Christian Journalism, Accountability, and the Cost of Truth

Introduction

In 1992, journalist Carl Bernstein warned that American journalism was drifting toward what he called an “idiot culture,” one marked by pandering rather than informing, spectacle rather than substance, and speed rather than truth. His concern was not simply that journalism had become popular, but that it had become shallow—appealing to audiences by lowering expectations instead of elevating understanding. Good journalism, Bernstein argued, should stretch its audience, demanding intellectual and moral effort rather than catering to the lowest common denominator. When journalism abandons this calling, it forfeits its commitment to truth in favor of misinformation, disinformation, and a quiet contempt for reality.

What makes Bernstein’s critique especially striking is the context in which he wrote. The internet as we know it did not yet exist. News was still largely delivered through institutions such as newspapers, radio, and television. Social media, broadband internet, and smartphones—all technologies that now shape the pace and incentives of journalism—were years away. Yet even in that earlier, lower-choice media environment, Bernstein saw journalism substituting quantity for quality and immediacy for accuracy. The problem predates digital technology.

While digital media has accelerated these trends, it did not create them. The habits and temptations of the analog age have been carried forward into the digital one. Christian journalism, as part of this broader media ecosystem, is not immune. This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: to what extent has Christian journalism committed to careful truth-telling? How has it absorbed the same incentives that reward outrage, speed, and sensationalism?

The Scandal Economy in Christian Media

One of the most visible features of contemporary Christian journalism is its focus on scandal. A growing number of blogs, podcasts, and media outlets devote significant attention to exposing wrongdoing within Christian organizations and among Christian leaders. In many cases, this work is necessary and faithful. Abuses of authority should be brought into the light, especially when internal accountability structures have failed. Public reporting can create pressure that forces institutions to act when they otherwise would not.

At its best, this function of Christian journalism serves both justice and the health of the church. Scripture is clear that leaders are not exempt from accountability and that persistent sin must not be hidden. Yet the effectiveness of this kind of journalism depends on a rigorous commitment to truth, patience, and context. Without those virtues, even well-intentioned reporting can become distorted.

Consider a situation in which allegations are made against an organization that are not only unproven but incorrect—perhaps claims of doctrinal drift that do not reflect the organization’s actual teaching. Meanwhile, real problems go unaddressed: abuses of authority, selective transparency, inconsistent enforcement of policy, or the protection of underperforming insiders. When public attention becomes fixated on the wrong issue, the organization may respond by “solving” a problem that never truly existed, while deeper injustices remain untouched. Once the initial controversy fades, journalists and audiences alike may simply move on in search of the next scandal.

The danger here is not exposure but misdirection. When journalism prioritizes speed or narrative over careful understanding, it can reinforce dysfunction rather than correct it. Power exercised without understanding easily becomes manipulation—a point Iain McGilchrist makes when he observes that modern culture often mistakes control for comprehension:

“We take the success we have in manipulating it as proof that we understand it. But that is a logical error: to exert power over something requires us only to know what happens when we pull the levers, press the button, or utter the spell…It is hardly surprising, therefore, that while we have succeeded in coercing the world to our will to an extent unimaginable even a few generations ago, we have at the same time wrought havoc on that world precisely because we have not understood it.”

Christian journalists, who wield significant influence through mass media, must take particular care not to confuse the ability to provoke reaction with genuine insight.

Biblical Accountability and the Limits of Public Judgment

Scripture affirms the necessity of accountability, including public accountability, within the church. Paul instructs Timothy that elders who persist in sin should be rebuked publicly so that others may fear, and he insists that accusations against leaders must be established by multiple witnesses. These principles guard against both secrecy and recklessness. They recognize the seriousness of sin while also protecting individuals from unjust condemnation.

The biblical concern for justice extends even further. Deuteronomy warns against malicious witnesses—those who make false accusations with the intent to harm. In such cases, Israel’s legal system imposed severe consequences, underscoring God’s intolerance for the perversion of justice. While modern journalism is not a direct analogue to Israel’s judicial system, the comparison is instructive. Journalists frequently function as gatekeepers who determine which allegations are presented to the public and how they are framed. When that process lacks rigor, allegations can be treated as verdicts, and the court of public opinion becomes a blunt and unforgiving instrument.

One of the most troubling features of contemporary media is the imbalance of consequence. Journalists who report inaccurately may issue corrections or retractions, but those wrongly accused often bear lasting damage to their reputations, ministries, and relationships. The incentives of modern journalism—tight deadlines, audience demand, and algorithmic reward—encourage confidence that outruns evidence. Stories with more drama than depth are simply more marketable.

Looking Beyond Journalism

If Christian journalism is struggling, the solution cannot rest with journalists alone. Journalism both shapes and reflects culture. To change the quality of reporting, we must also change the habits and expectations of the Christian audience.

First, Christians must practice greater discernment in whom they endorse and elevate. Paul’s warning to Timothy about hastily laying hands on leaders reminds us that endorsement carries moral weight. In an age when digital platforms allow local leaders to gain national influence, consumers of Christian content often extend trust to figures they do not truly know and whose accountability structures they cannot observe. While public teaching can be valuable, it should never eclipse commitment to one’s local church or substitute for embodied pastoral care.

Second, Christians must be more thoughtful about the content they consume. Not everything that is factually accurate is spiritually edifying. Scandal-focused reporting can easily become a form of gossip for those who are not directly connected to the situation and have no capacity to act beyond passive consumption. Our attention is finite, and so is our capacity to love. Fixation on distant controversies can distract us from faithfulness to the people and responsibilities God has placed directly in our lives.

Third, meaningful reform begins at the local level. Healthy accountability within churches and ministries is the most effective way to reduce the need for scandal-driven journalism. When concerns are addressed early and honestly, public exposure becomes a last resort rather than a recurring pattern.

Finally, the church must consider how to hold accusers and reporters accountable when allegations prove false or careless. Accountability without consequence is not accountability at all. While mistakes are inevitable, a lack of rigor, oversight, or repentance increases the likelihood of harm to the body of Christ. Those who wield public influence should do so with humility and a sober awareness of the damage their words can cause.

Conclusion

Christian journalism remains a vital and necessary practice. Exposing real wrongdoing protects the church and honors the seriousness of leadership. Yet even good practices can become destructive when detached from patience, truth, and responsibility. The cycle of outrage produced by constant scandal rarely leads to lasting reform, in part because it asks little of those who consume it beyond attention. What the church needs is not a purged press but a renewed culture—one marked by