsibilities. Man’s creation was for the glorification of God, and although

man’s sinfulness derailed the human race, the provision of salvation and sanctification

through the work of Christ has made a way for man to once again glorify God. Specific

responsibilities were given by God as guidelines to help mankind know how God would

want people to live. Although Christians may choose to ignore these responsibilities, the

teachings God provided were meant for the ultimate goal of God’s glorification. Two

specific instructions are love and evangelism.

Love, evangelism, and the glorification of God. First, love is an integral part of

the Christian life. Not only is it the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37-40), but

when Jesus Christ spoke to his disciples, he said love was the way the world would know

whom the followers of Christ are actually serving (John 13:35). All throughout the New

Testament, love is a sign of obedience to Christ. Christians mirror the love of Christ and

are to show love to those around them. An attitude of love is shown both personally and

through the idea of a community, where many work together for the good of each other.

This is in stark contrast to modern society, where community has decreased and

individualism instead has been promoted. Ian Barbour (1993) writes:

The Bible also offers a distinctive view of persons in community, which avoids

both collectivism and individualism. Industrial society has been dominated by

large impersonal organizations, mass advertising, and urban anonymity. In

reaction, many people have sought personal meaning in self-actualization as

autonomous individuals. (p. 262)

Christians within Journalism 10

The love of Christ takes individuals and incorporates them into the loving community of

the body of Christ, where each growing Christian learns the unconditional love of Christ,

which then spreads to loving others, including their audience and their co-workers. For

an unsaved person to become part of the body of Christ, however, Christians must engage

in their second responsibility: evangelism.

Evangelism is sharing the gospel of Christ (as commanded in Mark 16:15).

Although most people connect evangelism with a spoken message, sharing Christ also

happens when Christians live in a way that reflects Christ through God-centered living.

The Christian’s overall goal is to live a life that glorifies God, and while there are many

specific commandments, the Christian should always seek to glorify God first and

foremost (1 Corinthians 10:31 and 1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and this is what will ultimately

satisfy such commandments and influence others to him. The Bible offers many specifics

for godly living, such as Leviticus 5:1, which instructs people to speak up when they

have information about a situation, or James 5:12, which demands accountability for

spoken words. (These instructions and others can apply directly to journalism.) Living a

God-centered life also demands an attitude of excellence in all things, whether great or

small. The parable of the steward shows that God wants excellence in the little as well as

the large (Luke 16:10). Many throughout history have followed this standard of doing

one’s best, as John Schmalzbauer (2003) notes:

An enduring tradition in Western Christianity emphasizes the sacredness of a job

well done, regardless of its religious content. In the words of Martin Luther, ‘the

Christian shoemaker does his Christian duty not by putting little crosses on the

Christians within Journalism 11

shoes, but by making good shoes, because God is interested in good

craftsmanship.’ (p. 48)

Christians should be more concerned with having lives of excellence that reflect God

than spouting religious creeds or wearing religious clothing. Being Christians in both

word and deed is how God is glorified and mankind is given a clear picture of him.

The drawback: sin. The responsibilities of Christians would be a simple task if

not for the sin that entangles mankind in its quest to glorify God. Charles Haddon

Spurgeon once said, “All the devils in hell and tempters on earth could do us no injury if

there were no corruption in our own natures” (as cited in Olasky, 1988, p. 15). Biblical

teaching echoes his sentiment, speaking of man’s “darkened” understanding,

“ignorance,” and “blindness” (Ephesians 4:18), and a “carnal mind” that is “against God”

(Romans 8:7). Colossians 2 lists the different ways that man seeks satisfaction other than

God, such as different religions or materialism. Barbour (1993) writes that today, “We

have turned technology into a religion, seeking meaning and salvation . . .” (p. 262). The

lack of satisfaction from this world and the things of this world stems from sin within, a

condition that can only be rectified by a relationship with God, who also provides the

power to fulfill the responsibilities that will glorify him. Sin nature also complicates

man’s ability to interpret life. Without acknowledging a background of sin, man is left to

guess and wonder as to the cause of the hurtful effects of man’s actions. Marvin Olasky

(1988) writes:

Many Washington correspondents, living in a politicized world, see error or plot

in politics and economics but will not accept its origin in the original sin within

Christians within Journalism 12

individuals. They consciously avoid admission of sin’s power, for such power

would condemn themselves. ( p. 39)

Without accepting the idea of intrinsic sin, man lives without a guideline for the

interpretation of life.

Perspective of Christians

The second biblical implication, the necessity of a God-centered perspective, is

integral to a Christian’s life if he or she wants to fulfill the responsibilities of Christ.

With biblical responsibility and man’s sinful nature vying for the allegiance of Christians,

and, for that matter, truth and sin vying for the hearts of mankind, one must wonder how

anyone ever gets it right. Since man is born and raised with such a sinful mindset, it

would seem that godliness would be hard to attain, and indeed, Christian theology

teaches that apart from God, it is impossible (Luke 18:27). Throughout the history of the

world, however, God has required righteousness for those who follow him and seek his

ways. Romans 4:3 says that Abraham, one of the earliest recorded men to have an active

relationship with God, “believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

So, God requires faith from men – faith in him, as God, and that he being God will

provide what fallen man needs, whether it be the way of salvation or help in daily living.

The necessary of a relationship of faith between God and man has been a consistent

thread all throughout history. Barbour (1993) notes, “The prophets of ancient Israel lived

in a world very different from ours, yet they lived, as we do, in times of national crisis

and international conflict” (p. 261). Those followers of God still sought to glorify God

through their faith, just as Christians do today. As men have faith in God, he provides

them with his perspective of life instead of the sinful perspective to which mankind is

Christians within Journalism 13

already accustomed. Having a God-centered perspective or worldview is not an

ideology; it is a lifestyle built on faithful living.

The idea of bringing individual perspectives to journalism is not new. A term

more widely accepted than “perspective” is an individual’s “worldview,” which,

according to Charles Marler (1997), amounts to “the values, beliefs, theories of history

and life, and the nature of good and evil that drives his or her understanding of how the

world works” (p. 50). Marler says that journalists should be aware of their personal

worldviews so as to not let assumptions unwittingly work their way into their writing, for

assumptions are the certain death of critical thinking and writing. However, for

Christians God’s perspective provides absolute truth for Christians. Having a worldview

based on the perspective of God, and knowing that worldview well, will produce

cohesive arguments based on truth rather than faulty conjectures resting on assumptions.

Christians should be aware of both their own worldview and that of others so they can

compare that to God’s perspective and know how to communicate with a widely

diversified audience.

Perspective is necessary because just as sin nature and carnal minds steered

Christians incorrectly before conversion, the sin nature and wiles of Satan continue to

attack throughout the rest of life. There is a need for a godly perspective in life instead of

the normal, carnal perspective. While Colossians 2 explains how the ways of man would

never satisfy, Colossians 3 takes the argument a step further and tells the Christian what

to do, saying to “set your affection on things above, not on the things on the earth” (verse

2). In the Psalms, David also talks about setting his mind on the things of God, and 2

Corinthians 10:5 instructs Christians to bring every thought “captive to Christ.” Such

Christians within Journalism 14

verses instruct Christians to focus their minds on God, viewing life from his perspective

rather than the perspective of man, which does not satisfy. This perspective envelops

every area of life, looking toward the future day when the fellowship between man and

God (once broken by sin) is perfected – as Colossians 3:4 says, “When Christ, who is our

life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory” (italics added).

If a perspective is to cover every area of life, then naturally it must include the

workplace. A Christian’s job is always one of the most important places to show the

perspective of Christ and glorify God. Olasky (1988) echoes Hebrews 11:8-16 when he

writes, “A Christian journalist must know that a news organization is not a home. We are

wayfarers and sojourners here on this earth generally, and in newspapers or broadcast

stations specifically” (p. 179).

Christian Journalism

With an understanding of the Biblical implications necessary to the Christian life,

Christians can then forge a plan with which to enter the field of journalism. Two basic

forms of Christian journalism exist. The first is the Christian-organized, Christian-run,

Christian-published type that basically employs and reaches Christians. Marvin Olasky is

probably the best-known Christian journalist, and he largely supports this type of

Christian journalism. In several books on the craft, Olasky promulgates the idea of

“Biblical objectivity” – which he says is the concept that all journalism should be

approached with a biblical worldview, reporting and interpreting with a God-centered

filter in which God’s truth is the standard by which everything should be compared.

Biblical objectivity as a method would obviously never fly as it is in the secular

journalism world (for although Christians find truth knowable, most in the world see it as

Christians within Journalism 15

subjective and thus would deem this kind of reporting as biased), so Olasky mainly

advocates Christian organizations, although he does agree that many individual

Christians have been able to make a difference in the secular field (M. Olasky, personal

communication, November 2, 2007). Overall, however, Olasky supports Christian

publications, and he is currently the driving force behind the widely-read Christian

periodical World. Olasky (1988) writes:

In the long run, Christian journalists will need Christian publications. In that long

run, it is clear that only news organizations owned and staffed by Christians will

be able to practice journalism consistent with strong Biblical faith. Only through

independence can Christians make sure that the Bible is taken seriously in

journalism. (p. 180)

Essentially, Olasky asserts that secular publications will never allow Biblical objectivity

to power their reporting. However, this does not mean that Christian journalists will be

confined to Christian publications to promote the principles of Christ.

The second type of Christian journalism involves Christians taking that same

basic idea of Biblical objectivity into the secular workplace and spreading the perspective

of Christ. Christians can still work in secular publications with their Biblical worldview;

they just must be careful not to use jargon and must take an extra measure to be even-

handed. That is, they must communicate in the language of the culture but not depart

from the truth. Therefore, Christians in secular publications will not look like Christians

in Christian publications will, although they both believe the same – context makes a

difference. This may be done in many different forms. Although Christians will

probably not begin by blatantly noting original sin in their news articles, they may

Christians within Journalism 16

eventually be able to write editorials, columns, or other pieces with clear Biblical

objectivity. Furthermore, Christians within the secular journalism field will create a great

witness for Christ as they report the biblical, moral perspective while still respecting

traditional journalism. The individual Christian’s faithfully modeling his or her belief

will be a powerful testimony to the unsaved. It is this second type of Christian

journalism – a method that has been attempted in mostly small and isolated instances in

the past – that can be the new form of Christian journalism in the modern age.

Journalism’s Past

With a foundation laid for Christians, attention can be given to the actual field of

journalism, first by examining journalism in the past. Christians once dominated the field

in the days of the American partisan press, although journalism is largely secular now. A

look at journalism history will unearth key aspects that can be used in today’s journalism

to aid the Christian journalist’s cause.

Origins of Journalism

In examining journalism’s past, one must first give attention to the craft’s origins.

Martin Conboy (2004) notes that “there is not and never has been a single unifying

activity to be thought of as journalism” (p. 3). Paul Manning (2001) explains:

Most commentators agree that at the simplest level, news journalists should have

the task of gathering and communicating to the public up-to-date information

from home and abroad, in order to sustain political discussion and the democratic

process. Yet beyond this, very little is agreed. (p. 2)

With such a wide interpretation of journalism, those who practice the craft have

considerable freedom, especially to add personal opinion in the matter. Conboy (2004)

Christians within Journalism 17

writes that “journalism, even in its earliest stages, was never narrowly focused on the

simple reporting of the world but has always contained the potential to express opinion

and have a proactive effect on the world it reports” (p. 33).

In its purest form, journalism is the relaying of information from one person to

another. Just as a neighbor may run down the street and tell anyone who cared to hear

that a house was burning at the other end, journalists today fill their papers with news that

will interest others. The journalists are the go-betweens for people who cannot be at all

places at all times but still want the information from those places. The predecessor of

journalism was relaying information about other people, often in the form of rumor and

gossip. New forms of journalism continue to come and add onto the old methods, such as

newspapers’ taking a bite from the gossip avenues, then radio’s taking part of

newspaper’s shares, then television, then the Internet, and so on.

A Brief Look at Journalism in the Past: 1440-1600

The earliest recorded method of written news was the Acta Diurna of ancient

Rome, a transmission of public events, deaths, and such that was posted outside public

buildings (Olasky, 1991). Johann Gutenberg’s printing press revolutionized journalism

(eventually changing the world as it was known and leaving effects throughout history at

all levels of life, especially when it brought about the Reformation). In the Middle Ages,

Henry VII took the craft to a new level when he began to try to spread news formally

before rumors could start, thereby controlling the content of news (Conboy, 2004).

Politics and journalism would continue to intertwine throughout the years. Conboy

(2004) writes, “In feudal times, authority needed to control and if necessary suppress

information since knowledge has always constituted an important form of power” (p. 7).

Christians within Journalism 18

This power of communication increased even more with the worldwide trading in the

fifteenth century (Conboy, 2004).

Journalism in America: 1600-present

American journalism flourished as the new country craved press freedom, an

attitude that has permeated American journalism from its inception. First, when the

founders of the United States of America established their new country in the late

eighteenth century, they realized the press was a valuable tool. Scarred by the

suppression of many rights under English rule, the Americans sought new freedoms, one

of them being a freedom of the press, which the First Amendment of the Constitution

established. Along with this freedom was the decision that a license would not be

required, a vast change from English laws, which imposed jail time or worse for those

attempting to print without a license, whether they be in England or America. The belief

in the rights of men that the founders championed was rooted in the writings of John

Locke, a seventeenth century English philosopher. William Proctor (2000) said:

Locke believed that natural law and fundamental human rights could be

discovered by reason. But God was the ultimate source of human reason and

everything else. So reason could only be exercised in accordance with the will

and guidance of God. (p. 155)

The quest for human rights – based on a worldview that gave due glory to God –

established the rights that would make the new land so free. Americans quickly took

advantage of this freedom. The press eventually was called the “fourth estate,” deemed

equally as influential as the church, the judiciary, and the commons.

Christians within Journalism 19

S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda S. Lichter (1986) write, “Since the

mid-nineteenth century, Americans have generally assumed that order is relatively easy

to maintain if the people are properly informed. To them the great danger lies in the

possible tyranny of those chosen to govern” (p. 5). American journalism and its freedom

put power in the hands of the people. The major trademark of American journalism was

that its unabridged freedom meant that virtually anyone could be a journalist. Jay Black,

Bob Steele, and Ralph Barney (1999), in their basic journalism handbook, note, “In a

society that protects people who speak or write, any person (literate or illiterate, learned

or ignorant, socialized or rebellious, passive or outraged) may become a journalist

without standards imposed either by government or professional groups” (p. 17). The

lack of suppression by outside groups has let journalism in America flourish. Online

blogging and other similar forms have recently championed this freedom as anyone can

not only be a journalist but also create a following larger than established newsgroups.

Since journalism in its purest form is merely conveying information from one

person to another, and since America has much freedom for the field, Christian

journalists can take heart. Billy Graham (1997) notes a connection between traditional

journalists and traditional evangelists, writing:

An evangelist, in a sense, is a newspaper man because in the old Greek city-states

they did not have television or newspapers, but they would have a town crier that

would go up and down the streets announcing the latest news. He was called an

evangelist . . . . He’s an announcer; he’s a writer; he’s a crier of news. (as cited in

Evensen, pp. 172-173)

Christians within Journalism 20

As Christians take their godly perspective into every avenue of life, especially the

workplace, they can see that their job is not much different from what men have done

through the ages as they shared Christ.

The Partisan Press: 1700-1830

The first major era in American journalism was that of the partisan press. Early

papers deliberately set out to tell their side of the story. Jim Kuypers (2002) writes:

Originally . . . the press in America operated quite differently. Early American

newspapers were a small, cottage affair that actually began as a sideline for many

printers. The largest papers in the country were read by a few thousand people at

most, and this was the norm until the rise of the penny press in the 1830s. These

early presses did not need to be objective in the sense that we use the term today,

for they had a limited, partisan audience of readers: Whigs, Democrats,

Republicans, French, German, etc. Even at the onset of the twentieth century the

presses were not entirely objective. (p. 13)

Readers selected papers as to what fit their interests and beliefs. In the early years of

American journalism, God was a major part of all reporting. Olasky (1988) notes:

Much of American journalism until the mid-nineteenth century emphasized God’s

sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Kings who disobeyed God were exposed as

sinful. Duelists were without honor because they thought esteem among men

more important than following God’s commands. Lightning storms taught

spiritual lessons. Lack of repentance had murderous consequences. (p. 31)

Reporting systematically included God when interpreting events, largely because the men

writing the news considered God part of everything. “Then, those who ignored the

Christians within Journalism 21

spiritual were considered subjective atheists, allowing their own feelings to overcome

what really was there . . . . Journalists evidently saw that the world could not be

understood apart from a Biblical context” (Olasky, 1988, pp. 61-62). Man’s using God’s

perspective in everyday life was common in the partisan press in early American

journalism.

Journalism did not necessarily view the partisan press as good, however. Jim

Willis (2003) notes that some journalism historians “refer to it as the Dark Ages of

American journalism” (p. 4). In the coming years, attention would instead be given to

objectivity and presenting facts that readers could interpret themselves, a method

journalists believed would be more beneficial. The overwhelming inclusion of spiritual

matters in journalism would disappear in the days of the penny press and mass circulation

papers. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, no hint of the early American

journalism that kept God so prominent could be found. Schmalzbauer (2003) writes,

“Religion’s marginal presence in journalism and social science is remarkable, given the

central role of American Protestantism in the development of both fields” (p. 7). New

worldviews swept through America in the nineteenth century and changed journalism’s

way of thinking.

Changes in Journalism: 1840-present

As the partisan press ebbed away, new forms of journalism emerged in America,

such as the increased demand for objectivity and the advent of sensationalism and yellow

journalism. Michael Buchholz (1997) says, “By the fourth decade of the nineteenth

century, another important shift had occurred: newspapers emerged that were read for the

news they contained, not for the political party or philosophy they supported” (p. 10).

Christians within Journalism 22

Cheap newspapers came through the penny press, but at the same time, social currents

were beginning to change the thinking of Americans. As moves were made to try to

improve American society apart from religion, the country looked to the emergence of

the social gospel and secular academics. Olasky (1996) says, “Increasingly, liberal

ministers began to proclaim that man was not inherently sinful, and that if man’s

environment were changed, man himself could become perfect” (p. 163). With this

attitude, the blame for man’s problems shifted from the correct origin – man’s sinfulness

– to outside causes instead. Olasky (1996) talks about a leading journalist of the era,

Lincoln Steffens:

Once, discussing the biblical Fall within the garden of Eden, Steffens said the

culprit was not Adam, or Eve, or even the snake: ‘It was, it is, the apple.’ Good

people were corrupted by a bad environment – and the goal of journalists,

Steffens believed, was to change the environment . . . .” (p. 217)

As more journalists and the rest of society looked for outward causes and solutions, they

increasingly relied on evidence deemed factual and verifiable, and religion was not one of

these. Instead, spiritual matters were seen as subjective and unimportant, a relic of the

past.

Journalism and Wire Services: 1840-1900

As America moved from the partisan press to an era during which people required

objectivity first and foremost (or from the libertarian to the social responsibility era),

different factors in society and development led to the changes in American journalism.

The quest for objectivity in journalism really picked up with the invention of the nation’s

first wire services. Stuart Allan (1999) writes, “The introduction of the electric telegraph

Christians within Journalism 23

in the 1840s is also typically cited by newspaper historians as a crucial contributory

factor informing the emergence of journalistic ‘objectivity’ as a professional ideal, one

based on the presentation of ‘unvarnished facts’” (p. 17). The wire services were able to

provide “objectivity” because, due to desire for fast, complete news, only the straight

facts were sent across the valuable new lines. Those facts were then distributed through

the wire service, and every paper had the equal opportunity to use the same facts however

they pleased instead of relying on reports from many different journalists. As the amount

of available information increased, the desire to control that information spawned

newspaper giants such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, who brought the

rise of sensationalism and yellow journalism at the turn of the century.

Desire for Circulation: Sensationalism: 1900-1930

The deviation of journalism into wild stories and hyped headlines was fueled by

the desire and drive to sell more papers. Buchholz (1997) outlines Pulitzer’s desire for

power: “Unable to run for president himself because of his foreign birth, he wanted to do

the next best thing, influence the election of a president. For that kind of influence,

Pulitzer needed circulation” (p. 14). To increase circulation, both Pulitzer and Hearst

printed stories that took misdeeds and magnified them. On one hand, they and their

muckraking counterparts did great good for America by exposing wrongs and calling for

justice. On the other, their desire for more circulation often caused unnecessary and

untruthful character assassination, the effect of which was equal to that of slander.

President Theodore Roosevelt commented on the negative effects of yellow journalism:

The attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful. The liar is no whit better than

the thief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander, he may be worse than

Christians within Journalism 24

most thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honest

man, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth. An

epidemic of indiscriminate assault upon character does no good, but very great

harm. The soul of every scoundrel is gladdened whenever an honest man is

assailed, or even when a scoundrel is untruthfully assailed. (as cited in Olasky,

1996, p. 218)

While the time of yellow journalism did expose some wrongs, the overall effect was

often the sacrifice of simple truth to instead satiate the public’s cry for crude information.

The following years would see a change in journalism as attempts were once again made

to use journalism as an avenue of simple, objective truth.

In the 1930s and 1940s, however, another question was slowly added to the

journalist’s normal list of who, what, when, where, and how: why. Journalists began to

ask why things happened the way they did. Without the spiritual influence of early

American journalism, however, reporters were once again left to guess and assert,

explicitly or otherwise, worldviews at odds with that of Christianity.

Loss of the Spiritual and Journalism and Technology: 1940-present

By the middle of the twentieth century, hardly any evidence of the spiritual

influence in American journalism remained. Olasky (1988) says, “There is little evidence

of editors explicitly banning God from the front page. Instead, they redefined ‘reality’ to

exclude the spiritual realm” (p. 31). Without spiritual matters being included regularly in

journalism, reporters were hard pressed to understand the times or the complexities of

faith. Olasky (1988) continues, “By the 1970s, many reporters seemed unable to

understand even basic Christian concepts” (p. 38), which he attributes to “sometimes a

Christians within Journalism 25

lack of understanding of basic Christian concepts; sometimes a refusal to believe that

intelligent people actually take those beliefs seriously; and, probably most often,

deliberate suppression of truth about God and self” (p. 39). This vast change in

American journalism can be seen in Georgie Anne Geyer’s (1984) description of

journalistic truth, devoid of any real certainty: “Journalism is and must be the search for

the little, relative truths that alone keep us sane in the world; it is the relentless search for

what can be known, not for what cannot be known” (pp. 72-73). As spiritual matters

were relegated more and more to the sphere of the unknown or the subjective, any real

attention to truth had to be abandoned within American journalism.

The French philosopher of communication Jacques Ellul called for social change

in his book, Presence of the Kingdom, published in 1989. He says, “Day after day the

wind blows away the pages of our calendars, our newspapers, and our political regimes,

and we glide along the stream of time without any spiritual framework, without a

memory, without a judgment, carried about by ‘all winds of doctrine’ on currents of

history . . . . Now we ought to react vigorously against this slackness, this tendency to

drift. If we are to live in this world, we need to know it far more profoundly; we need to

rediscover the meaning of events, and the spiritual framework which our contemporaries

have lost” (as cited in Wallace, 1991, pp. 16-17).

The final area and most recent in journalism’s past to be examined is the arrival of

technology as a major force in the field. Steven R. Knowlton (1997) describes the

demands of technology on ethics when he notes, “As technological developments make

news delivery more efficient and more immediate, the time to think about a story gets

shorter and shorter” (p. 68). With the less time to form stories, less time has been given

Christians within Journalism 26

to add meaning to the stories (as well as facts). The Internet has especially bolstered the

American ideal of the democratization of journalism, and the traditional middleman

journalist is increasingly cut out of the news gathering and consumption process. Conboy

(2004) notes that recent journalistic debates have wondered “whether people can even

now become better informed by going to the Internet, rather than edited, journalistic

sources” (p. 225). The real question is whether people trust their own interpretations of

stories over that of the usual journalists. Knowlton (1997) says that:

Because of the Internet, readers and viewers may be able to do without journalists

altogether, taking their information directly from Internet sources, unfiltered and

unmediated by a reporter . . . . Before the Internet, it was wildly impractical for

ordinary citizens to gather, digest, and take meaning from the many sources that

provided most of our news. But Internet technology makes some of the gathering

part relatively easy, leaving the reporter’s essential role that of digesting and

interpreting. (p. 70)

As journalism returns to its original form of passing along information from one person

to another, many people are choosing to cut the middleman. Their experience with the

media has been less than satisfactory in recent years, a problem that will be examined

later, but the conclusion can be drawn that technology has put some of the power back

into the hands of the individual rather than those who run traditional media outlets.

Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm (1956) categorize the

different kinds of the press in The Four Theories of the Press. They describe four eras,

often with features overlapping, that can explain the relationship between society and the

press. In the authoritarian view, which was prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth

Christians within Journalism 27

centuries (the beginning of printing), the press functioned from the top down “with a few

men determining the information for all” (p. 2). This view would be the journalism that

colonists were experiencing when they decided to move to America. The second view,

the libertarian view, puts more emphasis on the individual person and his or her ability to

reason; the press helps this person search for truth. The libertarian view fits with the

aforementioned change from the partisan press era into the nineteenth century, when

people began to search for objectivity.

The third view, social responsibility, branched off the libertarian view and called

for fair representation (Siebert, Peterson, & Schramm, 1956). This was when journalists

became concerned with the public’s “right to know” and began to develop trade

standards. Brought into full force in the 1950s, the social responsibility is what mainly

drives the press today and is the most prevalent view for what journalism should be

toward society today. The final view is the Soviet communist view, which was more

influential in the time of Siebert, et. al’s work. In this view, the press is not only

authoritarian but also completely controlled by the state. These four theories provide a

different structure by which to view the press, each giving explanation for why society

and the press work together in such a way.

Journalism in the Present

Now that time has been given to examine changes in American journalism in the

past, the field in its present state will be observed. Modern journalism will be examined

in three major parts: one, individual journalists; two, current problems in journalism; and

three, religion in journalism.

Christians within Journalism 28

Individual Journalists

Individuals entering journalism face different challenges. They must work well

with the public and its high expectations as well as fulfilling other responsibilities

generally expected of individual journalists.

The Press and the Public

One consideration is that the public has a particular attitude toward the press, and

the press has a certain responsibility to the public.

Public’s view of the press. First, the public has a distinct view of journalists.

Black, et al. (1999) write about a woman who wanted a career in writing but decided

against journalism because of its nature, which she perceived to be full of trickery, ethical

problems, and questionable practices. However, the writers found that “after ten years of

observing government and other social institutions at work, she concluded that if the

world is to be saved from selfish self-destruction it would be the journalists, in all their

objectionable practices, who would do it” (p. 1). This dichotomy is what makes the

relationship between the press and the public so unique. On one hand, the public

generally has a low view of the media as all kinds of tactics are used to discover and

divulge information, yet they continue to consume information from these sources and

accept what they hear. M.L. Stein’s (1974) research of the field continues to hold true

today: “People may dislike the press, but they’re prone to believe what they read and

hear” (p. 100).

Press’s responsibility to the public. A problem that journalists face when trying

to please the public is the gap between profitable journalism and journalistic

responsibility. Journalism is as commercial as any trade, a craft that would soon go out

Christians within Journalism 29

of business if not for subscriptions and advertisers. As a result, most publications look to

reach the public in a way that will turn the largest profit while still balancing their desire

to supply the public with information. In years past, however, this attitude has often led

to journalists’ betraying their responsibility of informing the public of what is important

and truthful whether or not the public is not ready to hear. If not for journalistic

responsibility, the public would never hear about the dirty laundry of their sports heroes,

media giants, or favorite organizations, but often journalists appear wary to complete

these unpopular tasks. Carl Bernstein, the reporter of Watergate fame, comments on the

lack of responsibility in American journalism, saying:

In this new culture of journalistic titillation, we teach our readers and our viewers

that the trivial is significant, that the lurid and the loopy are more important than

real news. We do not serve our readers and views, we pander to them. And we

condescend to them, giving them what we think they want and what we calculate

will sell and boost ratings and readership. Many of them, sadly, seem to justify

our condescension, and to kindle at the trash. Still, it is the role of journalists to

challenge people, not merely to amuse them. (as cited in Allan, 1999, p. 187)

An integral part of the relationship between the public and the press is the devotion of the

press to do what is best for the public no matter how the public responds.

Pundits. One unique pocket of journalism that has affected journalistic

responsibility has emerged with pundits, whom Stephen Zeigler describes as “a very

influential but controversial class of mass media opinion leaders who enjoy the luxury of

sharing their views on the topic of the day” (as cited in Evensen, 1997, p. 54). The

prominent American journalist Walter Lippmann was the first of many pundits. Zeigler

Christians within Journalism 30

notes, “Lippmann saw the pundit as ‘doing what every sovereign citizen is supposed to

do but has neither the time nor the interest to do for himself,’ that is, educate himself and

others fully about public affairs” (as cited in Evensen, 1997, p. 54). In a sense, pundits

take the “why” question of journalism even further, splicing their own opinion with the

news of the day and openly telling people what to think about matters. Pundits have

created quite a following, and the public seems prone to take the view of these

established journalists rather than do the extra research and thinking themselves. Often,

people are willing to pursue with good intentions, but they lack the time or resources to

form their own opinions. Punditry, however, often also fails in the eyes of journalistic

responsibility. Many pundits are not thoroughly schooled as journalists or even ethical

reasoners. Furthermore, pundits often are required not only to offer opinions on the

present but also what will happen in the future. Zeigler writes, “Instead of reporting and

analyzing current policies and issues, they are expected to predict the future, and usually

they do so with all the accuracy of astrologers and bartenders” (as cited in Evensen, 1997,

p. 56). As a result, this wing of journalism further corrodes the ability to carry out the

responsibility journalists have to provide the public with what is important. Pundits –

and the public’s embracing of pundits – can often keep people from reasoning and

learning for themselves in a fuller way.

Requirements of Individual Journalists

With an idea of the relationship between the public and the press in mind, the

second area of current American journalism can be examined: the requirements of

individual journalists within the field. First, attention will be given to codes, guidelines,

Christians within Journalism 31

and standards that are expected of journalists. Second, personal qualities and traits

necessary for an American journalist will be observed.

Codes, Guidelines, and Standards

As mentioned before, journalists have the unique privilege of not needing a

license to practice their craft. Some regulations have been passed in the United States

concerning the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) as well as the country’s legal

system, but for the most part, the journalists themselves must decide what is right and

wrong in the craft. Black, et. al (1999) write:

Unlike other professionals who have institutionally defined social roles and

ethics, journalists have been left to their own devices in working out their social

roles and in determining their ethics, and then in justifying those roles and ethics

to the public. (p. 16)

Whereas other professions for the greater good, such as medicine or the military, have

distinct rules and principles, journalism has no such restrictions, governmental or

otherwise. While the freedom provided is a great plus for journalism, the lack of set

standards has also created a problem, and attempts have been made to lay down basic

guidelines.

The Society of Professional Journalists has devised a code of ethics, and the

Hutchins Commission is known for its basic guidelines, both of which will be discussed

later. Most journalists agree, however, that the bulk of responsibility in the field rests

with individual journalists. Leonard Silk (1984) writes, “While maintaining high

professional standards ought certainly to be a major responsibility of publishers and top

editors, I think it is up to reporters and other editors to insist on such standards and carry

Christians within Journalism 32

them out voluntarily and determinedly” (p. 90). He continues to explain that journalists

who take the high road will not always benefit: “If you are going to be a tough and honest

reporter and a good person, you have to be prepared to pay the price and not necessarily

to expect a reward. You do the job for its own sake, because it is the right thing to do”

(p. 90). These requirements of journalists are remarkably similar to what is expected of

Christians in the secular world. While some fields, such as medicine, may be regulated

by a moral code that would be similar to that of a Christian’s (such as valuing life),

journalistic organizations can often be driven by desires for money or acceptance – goals

that are contrary to the basic life of a Christian. Thus, an effectively moral and ethical

journalist – whether Christian or not – will face many of the same struggles a Christian

will within the field. This journalist must be self-motivated to do what is right.

The most well-known code, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of

Ethics (2006), has four basic points: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act

independently, and be accountable (“Code of Ethics”). The code’s preamble reads:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public

enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The

duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair

and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from

all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.

Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. (“Code of

Ethics,” para. 1)

Although the code gives a few specifics, most of the responsibility is left to the journalist.

Christians within Journalism 33

Another influential standard in journalist ethics is that of the Hutchins

Commission, which sets forth five basic requirements for the press:

1. The press must give a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the

day’s events in a context that gives them some meaning.

2. The press must provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism.

3. The press must project a representative picture of the constituent groups in the

society.

4. The press must present and clarify the goals and values of the society.

5. The press must provide full access to the day’s intelligence. (as cited in

Mencher, 2006, p. 560)

These guidelines apply more to groups and publications rather than the individual.

Another interesting set of guidelines is that of Walter Williams, who wrote a

“Journalist’s Creed” about 100 years ago at the Missouri School of Journalism. He gives

mention to God as part of the necessities for journalism. The creed (2008) reads:

I believe in the profession of journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to

the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a

lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are

fundamental to good journalism.

I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.

I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the

welfare of society, is indefensible. I believe that no one should write as a

Christians within Journalism 34

journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one’s own

pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that

individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another’s instructions or

another’s dividends.

I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best

interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should

prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its

public service.

I believe that the journalism which succeeds best – and best deserves success –

fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion

or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled,

patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant

at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob;

seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and

recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly

patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-

comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today’s world. (“Journalist’s

Creed,” para. 2-9)

Personal Qualities and Traits

With a small number of guidelines, the bulk of a journalist’s qualifications are

personal traits and qualities that are necessary for success. Bruce J. Evensen (1997)

writes that it takes a unique person to be a journalist, for the trade does not pay a lot, and

it requires many hours and personal sacrifices. However, “Those who remain generally

Christians within Journalism 35

do so because they cannot imagine anything else quite so satisfying” (p. 2). The love of

the work is often the biggest draw for journalism, alongside the individual journalist’s

drive to change or reform the world and be close to history.

Aside from a passion for the field, several qualities are key. First, an aspiring

journalist must be hungry for knowledge and always be willing to read and learn. Marler

(1997) says, “Intellectual curiosity, the power of acute observation, and critical thinking

characterize many of the best reporters. Students entering the profession should have a

love of language, an affection for history, and a passion for truth-finding” (p. 41). Ted

Smythe (1997) agrees and attributes problems in the field to a dearth of such knowledge:

“The lack of experienced and knowledgeable reporters on many stories is a fundamental

problem in journalism, one that has no easy solution” (p. 30). These keys to good

journalism come through hard work. Senator Paul Simon, a journalist himself, gives

three pieces of advice to those learning the craft. First, journalists need to be skeptical

enough to search out the facts, but they should not be cynical. Simon says, “The cynics

aren’t going to help build a better world; all they do is tear it down” (as cited in Evensen,

1997, p. 5). Second, he encourages journalists to focus on important issues, not just

topics that will sell. Finally, he emphasizes the need for hard work and accurate

reporting. He writes, “The brilliant journalist who does not work hard will always be

surpassed by the average journalist who does” (as cited in Evensen, 1997, p. 6). As well

as having these traits, which are necessary in many rigorous professions, Simon

encourages journalists to have a high degree of compassion.

Since journalists work primarily with people, they must know how to treat people

well while still satisfying the need of getting the information necessary to serve the

Christians within Journalism 36

public. In a field in which cutthroat competition often trumps compassion, more people

are noting that sincerity from journalists could help them not only get along better with

the public but also report better. Mark Hatfield (1997) says, “Some of the greatest

reporters of our time – Walter Lippmann, Edward Murrow, and others – were never out

to get people. They had a sense of history. They were recording events of the day for

history; they believed in that purpose, and they let it drive their work” (as cited in

Evensen, p. 137). Writer George Orwell thought that sincerity and clear writing went

hand in hand (Willis, 2003, p. 122). Willis (2003) notes that often, the public is more

receptive to accounts from people who were eyewitnesses to events and who write from a

first-person perspective. Although “tradition says journalists must remain detached,” he

also says that people are increasingly more receptive of human journalists – ones who

show emotion, feel pain, react to events, and take part in stories (p. xiv). Certainly,

Christian journalists can employ compassion in their reporting as they seek to live godly

lives, and the qualities of hard work and optimism also fall in line with biblical

principles.

Melvin Mencher, whose journalism textbook is widely used in the training of new

journalists, made his own specific checklist of necessary traits and qualities. Some of his

suggestions fall into line with character qualities that Christians should have, but some

other characteristics do not. First, Mencher outlines some qualities that Christians could

find biblical principles to support. Mencher (2006) says that a journalist must have

“moderation in life and behavior,” “the willingness to admit errors,” “a capacity to

endure solitude and criticism,” “a commitment to work,” “resistance to praise –

humility,” and “avoidance of the desire to please” (pp. 569-570). The final admonition –

Christians within Journalism 37

not trying to please – is especially important in the field, where the greater good often

should usurp heavy public opinion. Benjamin Franklin once noted, “If all printers were

determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would

be very little printed” (as cited in Stein, 1974, p. 96).

Mencher (2006) also mentions some characteristics that Christians should take

with consideration. He says a journalist must have “responsibility to one’s abilities and

talent” (p. 569), to develop them and live up to them. Certainly, Christians should use

God-given abilities wisely, but they must also remember that the use of talent is not an

end in itself; rather, the glorification of God is the chief goal. Mencher (2006) also says

that a journalist should “be committed to a value system but be free from ideologies and

commitments that limit thought” (p. 571). Mencher follows this thought when he adds

that a journalist needs “an open-mindedness that seeks out and tries to comprehend

various points of view, including those in conflict with those the reporter holds” (p. 569).

This principle presents the necessity of a balancing act for the Christian journalist. On

one hand, Christians should never betray the truth and what they know to be right. On

the other, Christians must also be willing to show love and understanding to all walks of

life and ways of thinking. Christians need to understand that many unbelievers cannot

understand the things of God since they have not accepted his truth. Just because

journalists agree to listen to and learn other views does not mean they must accept them,

though.

However, while Christians may think that the lines they draw leave room for other

thought and understanding inside a biblical context, most in the secular world find

Christians narrow-minded and constricting. Certainly, some Christians border on

Christians within Journalism 38

legalism – adhering to rules and standards never commanded by God – simply to be

“religious” or because they misinterpret the Bible. The Christian who is rooted in the

word of God, however, should be bold, knowing that Biblical standards bring freedom.

Mencher warns against belief systems that “limit thought”; while the Christian may know

that his or her godly perspective does not limit thought, the world may think that it does.

Finally, Mencher (2006) makes some suggestions that present clear problems for

Christians. He says journalists need “a secular, scientific attitude toward the work at

hand. Knowledge is allowed to speak for itself. The professional does not believe on the

basis of hope but of evidence” (p. 569). He reiterates later that journalists must “believe

on the basic of facts, not hope” (p. 571). While on the surface this seems like another

basic tenet of journalism, this principle could make a sticky situation in answering the

“why” question of journalism. Journalism – and the world – asks a lot of its journalists

when it wants to know why things happen by only including what can be seen, touched,

or heard. Any conjecture without fact will have difficulty being accepted in journalism,

but matters of faith are especially ridiculed. Christians live lives of faith, and often what

they see as clear evidence is interpreted as mere hope by the world. As a result,

Christians need to be aware of how faith is viewed in journalism, and they should be

careful as to what they deem as evidence among many who will not understand their

convictions. Being a Christian in journalism is not just applying a Christian worldview to

writing but also working with people both inside and outside the journalistic realm. All

of this will determine a Christian example.

Christians within Journalism 39

Current Problems in Journalism

With an idea of what is required of the modern journalist, attention can now be

given to some major problem areas in the field for which Christians need to be prepared.

The four major areas that will be discussed are tolerance, ethics, bias, and objectivity.

Although a study of each area could be lengthy, a brief sketch of each problem area will

suffice for Christians looking for practical applications of Christian principles in the

journalistic world.

Tolerance

First, tolerance is a major force in modern society, especially in the last half

century. As American culture has changed, more emphasis has been accorded to

accepting different views, mostly in the area of religion, morals, and beliefs. Those who

oppose changes are often seen as opposed to enlightenment or advancement, and in a

society that values improvement (an evolution to a higher level), such opposition is not

well-received. One example of tolerance in journalism today is how the press handles

homosexuality. When AIDS first struck America, the disease was largely portrayed in

the media as an epidemic – unstoppable to the human race, able to affect anyone despite

most medical findings, according to Kuypers. Years passed before the real truth – that

AIDS is primarily carried among homosexuals – was accepted. The press has also

supported the idea that homosexuality is genetic, a theory still disputed in science. Much

of the press continues to try to place homosexuality on the same tier as heterosexuality,

just as blacks are equal with whites and women are equal with men (two undisputed

facts); the press often sees this as the next civil rights case in a society that has largely

begun to agree.

Christians within Journalism 40

While the issue of homosexuality and its roots and effects can be disputed, the

press has given a definite endorsement to one side. Kuypers (2002) addresses the

portrayal of homosexuality in the media. He concludes, “Those that disagree with the

press view are at best misinformed and misguided; at worst, they are hateful, intolerant,

and bigoted” (p. 226). Homosexuality is just one area in which those that oppose the

main view get ostracized as haters. The tolerance promoted with cases such as

homosexuality can be expected to expand to other areas that were once viewed as clearly

right or wrong. Already, society looks to provide sameness even though people may not

work equally, spend equally, or come to the table with equal health, for example.

Opposition to tolerance, however, is seen as hatred toward people even though runaway

tolerance could have detrimental effects.

An interesting aspect about tolerance is this: to portray an attitude of complete

tolerance, tolerance supporters must be intolerant to anyone who is in any way at all

“intolerant.” For instance, if a Christian group were to be intolerant to something they

believe to be very wrong, such as sex outside of marriage, those supporting tolerance

would criticize the group for their intolerance. Ironically, however, they would be

intolerant themselves. Tolerance no longer includes merely accepting that others have

different beliefs; now tolerance encourages all people to accept the beliefs of others. In

theory, tolerance seems like a great idea for a world looking for unification and peace,

but once a closer look is taken inside the nature of man and the regular problems the

world encounters, it can be seen that tolerance, without being adequately principled and

rationally constrained, is a largely impractical ideal. Most people who have specific

Christians within Journalism 41

beliefs (that are prone to be “intolerant” beliefs) believe that way for very specific, strong

reasons. Proctor (2000) writes:

Obviously, such a view of tolerance consigns practically everyone who is serious

about his or her faith to the nethermost realm of the intolerant because most

serious believers do assume their particular faith is superior. Otherwise, they

wouldn’t have committed themselves to that particular one and excluded all the

others! (p. 95)

This attitude occurs not only with Christians but also with many religious groups, some

of the more prominent being Hindus and Muslims.

Christians must remain strong in their convictions but also must be increasingly

sensitive to different viewpoints, including the intolerant who do not understand

Christians’ apparent lack of tolerance. Once again, however, it is important that

Christians do not seek to please men rather than God, to whom they owe allegiance. If

Christ had tolerated other views in the manner promoted today, his earthly ministry

would have been brief or non-existent. Instead, he ate with sinners, loved people,

influenced lives, and lovingly but honestly told people when they were wrong while also

supplying a message of hope. If Christians are to swim against the tide of modern

tolerance, they must do it like Christ.

Ethics

The second major problem area in journalism relates to ethics. This area is

especially problematic because, as mentioned before, journalism has no laws to follow,

only suggested codes or guidelines. Rather, individuals themselves must do what is right.

Knowlton (1997) outlines the difference between ethics and prudence. Prudence is

Christians within Journalism 42

looking out for self, in a practical way, such as not crossing a street without looking;

ethics is employing principles that extend beyond self, such as not speeding because the

consequences may affect others. Whereas prudence may suffice in everyday life, a

journalist has to appeal to ethics because every decision will affect many in the public.

The philosopher Aristotle was one of the first to examine ethics closely in the

western philosophic tradition. Willis (2003) writes, “Aristotle believed that the purpose

of ethics in human life was to help make people happy, and that the only way to do this

was through a set of intangible laws, called ethics” (p. 120). Aristotle’s musings found

that most of ethics involved a balance of reasoning and emotions. Throughout the years,

journalists have tried to place that balance within a list of codes, procedures, and ideals

that help the range of press freedom, but morals often exceed basic legality, making it

difficult to balance freedom and correct action. Steven Klaidman and Tom L.

Beauchamp (1987) write, “A law-abiding person is not necessarily morally virtuous, and

if an act is legally acceptable that fact alone does not make it morally acceptable” (p. 12).

Their practical application of such a case was Janet Cooke’s invention of a fictional

character for her story – a legal method that was by no means morally responsible. This

fabrication caused trouble for the Washington Post, led to Cooke being fired and

returning her Pulitzer Prize, and also stood as an important example to ethics teachers

trying to train new journalists. Morality often goes beyond the bounds of freedom of the

press.

Ethics in any area of life is a complex topic. Within journalism, the issue is

complicated by competing desires to inform the public as well as the desire to do what is

Christians within Journalism 43

right, protect innocent people, and uphold personal convictions. Black, et. al (1999) write

in their journalism handbook:

Doing ethics in journalism is not just deciding between two choices, right and

wrong, when facing an ethical dilemma. The ethical decision is much more

difficult and complex. It’s about developing a range of acceptable actions and

choosing from among them. It’s about considering the consequences of those

actions. And it’s about basic decisions on obligation, on the principles of the

journalist’s duty to the public. True ethical decision making is also about public

justification, the ability to explain clearly and fully the process of how and why

decisions are made. (p. 51)

Considering the consequences of ethical decisions on the public is important in

journalism, but two different forms of thinking exist as to how to handle ethics. In one

form, making ethical decisions based on duty, consideration is given to consequences in a

grand scheme as to what is good for all people at all times, even under an intangible set

of laws or a God-like figure. In another form, ethical decisions based on consequences –

best known as utilitarianism – decisions are made according to calculations of individual

consequences.

In the first form, when ethical decisions are made according to principles of duty,

no basic laws are made, but an understanding of morality is required so that journalists

can work inside a basic framework. With this method, there are what Black, et. al (1999)

call “guideposts,” or tenets of ethical decision making such as being accountable,

showing independence, being informed, seeking to educate, showing all perspectives, and

emanating compassion, to name a few (p. 55). To succeed, personal character must be

Christians within Journalism 44

supreme. Within this ideal are where the codes of journalism stand. These codes are

suggested to journalists as basic guidelines to follow when making decisions.

While attempts at laws and codes have helped journalism, strong ethics for

individuals are impossible unless those individuals devise a basic framework they can

work within. The codes and laws may fall within that framework, but journalists must

have an idea of what to do when questions arise outside of the pre-described boundaries.

For Christians, the framework is God and Scripture, with which codes and guidelines

often agree. The Christian framework also provides an overarching standard by which a

Christian can always live even when man-made standards fail.

Utilitarianism. The other method of making ethical decisions, which is according

to consequences, is known as utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill, an early advocate of the

idea, called it the “greatest happiness principle” (as cited in Evensen, 1997, p. 61). With

utilitarianism, a calculation of risk and benefit is assessed to see what is the greatest good

for the greatest number of people. Criticism of the theory is wide, however, for several

reasons. Black, et al., write, “For one thing, this approach can place a disproportionate

weight on justifying actions that serve the greatest good for the greatest number of

people” (p. 54). Lee Wilkins and Renita Coleman (2005) add, “The main weakness of

utilitarianism is its simplistic calculation of risk and benefit, which is vulnerable to

uncertainty and imprecision” (p. 94). Knowlton (1997) remarks, “The most common

complaint about Mill’s greatest happiness principle is that it specifically denies any sense

of right or wrong independent of outcome” (p. 61). All of these reasons have led to a

distrust in the utilitarian method, although the principle is still often used in smaller cases.

Christians within Journalism 45

Specific applications for Christians. For the Christian, the correct method of

ethical reasoning is clear. Christian journalists should make decisions based on duty –

overarching guidelines – rather than straight consequences, although biblical thoughts do

lend themselves to matters of virtue, too. Christians have extra help in the matter since

God has provided them with the Bible, which contains a large amount of ethical

guidelines. God has already seen the consequences of actions, and the commands he

gives take all effects into consideration. Also, when people make decisions based on

consequences, they fall prey to the evil of the end justifying the means. A Christian will

trust in the sovereignty of God, not his or her sinful self, and allow God to take care of

outcomes. If a Christian sticks to clear ethical principles, the sovereignty of God can be

trusted in both the validity of principles and in the outcomes. Only when clear ethical

guidelines are found to conflict should a Christian make consequences a major part of the

decision-making process.

Misuse of ethics. The final area of ethics to examine is the misuse of ethics.

Obviously, when most people betray ethical principles they do it to gain something else.

A predominant recurrence in these situations, however, is that journalists who ignore

ethical principles place themselves in a position of control in doing so. They believe they

have the wisdom, both in themselves and of the situations, to make better decisions than

ethical considerations would fulfill. Wilkins and Coleman (2005) give one example with

how some journalists handle deception:

For some, deception was part of a strategy to level a perceived power imbalance.

Journalists revealed a preconceived notion of who is bad and who is good.

Politicians, judges, and executives were deemed to have a smaller claim to truth

Christians within Journalism 46

than were the single mother, the blue-collar worker, or the less powerful and less

media-savvy segments of society. This notion has been shaped by journalism’s

social surveillance function and journalists’ innate distrust of institutions and

officials. (p. 104)

In this instance, the journalists made the decision of who should receive a break and who

should not instead of giving equal, ethical treatment to all.

Any Christian who goes against the ethical standards given by God is also trying

to place himself or herself in control. Sin began when Satan offered Adam and Eve

control in the Garden of Eden, and Satan’s demise began when he tried to take control

from God. Throughout history, the battle between God and self or between right and

wrong has been a battle of control – a quest for power. The Christian who tries to take

control instead of trusting God is again repeating the mistakes of the Garden, and the

consequences of these quests for control are always dire.

Addressing ethical problems. Some have tried to fix ethical problems in

journalism through schooling or training. Wilkins and Coleman (2005) conducted a

study that “found no relationship between a journalist’s tolerance of deception and

whether he or she had received media ethics instruction, taken a college-level journalism

class, or had been a journalism major” (p. 112). Ethics cannot merely be taught. The

individual must take time to learn, develop, and internalize ethical principles personally,

both through experience and study, to learn how to apply it in the journalism field.

Bias

In addition to tolerance and ethics, the third major area journalists must deal with

today is that of bias. No matter how hard anyone tries to give “just the facts,”

Christians within Journalism 47

interpretation can be found in almost any news story. Olasky (1988) notes, “Readers of

every news story are receiving information but are also being taught, subtly or explicitly,

a particular worldview, whether it is theistic, pantheistic, materialistic, or whatever” (p.

34). These worldviews come across to readers in many different ways, some more

obvious than others, and often cause readers to accuse news sources of being biased.

In recent years, the public has lost even more of its trust of the press. David

Niven (2002), reacting to a survey of the American public, writes, “Americans ranked the

honesty and ethics of newspaper reporters ahead of only car salesmen, insurance

salesmen, and the advertising industry . . . . At the foundation of this problem is distrust

and a belief that the media are biased” (p. ix). Allegations of bias are not new, however.

Kuypers (2002) reports, “That bias exists in news coverage is a rather uncontested

assumption; however, the type of bias operating is not generally agreed upon” (p. 16).

Although all different sides claim bias is in the press, the consensus is that the news no

longer conveys just the facts.

Public opinion. Ted J. Smith, S. Robert Lichter, and Harris, Louis and

Associates, Inc. (1997) conducted a survey to see what people wanted from the press and

how journalists were viewed by the American public. People gave an overall grade of

B-, which fell into what the authors rated as “respectable” (p. 12). One trend that

surfaced in the survey was the gulf that the public believed was between themselves and

journalists. For instance, six of ten did not think “that journalists share the same beliefs

and values as the rest of the public” (p. 13). While they did see journalists as similar in

areas concerning ethics, intelligence, and honesty, many saw their media counterparts as

“more arrogant, more cynical, and less compassionate than most people” (p. 13). They

Christians within Journalism 48

also said that journalists are a “powerful, elite group,” out of touch with the public as a

whole (p. 13). Stemming from these concerns is the public’s worry that the media favors

one side on most issues, such as the 63 percent who thought one side was favored in the

presentation of issues, the 77 percent who found political bias, and the 43 percent (a

plurality in the question at hand) who saw the media as liberally biased.

What bias is. Bias is not limited to journalism, however. Other fields face the

same accusations. Whenever information is disseminated from one source to another,

cries of bias should be expected, and that is why it is important to learn how to handle

such accusations of bias. At the heart of the bias problem is forming a workable

definition. Defining bias can be tricky, but the use of the word usually refers to a

departure from the truth. Webster (2008) uses the words “bent” and “tendency,” saying

bias includes “an inclination of temperament or outlook” (para. 3). Some think it is any

departure from straight facts, but that kind of reporting is both dull and nearly impossible.

For one, bias is not partisan reporting. In partisan reporting, journalists make an

obvious effort to show they are reporting a distinct side of the story, and readers generally

indulge in that information because they want that viewpoint. Buchholz (1997) notes that

America does not expect the press to be totally non-partisan: “Printers in England and in

the British colonies did not argue that the press should be unbiased. But they did argue

that the press should be free, that everyone should be allowed to write and publish

whatever he wanted without government restriction and censorship” (p. 8). Thus, the

freedom of the press includes the freedom of partisanship.

Finally, a distinction should be made between bias and persuasion. With

persuasion, a person uses reasoned arguments to draw a conclusion. The reader,

Christians within Journalism 49

however, does not have to accept this argument and should have the ability to be able to

separate fact from persuasion. Although it would appear foolish to connect bias and

persuasion, allegations have been made in that regard.

Distinctly partisan press. Shades of bias remain from the long history of

journalism, during which partisan presses throughout the years gave deliberately biased

news in line with specific party beliefs, a practice that continues today in a more

subversive manner. The mainstream partisan press was a time of blatant bias when

readers chose a publication according to the views represented inside. David Niven

(2002) believes that the reason this era died out was that many Americans did not want

slanted news coverage:

Long ago the partisan press died because its slanted coverage limited its market

appeal to those with contrary views. Despite a long-standing economic

imperative to produce neutral news, media outlets today find themselves almost

thrust backward in time. For the media now, the central question may not be

whether the media are biased, but whether they are perceived to be biased. A

motivated, alienated constituency hungry for news is not going to endlessly

consume newspapers and news shows that it considers slanted. (p. 49)

However, Niven has also noted that as Americans realize news sources are biased, they

have moved away from sources with which they do not agree and sought out new outlets

with different reporting. In this case, he writes about the portion of the American public

that was leaving liberally-biased news sources, saying that “in an age where technology is

constantly opening new paths to news (on the Internet, on an ever expanding roster of

cable news channels), the move toward conservative media outlets will likely continue”

Christians within Journalism 50

(p. 49). Whether or not biased (or blatantly partisan) news is detrimental has yet to be

determined. The partisan press once thrived, and as Americans seek out sources that hold

similar views to their own, it appears as if the partisan press may be coming back to

America through specialized news, such as individual cable channels, blogs, or diverse

local publications.

Types of bias. Bias occurs in many different ways. Sometimes the press will

slant a story to tell the public what to think, and sometimes it will arrange the facts to

merely tell the public what to think about. Sometimes both sides of the story will be

included, but one side will be sandwiched in with the opposing views to obscure its

content or make it look foolish. The sources may be unbalanced; different groups may be

labeled with negative overtones; or opposing information may be excluded. Headlines

often receive the most criticism for bias as writers try to cram the gist of the story into

one line. Conflicts of interest, personal views, suspect story selection, and information

from univocal sources are other neon signs for bias.

Internal censorship: A cause of bias. Although the government is not allowed to

censor publications, plenty of censorship goes on within organizations, and that is where

bias most often takes place. While journalists put a lot into their stories, much of what

happens between turning the copy in and the printed page is a result of how management

and editors work with the story. Often, the views of the executives of the organization

mandate the bias portrayed. Bernard Goldberg wrote the best-selling book Bias, which

uncovers insider details about bias within major news corporations, most specifically

CBS News, where Goldberg worked. Throughout his book, he shows examples of how

bias exists in media organizations. One trend he notes is that while organizations have

Christians within Journalism 51

made a push to give equal treatment to all types of people, citing the need for diversity,

they are not as quick to provide equal treatment of all views. Goldberg (2002) wrote:

They love diversity in the newsroom. That’s what they say, anyway. They love

diversity of color, diversity of gender, diversity of sexual orientation. But God

forbid someone in their diverse newsroom has a diverse view about how the news

ought to be presented. (p. 33)

While the news media has made efforts for diversity of people, they are less receptive to

providing a diversity of ideas.

Liberal bias. One type of bias often lamented is the liberal bias of the news

media. Goldberg, for one, believes the news media to be liberally biased, and many

others agree; however, as mentioned before, charges of bias issue from all areas against

all views. Fueling the upswing liberal bias charges was a poll of journalists brought to

the public eye by columnist Charles Krauthhammer. David Niven (2002) explains:

A Roper poll of reporters ‘found that in 1992 they had voted 89 percent for

Clinton, seven percent for Bush. Regular Americans had voted Clinton over

Bush, 43 percent to 38 percent.’ The country went marginally for Clinton; the

journalists went for him thirteen to one. In other words, for every seven Bush

voters, there were eight Clinton voters. But for every seven Bush votes in the

Washington media, there were 89 for Clinton. Margins of victory that lopsided

are rarely seen this side of Syria. (p. 13)

The results of the poll shocked a public that realized that those giving them the news of

politics had their own fairly unified political beliefs. Although the poll dates back to

1992, recent studies have not contradicted this popular calculation. Alterman (2003)

Christians within Journalism 52

counters that the tendencies of these reporters, however, are due to their trade and

education; thus, they should have had drastically different views from the general public:

The percentage of journalists who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 was probably

consistent with the percentage he received among all well-educated urban elites,

which was pretty high. Most people who fit this profile do indeed hold socially

‘liberal’ views on issues like gun control, abortion, and school prayer . . . . (p. 20)

Nevertheless, although this information may explain the drastic number of liberal

supporters, it also causes concern for the general public, who still worry that the news

media do not understand the general public. Kuypers (2002) counters this assumption,

noting that personal beliefs may not affect reporting: “Of course, just because reporters

and editors say they are Democrats, vote for Democrats, and say they are liberal does not

mean that they cannot engage in neutral reportorial practices” (p. 17). Reporters should

be able to write stories without consciously including personal views; however, bias most

often occurs not as a blatant action but rather a byproduct of many subconscious forces

that have not been handled correctly.

Reasons for bias. Bias occurs in journalism for many reasons. When journalists

understand these reasons, they can either attempt to counter them or weigh them equally

with the other forces that determine a story. However, journalists often do not realize the

factors that affect the news, and that is when bias is very dangerous. First, bias often

creeps into the press when journalists try to be too interpretive, when they try to answer

the “why” question when answers are not readily available in the facts. David Gergen

said:

Christians within Journalism 53

Given the proliferation of news outlets and the many different ways that people

can get news, almost everyone in the leading press institutions are trying to be

more interpretive, on the assumption that people have already gotten their facts

somewhere else. (as cited in Smith, Lichter, & Harris, 1997, p. 8)

Interpretation yields many viewpoints, and often when one viewpoint is not supreme to

others, journalists instead choose one that reflects their bias. James Reston notes, “Truth

is a scarce and slippery commodity. There are not two sides to every problem but maybe

ten, held with genuine conviction by serious people who probably know more about the

facts than does the reporter” (as cited in Mencher, 2006, p. 567). In these cases, perhaps

it is best that the reporter does not try to answer the “why” question when conclusions are

not easy to reach, especially when the journalist cannot know all sides of the issue.

People still demand that this question be answered.

Another key reason for bias is the personal beliefs and opinions of journalists,

which often find their way into stories whether the journalist realizes it or not. Olasky

(1988) writes, “Journalists, under such pressure, tend to make snap choices of emphasis

based on their basic ideas of what is important and what is not” (p. 42). With the time

crunch of journalism, writers often do what comes naturally and do not give their

assumptions a second thought. Often, they do not know that these assumptions may be

adverse to the general opinion of the public. Goldberg writes about the 1972 election,

when 49 states voted for Richard Nixon. He recalls that Pauline Kael, a film critic, was

simply astonished that Nixon had won; she said she did not know anyone who had voted

for him. Goldberg (2002) cited this as the reason for so much bias – that those

controlling the news have vastly different views than the American public but do not

Christians within Journalism 54

realize it: “That’s one of the biggest problems in big-time journalism: its elites are

hopelessly out of touch with everyday Americans” (p. 24). Lichter, et. al (1986) agree,

noting, “In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent

among the media elite voted for [George] McGovern” (p. 28).

Lichter, et. al’s idea of the “media elite” identifies a new generation of journalists

armed with college degrees and a gusto for change who arrived around the time of

Watergate. In this generation’s first landmark event, the civil rights movement, the

journalists seemed to have “picked the right side,” and as a result, journalists began

finding their way into the inner circles of the elite of society. Lichter, et. al (1986) note,

“To present this story from a racist’s viewpoint, rather than a Martin Luther King’s,

would have been unthinkable. Good reporting seemed to permit or even require a point

of view and a choice of one side against another” (p. 14). Journalists no longer looked

from the outside in but instead became connected with the elite. This led to very distinct

views – and even bias – in the mainstream media. Lichter, et. al (1986) add:

We all reconstruct reality for ourselves, but journalists are especially important

because they help depict reality for the rest of society . . . . The unavoidable

preconceptions journalists bring to such decisions help determine what images of

society are available to their audience. (p. 55)

One other reason for bias in today’s world is postmodernism. The thoughts and

attitudes of people today are drastically different from centuries ago, and some say this is

the cause of present-day bias. James Sire (1997) explains that in the past, “Christianity

had so penetrated the western world that, whether people believed in Christ or acted as

Christians within Journalism 55

Christians should, they all lived in a context of ideas influenced and informed by the

Christian faith” (p. 22).

Postmodernism stands in stark contrast to Christian thinking. Sire (1997) writes,

“Our age, which more and more is coming to be called postmodern, finds itself afloat in

pluralism of perspectives, a plethora of philosophical possibilities, but no dominant

notion of where to go or how to get there” (p. 174). Gene Veith (1994) says

postmodernism looks to get rid of all “frameworks” for knowledge (p. 49). This thinking

denounces absolute truth in search of freedom. The way this plays out in culture can be

alarming. Veith (1994) says that postmodern thinking leads judges to form new

principles instead of relying on precedents and has teachers who look for experience and

creation of values rather than established truth. Furthermore, “Journalists, taught that

objectivity is impossible, write biased news stories and advance their own ideological

agendas” (p. 59). Although such a blanket statement may not be true of current society as

a whole, postmodern thinking is affecting the current world and has definite ties to bias in

journalism.

To counter these factors in bias, journalists should always test their own

assumptions against the views of their audience, the general public, and even people

throughout history.

Correcting bias. With some of the reasons for bias understood, steps can be taken

to correct it in the media. Although the methods for correcting bias are many and

disputed, some things can be done to combat the practice, especially for someone with a

specific worldview. When a publication is blatantly partisan, there is no problem as long

as both the disseminator and the receiver know the purpose of the publication. Obviously

Christians within Journalism 56

persuasive writing should not be a problem. Only when publications are biased – without

the readers’ knowing they are receiving a slanted interpretation of news – is there a real

problem. Even when bias is acknowledged, however, it is difficult to eliminate. Even if

a publication tries to cover news from a different angle, it may be accused of being biased

toward the view of that new angle. Being aware of bias ahead of time and questioning all

assumptions with a dose of skepticism is perhaps the best solution. Klaidman and

Beauchamp (1987) write:

The philosopher David Hume considered a ‘moderate’ species of skepticism an

antidote to bias. He maintained that we should check and recheck our basic

observations, our data derived from the testimony of others, and our inferences

from both observations and testimony. Skepticism on every level, where reason

corrects our trustworthy observations and inferences, is the only method, Hume

argued, ‘by which we can ever hope to reach truth, and attain a proper stability

and certainty in our determinations.’ (p. 89)

Journalists should always challenge their assumptions and make sure they are not putting

their own inferences into stories.

Christians and bias. For the Christian, the issue of bias is complicated. Christian

publications are obviously partisan, purposely giving a God-centered view to everything.

When Christians enter the secular workplace, however, any personal beliefs included in

stories will be considered biased, especially since the majority of the public does not

agree with Christian convictions even though many call themselves “religious” or

“Christian” in name. Christians must consider the audience of the publication and

whether they are serving the needs that the audience expects to be satisfied. That is not to

Christians within Journalism 57

say that Christians should avoid their convictions; however, when dealing with an

audience that is not sympathetic to their beliefs, they should avoid answering the “why”

question rather than giving unhearing ears what they may consider is biased information.

Reporting “just the facts” for secular publications was what they were hired to do, and

Christian journalists should make that their own goal.

Some Christians think that Christian convictions should be placed into all

reporting, such as centuries ago when the partisan press included spiritual reasons for all

current events. In the modern day, however, such an idea is hardly feasible in such a

secular world. While it is nice in theory, Christians need a stronger foothold in the

industry before promoting such views. Failure to come to terms with this reality would

be unwise. Although Christians can go into their jobs with their worldview, they must

avoid Christian jargon and first and foremost work to present all sides of the issues as

best they can, just like any journalist. The public opposes bias for the most part;

Christians should be respectful of their audience and authority and not be the first group

to buck the trend toward eliminating bias. Perhaps, after years of faithfully respecting

authority, Christians will be given an opportunity to share more of their convictions in

news reporting. Christians who feel strongly about including biblical truths in all

reporting should work for a publication that is open to including biblical influences in the

content of its reporting. Although bias is a difficult issue for both Christian and non-

Christian journalists alike, consideration and careful hunting help curb it in the secular

press.

Christians within Journalism 58

Objectivity

The final major problem area in modern journalism is that of objectivity, a topic

that ties in closely to bias. Whereas bias concerns reading a particular view into

reporting, objectivity concerns whether news can ever be unbiased – just the facts.

Webster (2008) defines “objectivity” as “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as

perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations” (para. 3).

A study of this topic will show whether a reporter will ever be able to give just the facts

or whether some personal views will inevitably come into any news given.

Although bias is generally always discouraged, objectivity is not necessarily

given paramount importance, and that is because it is much harder to be objective than

not to be biased. With bias, specific motives lead to formulated messages. With

objectivity, attention is given to presenting a clear, balanced account free of opinion.

From this account, people can draw their own conclusions. Common thinking today says

that most find objectivity to be nearly impossible. Instead, journalists push to include as

much information and as many views as possible so that readers can make their own

interpretations and decisions.

Pursuing objectivity. Pursuing objectivity faces many challenges. On the surface,

simply reporting both sides of the story does not seem difficult. In practice, however,

issues are much more complicated with many sides and a lot of information. Klaidman

and Beauchamp (1987) write:

Balance entail more than a mechanistic measuring of words so that each partisan

position is given an equal number of inches, minutes, or representation.

Christians within Journalism 59

Moreover, in most cases issues are susceptible to multiple interpretations; a

reporter cannot simply report both sides. (p. 47)

With many sides to an issue and limited space, journalists are tempted to include the most

prominent views. This is not acceptable, either. Elie Abel (1984) writes:

No more than a railroad has the right to refuse to carry any passenger with the

price of a ticket should a newspaper refuse space in its new columns for the

actions or viewpoints of groups or individuals it may choose to denounce on the

editorial page. (p. 42)

Part of the press’s responsibility to the public is presenting all essential, relevant

information. The press generally believes that it is capable of conveying information,

which the public can then interpret. Buchholz (1997) says that reporters usually pride

themselves in being able to present information objectively, an attitude with deep roots.

He writes, “The theory behind this attitude is older than English-language journalism in

the North American continent. It is based on the Enlightenment belief that people are

rational and that they can discern the truth from a bedlam of competing voices” (p. 8).

He continues, saying that eventually, reporters no longer gave partisan news but trusted

their readers to discern. Buchholz (1997) says:

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the stuff of news stories was not ideas

and opinions, but facts, and reporters felt that if they could provide their

audiences with all the relevant facts, all the various sides of an issue, readers

could then decide for themselves what was true. The job of reporters, then,

became one of gathering information and presenting it to their audience. (p. 16)

Christians within Journalism 60

Objectivity became a goal that ostensibly placed all interpretation into the hands of the

public. The survey conducted by Smith, et al. (1997) showed that the public agreed that

they should be the ones to interpret information. The researchers, based on the survey

results, say:

The majority of adult Americans believe that the news media should simply report

the facts of a story and let the people make up their own minds on issues rather

than weighing the facts and offering solutions about how to solve problems. (p.

13)

The public’s desire for their own interpretations has fueled the need for objectivity, and

for the most part, the press agrees that it is essential, even if it is never perfectly realized.

What objectivity is, and how to be objective. What exactly objectivity is and how

to attain it is another matter. For some, objectivity is not allowing the self – emotions –

to be involved with the story. Willis (2003) writes:

The long-held tradition of news reporting dictates that journalists should

somehow separate themselves from their emotions while on the job and should

detach – if not distance themselves entirely – from the people, issues, and events

they are covering. This is seen by many as the essence of objectivity, and

objectivity has long been a cornerstone of the journalistic profession. (p. 119)

Supposedly, a person not involved in the story would be able to present the facts

correctly. By keeping opinion from stories, journalists’ objectivity throughout journalism

history became more of an ideal than a distinct method that could be practiced. Manning

(2001) writes that objectivity eventually came to be viewed as a set of defendable

practices rather than a distinct principle. He says: “‘Objectivity’ is not something that

Christians within Journalism 61

journalists can achieve in the sense of producing value-free and comprehensive accounts

of ‘real’ events; rather, the term, in this context, describes a set of practices that

journalists can defend as objective” (p. 68). As the definition of objectivity morphs, an

obvious conclusion is that it is difficult to put into practice.

In his book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann, the famous early twentieth-century

journalist, tied the problem of objectivity back to the personal influences involved in the

field of journalism, writing, “For the most part we do not see first, then define; we define

first and then see . . . . We pick out what our culture has already defined for us” (as cited

in Olasky, 1988, p. 63). People face life with minds already full of assumptions and

conclusions, which lead to their drawing conclusions on new matters before real

observation takes place. Lippman further asserts that everyone has his or her own

“stereotypes” – ideas of the world based on biases and prejudices – and for journalists to

be objective, they must realize they themselves have these stereotypes and seek out new

sources with new points of view. He says, “Reporters cannot observe everything and

bring it to their audience. They must instead depend on sources they consider to be

reliable and fashion the best picture of reality they can” (as cited in Buchholz, 1997, p.

17). Lippman believes that with enough sources counteracting journalistic stereotypes,

objectivity could be achieved to some degree.

Part of the problem with the quest for objectivity, however, is that stories are not

always about just facts. For instance, although a journalist should not tell the public how

to solve a problem presented within a story, the different solutions to that problem may

be an integral part of that story. Even if no qualified source has presented the solution

during the time of research, the journalist may find that information is necessary from a

Christians within Journalism 62

history of familiarity with the subject even though the information could not be qualified

at press time. The thinking behind the stories is often vital to gaining understanding, and

the divisive “why” question will always demand an answer from journalists. John Corry,

a writer for the New York Times, once said, “There are fewer rules of pure journalism

here than journalists pretend, even to themselves. Journalists, especially big-time

journalists, deal in attitudes and ideas as much as events” (Olasky, 1988, p. 42). Simple

facts presented in an objective manner do not make sense if they are not placed in

context. Willis (2003) notes also that real life is never just facts; elements of human

nature and subjective evaluation are present everywhere, and to be reported accurately,

feelings must be included. He says:

Relentless factuality creates stories without conclusions and offers muffled

reflections of reality where the hard edges of doubt and disagreement are covered

and hidden . . . this approach is born of a diluted myth of objectivity: the notion

that the journalist’s job is simply to fetch the truth as a dog would fetch a tossed

bone. (pp. 53-54)

Willis concludes that facts merely provide knowledge whereas the human element gives

the readers wisdom (p. 54) that is necessary for living.

The thrall of objectivity has faded in recent years to the point that it is no longer a

part of the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics (Schmalzbauer, 2003, p. 46).

As reporters see themselves more as a part of events and read human nature into these

events, readers are expected to take reports with consideration although they must

continue to accept news from the press since that is the chief outlet available. This bodes

Christians within Journalism 63

well for Christian journalists who may want to put more of their convictions into their

reporting. Schmalzbauer (2003) notes:

Evangelical reporters have benefitted from a growing disillusionment with the

ideology of objectivity among American journalists. There are growing

indications that objectivity, once central to American definitions of journalistic

professionalism, has lost much of its grip on the newsroom. (p. 46)

As more journalists agree that objectivity is a difficult goal to grasp, the partisan press

may make a comeback both in total publications and individual stories, which, despite its

drawbacks, is good news for Christians interested in putting a God-centered focus on the

events of the world.

Religious Implications in Journalism’s Problem Areas

The main problem areas of journalism today are tricky for any journalist,

Christian or not. In areas such as ethics, Christians can be encouraged by the journalistic

attitude of doing right, but they should still be wary of the industry in which they work,

where a predominant attitude is to be first with information and do whatever it takes to

succeed. If Christians plan to stick to their convictions, they may find themselves a

lonely breed, for questions of bias and objectivity provide similar problems for

Christians. Certainly, any blatant trickery is out of the question for Christians, but

Christians must also consider the needs of the public before weaving their personal

convictions into their stories. That is, the mostly unsaved public will expect facts free of

Christian overtones, no matter how much they need real truth. While Christians can do

their best to present the stories with a God-centered worldview, they would do well to

avoid jargon that the everyday person would not understand, such as Christian cliches or

Christians within Journalism 64

attributing life to the plan of God through the Holy Spirit – especially when the unsaved

will not understand the complexity of such statements. Instead, Christians should try to

present the facts and allow the readers to draw conclusions. Most times, Christians

should be able to do this without the dilemma of how to insert their faith. As mentioned

earlier, once the public knows they can trust Christians to be unbiased and objective by

their secular standards, Christians may find open doors to reach faithful readers with

personal opinions about their faith.

Religion in Journalism

Thus far, attention has been given to the secular field of journalism – its past, its

journalists, and its problem areas – but now, time will be given to religion within this

field. Although nearly two centuries have passed since Christian influence largely left

the press, Christian beliefs have recently found their way back into mainstream thinking

through the political realm. Schmalzbauer (2003) writes:

Once strangers to Washington think tanks, Catholics and evangelicals are now

important voices in debates over religion and public policy. With the downsizing

of the welfare state, public-policy experts are increasingly exploring the relevance

of religion to social problems such as crime, poverty, and urban decay. More than

any other groups, Catholics and evangelicals have advocated faith-based

organizations as a solution to the problems of urban America. (p. 39)

As the Christian way of thinking works back into society, there is hope that this thinking

will also surface in journalism. Overall, however, study has shown both that the public is

wary of religion and that Christians are therefore reluctant to show their true beliefs.

Christians within Journalism 65

A Christian in the Field

Dr. David Aikman, a professor at Patrick Henry University and the author of six

books, spent 23 years as a Christian working for Time magazine. He believes that

Christians who are willing to put up with “discomforts” of working in secular journalism

“have an advantage over non-Christians” for two reasons:

First of all, they believe in truth. They don’t necessarily believe they always have

the truth, particularly on a secular story, but they believe that there is such a thing

as truth. And that takes a lot of indecision out of the business of reporting,

because if you believe the truth is somewhere out there, then you will pursue it

with greater alacrity than if you don’t think that there’s anything there at all. The

second thing is Christians have a much more realistic understanding of human

nature. Christians understand that human beings are made in the image of God

and are therefore capable of acts of nobility and beauty. But they also know that

humans are deeply flawed, flawed by sin. And so it doesn’t surprise them when

Christians sometimes behave – well, not just Christians – why people behave

rather badly. (D. Aikman, personal communication, February 18, 2008)

Aikman also said that Christians know that they should be polite and friendly, and this

gives them an edge to working with people in a personal way. Working with peers in

secular journalism produces other questions to consider for Christians, especially since

unbelievers don’t understand the intricacies of the Christian faith. Aikman advises:

A Christian in any walk of life ought to be prepared to laugh at himself and not

take himself too seriously. By all means, take his faith seriously, take Jesus

Christ obviously with complete seriousness, but be a little bit flexible in how you

Christians within Journalism 66

present your walk to non-believers and actually, be a little bit accommodating. I

don’t mean you should compromise – obviously, don’t compromise at all on

moral issues. . . . I think you need to be flexible about social circumstances. You

don’t need to give the impression of being very uptight, sort of legalistic about

your own behavior and everybody else’s. That’s just common sense, I think. (D.

Aikman, personal communication, February 18, 2008)

Even while they enter journalism with good intentions to live in a godly way and share

Christ with others, Christians need to be ready for the rapids they will encounter.

Christians Sharing Beliefs

Although many Christians may be working in journalism today, their presence is

largely unknown due to their fear of revealing their religious beliefs. While studying

leading Christians in the professional world, Schmalzbauer (2003) either interviewed or

asked many people for an interview. He writes that many denied his request, mostly

because they were afraid of being recognized as evangelicals. Women especially were

wary since they already had enough problems due to their gender. Cal Thomas, a leading

religious syndicated columnist, once said, “In this town you pay a social price for being

up-front about your faith. People don’t invite you to parties” (as cited in Schmalzbauer,

2003, p. 45). Schmalzbauer (2003) found that most religious journalists either

completely privatize their religious beliefs, “refusing to talk about the connections

between faith and work or to identify publicly” (p. 47), or they keep all religious talk

separated from their work, leaving it to areas such as personal character or personal

relationships to bring up individual beliefs. He attributes this lack of open faith to the

change that occurred in America when journalists and social scientists broke from the

Christians within Journalism 67

moorings of religious institutions and when religion eventually was quartered to private

life rather than the public spheres of academia and news. He says, “Journalists and social

scientists could be religious as long as they kept their beliefs to themselves” (p. 9).

Schmalzbauer’s research showed a pittance of Christians in the field willing to show their

faith; however, he did acknowledge that some were more open, “seeing their religious

identities as intimately bound up with their journalistic careers. Building bridges

between professional and religious worlds, they have found ways to translate their

convictions into the language of their secular colleagues” (p. 46). Although only a few

examples are available, aspiring Christian journalists can take heart that some Christians

are explicitly showing their faith in the secular field.

Aikman advises that Christians share their faith in “quiet” ways, such as having

Bibles on their desks or doing ministry at lunch. Although it may take some time before

secular peers realize these things, the time elapsed will create a foundation for sharing

Christ later. Aikman says:

I don’t believe Christian journalists should be propagandists for Christianity. I

think you earn the right to share your faith when you have demonstrated

confidence, trust, and congeniality to a colleague, and really you should be very

careful – you shouldn’t blurt it out at the first general opportunity – to wait until

you’re absolutely sure you’ll get a good reception for it, or at least an attentive

reception, if not a good one. (D. Aikman, personal communication, February 18,

2008)

Christians must make a place in journalism first and develop relationships before sharing

their faith. Outten offered a similar view:

Christians within Journalism 68

The idea that Christians should do nothing but share the plan of salvation with

everyone is ridiculous. The gospel is far more than a single born-again

experience. It is good news of both eternal life in Heaven and a reformed life

here on earth. (as cited in Wallace, 1991, p. 119)

Foundations must be laid before faith is shared, and sharing faith goes beyond the simple

Gospel to projecting a God-centered life.

View of Religion

Much of the reason why religion in the workplace is discouraged is that religion is

seen as scientifically inferior in the quest for knowledge. Many secular professionals

actively separate religion and science – “values” and “facts” – making it difficult for

anyone who believes differently. Schmalzbauer (2003) notes that academia and

journalism are not blatantly trying to be secular; rather, their idea of knowledge is

different in that it excludes the non-secular: “More significant than any overt secularism

is the tendency among many professions to make rigid distinctions between professional

and religious forms of knowledge” (p. 6). Spirituality is difficult to measure and thus

difficult to use in the search for knowledge. Faith is seen as a separate interest that some

people hold: John likes to fish, Wayne is into puzzles, and Gary has religion. To stay

afloat, Christians must separate portions of their lives as their secular peers do, according

to this secular thinking. Schmalzbauer writes that “the modern professions, including

journalism, have been dominated by an ideology that emphasizes detachment,

empiricism, and the separation of facts from values. To maintain public credibility,

professionals are expected to keep their private political and moral convictions to

themselves” (p. 45). In many minds, religion and truth-finding do not mix.

Christians within Journalism 69

However, some people give arguments that say religion can indeed be helpful in

finding knowledge. Historian George Marsden has made a case that religion should be

included in scientific reasoning on the grounds that other studies take into consideration

the personal convictions of select groups. “Pointing to fields such as women’s studies

and African American studies, Marsden has argued there is no reason that religious

scholars should be prevented from bringing their normative convictions into their work”

(as cited in Schmalzbauer, 2003, p. 97). Furthermore, science is not always completely

neutral and objective, and religion may be able to aid the quest for finding truth much in

the same way that it can help answer the “why” question in journalism. Marsden’s

argument continues:

Many prominent scholars have agreed that science typically operates within

frameworks of assumptions that are not themselves established on scientific

grounds . . . . It is now commonplace among contemporary scholars, including

many moderate liberal scholars, to acknowledge that, while empirical

investigation should be valued in its place, pre-theoretical influences such as

social location substantially shape interpretations in the humanities and social

science . . . . One might think, therefore, that it would be relatively easy to gain

agreement that, since strongly held religious views are often part of one’s social

location, religious perspectives should be accepted as playing potentially

legitimate roles in academic interpretation. (as cited in Schmalzbauer, 2003, pp.

97-98)

As science studies the lives of humans and tries to find the truth in life, the personal

convictions and beliefs of such beings should be considered. While journalists seek to

Christians within Journalism 70

find truth through objective and scientific methods, they still deal with humans and their

emotions, and theories and research findings without practical application to personal

beings produce different conclusions than when human experience is added to the

formula. Indeed, journalism will report the facts, but at some point people have begun to

require more and now want journalism to give them direction in life, something that

cannot be done without an element of human experience.

Public’s View of Christians Specifically

As for a specific view of how the public views Christians, the evidence is grim.

Schmalzbauer (2003) writes that a higher proportion of journalists have less religious

affiliation than do average Americans, and a 1999 survey showed that “37 percent of

highly educated Americans hold ‘intensely antagonistic feelings’ toward conservative

Christians, and another 19 percent view them negatively” (p. 5). Much of this pessimistic

feeling goes back to the view that religion is not an acceptable method in finding truth in

the scientific (or journalistic) realm. Barbara Stocker, the spokesperson for the

Rationalist Society of St. Louis, expresses her disapproval of Christian journalists:

A Christian journalist belongs at a Christian newspaper or TV station. And

journalism schools should not be in the business of making Christian journalists.

They should simply be teaching reporters how to use their intelligence. For

example, they’re not teaching journalists how to balance a story when they

educate them to pit creationism against evolution. The two do not even belong on

the same page. Evolution is science. Creationism is superstition. Let’s be

rational. (as cited in Corrigan, 1994)

Christians within Journalism 71

Keeping religious beliefs out of mainstream arguments is not a new thing, no matter how

scientific or unscientific either side proves these beliefs and theories to be.

Kenneth Rystrom (2004) writes about religion in the letters to the editor section of

newspapers, noting the view of the Pennsylvania York Dispatch’s Glenn Sheller, who

says:

We don’t want to see letters and columns of diverse viewpoint, style, and wit

driven out by mailbags full of the familiar type in which every sentence ends with

a Scripture citation and whose ‘argument’ consists of nothing more than an appeal

to supernatural authority. (p. 281)

Obviously, some consider religion-based arguments as less credible. Although some

Christians may find this offensive, Sheller’s comment should also spur others on to write

better arguments in their letters to the editor, held up by sound reasoning and buttressed

with Scripture rather than using Scripture and clichés as easy fall-backs.

Rystrom (2004) notes, however, that the attitude toward religion in letters to the

editor is changing as moral issues plague the government and events occur that rock the

country:

Now, however, editors are finding it more difficult to draw a line against the use

of religious citation and religion-based arguments when the public is debating

abortion, the death penalty, creationism, use of embryos in research, aid to

parochial schools, prayer in schools, posting the Ten Commandments in public

places, and the rights of gays. It may be impossible to draw a line now that

religious differences, or at least religious perceptions, underlie many important

and flammable issues. Letter columns, and editorial pages for that matter, may be

Christians within Journalism 72

among those things that will never be the same after September 11, 2001.

Religious beliefs and opinions, as well as scriptural citations, have become part of

public discourse. No longer can editors try to insulate their pages from them. (p.

287)

As religion is part of the human experience that makes up life, it cannot always be left out

of the journalism field, which tries to examine human life in its fullness and draw real

conclusions about real people.

Part of the reason religion is so quickly dismissed is that it is not understood by

the majority of its attackers (or ignorers). Goldberg (2002) notes that those with

conservative beliefs are often looked down on:

They’re seen as odd and viewed with suspicion because their lives are shaped by

faith and devotion to God and an adherence to rigid principles – opposition to

abortion, for one – that seem archaic and close-minded to a lot of journalists who,

survey after survey suggests, are not especially religious themselves. (p. 128)

Many journalists see religion as old-fashioned and have no personal connections

themselves, which affects their interaction with Christians. The strict beliefs of the

religious also drive fear into those whose views are in opposition to matters traditionally

defended by Christians. When Christians try to take a stand against the world’s sinful

and declining moral standards, they are often stereotyped. Given a label by the press,

such as “conservative,” “evangelical,” or “fundamentalist” (to name a few), Christians

find it difficult to explain themselves or escape from the descriptions given to them to

categorize religion for the public. The labels often capture only a small slice of their

Christians within Journalism 73

being – a slice that is better served as a category than a descriptor of who they are as

people.

Simplifying Religious Ideas

The simplification of religious ideas is one of the leading causes for the

misunderstandings by the public. Reporters try to put vast religious concepts in a tiny

box and end up losing a lot of important information. Sports in America gets its own

section in many newspapers, but far more Americans go to church on Sundays than

attend sporting events, Alterman (2003) notes. He adds that the lack of religious

coverage, or the misinterpretation of religion, is not bias but rather ignorance of

journalists who do not understand religion. This trend is not unique to religion, however:

“One hears much of the same complaint from . . . just about everybody else who sees a

complex area of their professional or personal lives oversimplified or misunderstood by a

reporter who covers it” (Alterman, 2003, p. 105). Certainly, journalists have

oversimplified or misunderstood key areas of farming work or legal procedures, but with

so many people professing religious beliefs, the misinterpretation is more alarming.

George M. Marsden also attributes the misunderstandings of religion to ignorance of the

subject:

Suppose that a person who reported on music never played a musical instrument,

had seldom paid attention to music, and knew next to nothing about the various

types of music. That is the equivalent to how religion is often treated in the

media. (as cited in Evensen, 1997, p. 170)

To report better, journalists need to educate themselves better, whether it be religion or

any other topic. A Christian journalist must not only study issues in general but must

Christians within Journalism 74

also then look at those issues through a God-centered worldview. With the vast amount

of Americans concerned with religion, however, a greater push toward accurate religious

reporting should be demanded. Billy Graham recommended that publications find people

with a specific interest or knowledge in religion to cover the beat, noting that a

publication would never send a reporter to cover football who had not watched a game

personally (as cited in Evensen, 1997, pp. 175-176). Another recommendation of his was

to focus on reporting the good about religion as well as the bad:

There are thousands of clergy in America who are doing their job faithfully, and

they need your support and your backing – but let one of them crash, and that’s

the big news. Many people get the idea that that’s the church or that’s religion,

and they turn away. (as cited in Evensen, 1997, pp. 173-174)

When the press only gives a specific slice of religious life, people are bound to think that

is all there is to religion.

Of course, a valid reason for why religion is misunderstood in journalism – and

much of America – is the actions of Christians themselves. Christianity is full of

hypocrisy, as Christians say (or believe) one thing and do another. Worse yet, however,

is the large chunk of Christians who do not even know what they themselves believe.

They bear the name; they wear the T-shirts; and they may know a verse or two, but a

large majority of American Christians use Christianity as a label or religious category,

not as a matter of personal conviction and faith. A December 1, 2003 study by the Barna

Group found that although all people have a worldview, only nine percent of born again

Christians had a distinctly Biblical worldview (“Biblical Worldview”). Christians often

do not understand the Bible themselves and run wild with the portions they do understand

Christians within Journalism 75

and promote. If Christians do not understand Christianity, it is hard to ask journalism or

the rest of America to understand.

Perhaps the greatest divide between journalism and religion is that non-Christians

often have no real concept of what real Christian belief is like. Although they may know

facts and lingo, they do not have the power of the Holy Spirit and thus cannot fully

understand a relationship with Jesus Christ. Christians as a whole, no matter how they

practice their beliefs, have far different priorities than unbelievers, and they strive to see

the world increasingly from the perspective of God, not man. With this godly

perspective, they can understand the Bible and its concepts whereas the unsaved are hard

pressed to look beyond the specific commands and simple stories. Billy Graham outlines

the differences when he says:

For one thing, much of what happens in religion is not news, by your definition,

and I understand that. You are concerned with change, we are concerned with

that which we believe to be changeless. You are interested in that which breaks

the patterns of normal life – disasters, political upheavals, wars, the cruelties and

foibles of human nature, conflicts between people and nations. We are interested

in what goes on, often unseen, in the hearts of individuals: hopes reborn, purpose

restored, guilt removed, love rekindled. (as cited in Evensen, 1997, p. 173)

Secular journalists obviously see the Christian faith differently than those who are saved.

A common reaction to this by Christians is a dislike for the media, a feeling that the

media, as a truth-finding group, should be able to see the situation correctly, right the

wrongs, and learn to understand religion in a day. The message of 1 Corinthians 1:18

continues to ring true, however. The unsaved cannot be expected to understand the

Christians within Journalism 76

things of God, at least not without Christians telling them. Instead of reacting harshly to

those who do not understand or recoiling from a journalism field that misinterprets

religion, Christians should take an active and aggressive stance toward spreading the

truth, knowing that the unsaved often cannot understand truth on their own. Through the

dissemination of knowledge of all kinds, they can indoctrinate the world in the truth,

whether it be of “worldly” things or of matters of faith.

Christians’ Reactions to the Media

Overall, however, Christians have responded to the secular media throughout

history by running the other way. Olasky (1988) notes, “Some Christians are so

disgusted with mainline newspapers and news shows that they refuse to read or watch

and merely engage in a general carping condemnation” (p. 119). The attitudes have

become such that, “Just as church-bashing is a favorite sport among some reporters, so

media-bashing is the pastime of many Christians” (p. xii). Worse than Christians’ being

hostile toward the media, however, is how many Christians have removed themselves

from the field of journalism, and often, they have removed themselves from critical

thinking altogether.

Olasky (1988) outlines several factors that led to Christians’ leaving the field of

journalism, including factors both from the inside and the outside. First, society left

Christian principles. As America relied on a changing society and its intellectual

musings in science and education to fix the problems of mankind, less attention was

given to religion. Revivals came, but they affected individuals rather than the overall

thinking of the nation. Second, many – if not most – Christians threw in the towel.

Olasky says “many Christians began to believe that the general culture inevitably would

Christians within Journalism 77

become worse and worse. They thought that little could be done to stay the downward

drift” (p. 25). Journalism was not considered as important to Christians. Finally, changes

within journalism fueled the move away from Christian principles. One example is the

New York Times, which, generations after its inception, tolerated the printing of news that

would once have been considered “unfit to print” (p. 22). Journalism also tended to

justify humans and their actions, esteeming man as a much better and wiser being than

the one portrayed in the partisan press era. Christian journalism especially faltered.

Olasky writes, “Christian publications refused to meet the communication demands of an

increasingly fast-paced marketplace” (p. 23) and “denominational infighting” either split

Christian ventures or made it so those ventures had to be abandoned rather than splitting

the group (p. 23). All of these factors worked together to make Christian thinking almost

extinct in journalism.

Christianity was also leaving the public eye, however. After the Scopes trial of

the 1920s, Christians slinked back to their private institutions as much of the nation

crowed over the victory of the scientific theory of evolution, which allegedly had

trumped the “unscientific” creationism in court. Christians built their own empire, using

conferences, radio, and Bible institutes and colleges to forge their own subculture

(Schmalzbauer, 2003). Although eventually religion worked its way back into public

life, it was a slow process. In 1976, Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter was elected, which

began the movement of the religious right in politics. Christian campuses began to have

more relaxed rules, revealing their integration with the secular world (Schmalzbauer,

2003). By the 1980s and 1990s, religion was back in public view with political concerns

Christians within Journalism 78

in moral areas such as abortion, and in current times, continues with new topics like stem

cell research.

The effects of the evangelical subculture have lasted, however. Schmalzbauer

(2003) writes that “the evangelical subculture helped keep alive a religious approach to

higher education and mass communication. At the same time, the isolation of the

evangelical subculture prevented its members from fully engaging the academic and

cultural mainstream” (p 30). Christians were in the media, but they were speaking to

other Christians: “Although the evangelical empire of Christian colleges and universities,

campus ministries, publishers, and broadcasters was truly vast, it reached an

overwhelmingly evangelical audience” (p. 30). With religion turned completely inward,

it is no wonder that the secular realm not only did not understand Christianity but also

that it did not respect it or report it.

Journalism in the Future

For Christians looking to enter the field of journalism today, a mighty task lies

ahead. These aspiring Christian journalists not only have to deal with the tricks of

journalism and its past but also must confront the crippling effect that the lack of

Christian journalism in the past years has had. If Christians are serious about working in

the secular field and reaching the world for Christ, they are going to have to find a way

not only to abide within the field, where their beliefs will be attacked, ridiculed, and

called into question for bias, but also to thrive in journalism, spreading the truth without

unnecessarily offending traditional journalism. The field of journalism should not fear

Christians, however. If Christians follow biblical convictions, the field will find itself

Christians within Journalism 79

full of hard workers who respect the traditions of journalism, doing their job well with

utmost regard to ethics and the improvement of the world and those within.

Several practical conclusions will be drawn to give application to Christians

entering the field, and many of these can be pulled from an understanding of what

happened in journalism in the past.

Learn from the Past

First, Christians must be willing to learn from the past. The Bible speaks often

about learning from elders and the events and attitudes of the past, and the study of

history is part of modern secular academia because of the obvious reasons of looking at

the past in order to understand the present and live a productive future. Some practical

applications of this would be to take personal advice from the generation before.

Christians should also respect specific trends and methods on a grand scale, such as the

traditions of journalism, which will be discussed next.

The ideals of objectivity and ethics that are so central to journalism were not

made on a whim; these tenets of journalism became obvious after years of hard work and

study. The codes and guidelines of journalism have been constructed with good reason,

and any aspiring journalists must first respect and master the traditions of journalism

before moving on to any new forms. Otherwise, these journalists will find themselves

relearning lessons or losing important advantages from the past, even if information

gained does not appear relevant at the time or may be generally repugnant. The Bible

constantly speaks about the importance of wisdom and growing in knowledge.

Knowledge of the world leads to a deeper understanding of God for Christians. Once

Christians know God better, they know how to glorify him. Even a cursory reading of a

Christians within Journalism 80

journalism textbook reveals the importance of knowledge of anything and everything.

Christians should take this a step further.

For the Christian, respecting ethics and the traits of hard work should be no

problem. Pursuing knowledge also lines up with biblical convictions. By knowing both

the Bible and journalism inside and out, Christians will be able to make better decisions

in the field. Whereas objectivity may seem harder to master, Christians can be

encouraged that the trends of journalism have led more toward the partisan press again.

For those Christians who feel they must lace their reporting with biblical overtones,

plenty of outlets beyond secular journalism exist for the interpretation and evaluation of

news as well as reporting.

Above all, however, respecting the traditions of journalism means respecting

peers and subjects within the field. One of the reasons Christians are taken lightly in

journalism is that of their insistence to promote their views. Instead of insistence,

Christians should tread lightly for a while until they as people are accepted and earn

respect in the field. When Paul was in Rome, he was a Roman, and when he was in

Israel, he was a Jew. Christians should also look to develop meaningful relationships

with the love of Christ rather than attempting to evangelize a life they know almost

nothing about. The Bible is also clear about obeying authorities, such as following a

supervisor’s instructions even when it may not be a Christian’s natural desire to do so.

Christian liberties point toward putting aside personal freedoms for the good of those

who may not understand. However, Christians can still act as Daniel and purpose in their

hearts to do what is right. What is right, though, must often be preceded by a love for the

unsaved, placing their needs before the desire of Christians to share all their beliefs on the

Christians within Journalism 81

first day on the job. Many conservative Christians write books that show their infuriation

with liberals or anyone who disagrees with them, and their negative attacks show neither

the love of Christ nor the hope of the Gospel. Christians should withhold from attacks

until they both have something worthwhile to say and also until their audience is ready to

hear. Otherwise, they will only be preaching in vain.

Be Rooted in the Faith

The second necessity for Christians who are entering journalism is that they be

rooted strongly in their faith. Although many examples are available, the example of

Harry Luce, the co-founder of Time magazine, will suffice. Luce was raised by

missionary parents in China and, at a young age, devoted himself to God and grew close

in his relationship with him. Luce went to prep school and began to see worldly and

wealthy friends, and he soon became distracted. He allowed himself to become engulfed

by the draw and detriment of competition for success, power, and money, wherein he

sought success against his comrades. Luce once wrote of his time at prep school, “I knew

it then, there on the hill, that I was really only a back-row Christian. And something went

outside of me” (Wilner, 2006, p. 26). Luce’s love for God returned only after his

retirement fifty years later. By that time, he had helped build a revolutionary magazine

and an empire for news dissemination, an organization that sported several magazines

and influenced the thoughts of millions. The eternal effect was minimal, however, as in

the process Luce ended up hoarding all the credit for Time magazine and its success after

its real creative genius, Britton Hadden, died at a young age. While Luce’s

accomplishments are exemplary, their eternal purpose is only a sad lesson in the

destruction of selfishness and the desire for success. His life invites Jesus Christ’s

Christians within Journalism 82

question of Matthew 16:25: What is a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his

soul? Or, if he is saved but fails to use his gain to help other souls?

Christian journalists must not only be fully grounded in their relationships with

God but must also keep their godly perspective or worldview, looking to glorify God in

all they do. Barbour (1993) asserts that a Christian is accountable both to God and to his

purposes:

The prophetic view of a created order that is inclusive in space and time is also

relevant today. The whole creation is part of God’s purpose. Because all forms

of life are within God’s plan, we are accountable for the way we treat them. I

suggested that stewardship of nature is more typical of the Bible than dominion

over nature, though it was often ignored in subsequent Western history.

Moreover, the prophets used an extended time scale because they believed that

God’s purposes extend into the future. We have obligations to posterity and to a

God who spans the generations. (p. 261)

Being good stewards of the created order is a vital part of glorifying God, and journalism

is a vital field in upholding the created order in the welfare of mankind.

Christians and ethical considerations in their actions have had a unique history in

which men and women have often tried to live in the name of God but were not

sufficiently rooted and thus blundered terribly. The church has done great things for

mankind, but it has also had major problems, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch

trials, or oppressive and misguided church-leading governments, to name a few. One of

the biggest arguments against Christianity has been that its members do not practice what

they preach, and this is certainly a concern for Christians entering journalism. The

Christians within Journalism 83

purpose of Christian journalism is not to build a Christian empire, to get the media to stop

attacking Christianity, or to publish more feel-good stories and make youngsters go to

camp. The purpose of Christian journalism should be the same as the purpose of

Christians in life – first and foremost to glorify God by obeying his commands and

spreading his truth, most obviously by loving others. Having Christians in journalism

will be no good if they do not act like Christians. People will more readily listen to their

message once they see that their lives measure up. Christians’ living as they should is

vital everywhere, but it is especially important in a field in which many suspect religion

and Christians already.

While Christians should strive to be blameless, what is more important is that they

strive to be genuine. Everyone errs. The secular world is more interested in seeing

someone like themselves who has found the answers rather than someone freakishly

unlike themselves who is trying to be pious. Christians are going to have to take flak for

their many brothers and sisters who have erred in the past, continue to err in the present,

and will definitely err in the future. An attitude of humility will go far in these situations.

Overall, however, a Christian journalist will need to be able to stand alone – to stand for

convictions and what is right, no matter where the attacks are coming from.

Stand Alone

As well as learning from the past and being rooted in the faith, a Christian must

also learn to stand alone. Perhaps one of the most discouraging aspects of any Christian

who is trying to live a godly life is the criticism that comes from those who are supposed

to be of common faith. Throughout history, the church has been full of backbiting and

criticism that has crumbled the foundation of unity before it could hardly be built. The

Christians within Journalism 84

Christian journalist will often have to make decisions that are not popular, especially

among those of like faith or ideals. What the Christian journalist must remember,

however, is that his or her allegiance is primarily to God, and that is the standard by

which all must be judged.

Writing about organized religion is one of the hardest areas to handle. While God

did ordain the church, the many denominations and factions and their unique traditions

and methods are not necessarily God-inspired. Likewise, many Christian organizations

and ministries have been founded with good intentions, but that does not mean they will

not err. Christian journalists will face times when they will have to rebuke those of like

faith just as equally as unbelievers. Just because people share the same convictions –

religiously, politically, socially – does not mean these comrades in the faith can be given

a blind eye when they do wrong. Olasky (1996) gives some pointers for dealing with

this, which he calls “propaganda”:

Overall, Christian publications that wish to practice biblically directed journalism

should stand firm against propaganda in five ways: They should not pretend that

all is well with Christian organizations that are having problems; they should be

willing to criticize political allies; they should be willing to praise opponents who

act rightly in particular circumstances; they should not place above criticism even

great church leaders; and they should not cover up embarrassments that befall

even strong organizations. (p. 236)

By being willing to treat all men impartially (as God does), Christians will build

credibility in a journalistic field that hates conflicts of interest and unequal treatment.

The Christian’s ultimate standard should always be to please and honor God, not men.

Christians within Journalism 85

Make an Effort

Christian journalism is a rare thing, but rather than lamenting the current state and

the few Christians in the field, Christians need to step up and begin to work toward

changing the situation. Olasky (1988) warns, “If Christians today spend time

complaining instead of doing, Americans may spend more decades wandering in a media

wasteland” (p. 143). He gave a few suggestions for Christians who want to change

journalism but warns that such a revolution will change modern Christianity: “A

Christian journalistic revival, though, would mean that no place would be safe: Christian

journalistic organizations would be aggressively reporting on the contrast between man’s

depravity and God’s holiness, and non-Christian organizations would be prime mission

fields” (p. 178). Journalism is a great field to start a Christian revolution in culture,

however. The secularism of journalism is open and obvious, and Christians know where

the battle is, which is in contrast to the public school system, in which secularism is

hidden, deeply rooted, and much harder to combat, according to Olasky (1988). For

change to take place in America, Christians must find a way to reach out to many, and

journalism of all kinds is one of the few avenues that reaches virtually everyone. Olasky

(1988) notes, “Parents, church leaders, employers, teachers, and so on are all

representatives of different types of governing authority. There must be change in many

different spheres for true reform to take root” (p. 158). Journalism is able to touch the

different areas of life that have authority, and a positive change in journalism would do

great things for America.

Christians within Journalism 86

Make Use of Technology

Technology is also providing new opportunities that Christians in journalism

never had before, and journalism has the unique bonus of not having government

restrictions. Olasky says that now is the “golden age for journalism” as many new outlets

are surfacing in which people can share their views (M. Olasky, personal communication,

November 2, 2007). He adds, “It doesn’t take any brilliance to see that the Internet is the

future . . . . The beauty of the Web . . . is that it breaks down the divide between

Christian and secular publications” (M. Olasky, personal communication, November 2,

2007). Although the Internet is a modern-day Pandora’s box, bringing a wealth of

problems, the new advantages of the Internet mean that once again, anyone can be a

journalist, and even more effectively. Whereas budget concerns were once a main

restriction on Christian journalists, the Internet means that now all they need is time and

devotion to report on the side, which can significantly reduce funds for reporting full-

time.

The Internet and Partisan Reporting

The Internet is obviously the next frontier for all of journalism, not just

Christians. As mentioned in the study of bias, more people are going to distinctly

partisan news media where they know which view they are receiving. Goldberg (2002)

writes that, in the future, “People will get their news from the people they like and

believe, which is very bad news for the old guard” (p. 189). The trend Goldberg

describes is one that will move away from the large media organizations and more toward

individual, specialized reporting.

Christians within Journalism 87

At World magazine, for instance, Olasky has made a distinctly Christian partisan

press. Those who subscribe to the periodical know that they will be receiving an

obviously Christian view. Olasky says, “We wouldn’t expect our journalists to be fair

and balanced like you would at a normal newspaper” (M. Olasky, personal

communication, November 2, 2007). He adds, however, that this is not bias. Rather, it is

what he knows to be the truth – he calls it biblical objectivity. In his reporting, everyone

else is biased, but his reporting is true because it is based on the eternal truth of the Bible.

Olasky’s thinking – having a distinct set of standards by which to judge news

criteria – is not exactly a novel idea; that was what made the partisan press several

centuries ago. Now, as news coverage continues to diverge into smaller media such as

blogs or cable news channels, people can find sources with which they agree. Knowing

that what they hear will support their worldview, they will not cry of bias, but of

rationality. While some say this is bad for journalism, it does not mean that all views will

become extinct. Instead of trying to jam every imaginable view into one story (leaving

some out, misinterpreting others, and confusing the readers all the while), journalists can

now focus on writing a story with a worldview they understand. With so many views

being presented in many different media – all easy to access through the Internet – people

will have a greater chance than ever to hear all sides of the story. Whether or not people

will access all of these views, however, will determine the success of such a system.

Establish Your Convictions Early

While Olasky (1988) promotes his own magazine, obviously, and his method of

biblical objectivity, he also encourages Christian journalists who want to enter the secular

field. He says that one person can make a difference, no matter where he or she is

Christians within Journalism 88

working, but he also warned that the roads between Christian and atheistic thinking

divide early in a journalist’s career. Before Christians enter the field, they must know

which path they have chosen and be ready to stand for it.

Christians Entering Secular Journalism

Much has been mentioned in this paper to prepare Christians for an entry into

secular journalism. Christians who work in secular journalism can reach out to many

who are unsaved as well as eventually building platforms from which they can make their

views more evident. Even if a Christian is going to work at a Christian publication,

Aikman recommends secular journalism first:

In general, I would say it’s much better for Christians to get into the difficult area

of secular journalism and work within it – work within the rules. . . . Earn your

stripes at a secular outfit, learn the ropes, put up with the guff and the ribbing and

the teasing etc., but do a good job. Learn the skills of good journalism. And a bit

later, by all means go into a Christian publication. (D. Aikman, personal

communication, February 18, 2008)

Aikman adds that many editors are willing to let Christians present their views after these

Christians have shown themselves to be hard workers. Aikman himself was able to write

an essay with an obvious Biblical viewpoint, but only after 17 years at Time magazine.

Conclusion

Journalism is an important field because it reaches so many people. If the

Christian’s goal in life is to glorify God and bring others to glorify him, that Christian

will be looking to spread the truth whenever he or she can. That is why journalism is

such a great opportunity. The written word is a powerful way to lead people to the truth.

Christians within Journalism 89

Showing a biblical perspective in all walks of life also leads people to the truth and shows

them how, every day, to “set their minds on things above” (Colossians 1:1). More than

anything, however, showing Christ in journalism will take the power out of the hands of

those who cannot really answer the “why” question and provide hope for the world, hope

that life is worthwhile, and there is real meaning.

A great need exists for Christians in journalism; and, for those who are committed

to follow the call, Christianity in journalism is not a dream, but rather a hope. Now is the

perfect time for Christians to place themselves within journalism and communicate the

glory of God to all mankind.

Christians within Journalism 90

References

Abel, E. (1984). Hutchins revisited. In R. Schmuhl (ed.), The responsibilities of

journalism (pp. 39-48). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Allan, S. (1999). News culture. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Alterman, E. (2003). What liberal media? The truth about bias and the news. New York:

Basic Books.

Barbour, I. A. (1993). Ethics in an age of technology. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Barna Group. (2003). A biblical worldview has a radical effect on a person’s life.

Retrieved March 29, 2008, from

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=154

Barna Group. (2008). Definition of evangelical Christian. Retrieved February 17, 2008,

from http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17

Berry, T. E. (1976). Journalism in America: An introduction to the news media. New

York: Hastings House.

Black, J., Steele, B., & Barney, R. (1999). Doing ethics in journalism: A handbook with

case studies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Buchholz, M. (1997). History of reporting. In B.J. Evensen, The responsible reporter (pp.

7-25). Northport, AL: Vision Press.

Conboy, M. (2004). Journalism: A critical history. London: Sage Publications.

Corrigan, D. (1994). The other side of paradise: Not everyone agrees with evangelical

agenda. St. Louis Journalism Review, June (Vol. 36, Issue 287, pp.18-19).

Retrieved December 11, 2007, from EBSCOHost.

Christians within Journalism 91

Evensen, B. J. (1997). The responsible reporter. Northport, AL: Vision Press.

Geyer, G.A. (1984). Journalists: The new targets. In R. Schmuhl (ed.), The

responsibilities of journalism (pp. 70-78). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame

Press.

Goldberg, B. (2002). Bias. Washington: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Herr, E. (1999). An introduction to Christian writing. Phoenix: Write Now Publications.

Klaidman, S., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1987). The virtuous journalist. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Knowlton, S.R. (1997). Ethics of reporting. In B.J. Evensen, The responsible reporter

(pp. 57-76). Northport, AL: Vision Press.

Kuypers, J. A. (2002). Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lichter, S. R., Rothman, S., & Lichter, L. S. (1986). The media elite. Bethesda, MD:

Adler and Adler.

Manning, P. (2001). News and news sources: A critical introduction. London: Sage.

Marler, C. (1997). A reporter’s profile. In B.J. Evensen, The responsible reporter (pp. 41-

56). Northport, AL: Vision Press.

Mencher, M. (2006). News reporting and writing (10

ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Merriam-Webster Online. (2008). Retrieved February 22, 2008, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

Merriam-Webster Online. (2008). Retrieved February 22, 2008, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectivity

Christians within Journalism 92

Missouri School of Journalism. (2008). Journalist’s creed. Retrieved February 17, 2008,

from

http://journalism.missouri.edu/about/creed.html

Niven, D. (2002). Tilt? The search for media bias. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Olasky, M. (1991). Central ideas in the development of American journalism: A

narrative history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Olasky, M. (1988). Prodigal press: The anti-Christian bias of the American news media.

Westchester, IL: Crossway.

Olasky, M. (1996). Telling the truth: How to revitalize Christian journalism. Wheaton:

Crossway.

Proctor, W. (2000). The gospel according to the New York Times. Nashville: Broadman

and Holman.

Rystrom, K. (2004). The why, who, and how of the editorial page. State College, PA:

Strata.

Schmalzbauer, J. (2003). People of faith: Religious conviction in American journalism

and higher education. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Siebert, F.S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press. Urbana:

University of Illinois.

Silk, L. (1984). The ethics and economics of journalism. In R. Schmuhl (ed.), The

responsibilities of journalism (pp. 86-92). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame

Press.

Sire, J.W. (1997). The universe next door. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Smith, T.J., Lichter, S.R., & Harris, L. & Associates, Inc. (1997). What people want from

the press. Washington: Center for Media and Public Affairs.

Christians within Journalism 93

Smythe, T.C. (1997). The news operation. In B.J. Evensen, The responsible reporter (pp.

26-40). Northport, AL: Vision Press.

Society of Professional Journalists. (2006). Code of Ethics. Retrieved October 15, 2006,

from

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Stein, M. L. (1974). Shaping the news: How the media function in today’s world. New

York: Washington Square Press.

Veith, G.E., Jr. (1994). Postmodern times. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Wallace, G.J., Jr. (1991.) A synthesis of literature on and definition of biblical

newspaper journalism. (Thesis, Regent University, 1991).

Willis, J. (2003). The human journalist: Reporters, perspectives, and emotions.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wilkins, L., & Coleman, R. (2005). The moral media: How journalists reason about

ethics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wilner, I. (2006). The man Time forgot: A tale of genius, betrayal, and the creation of

Time magazine. New York: Harper Collins.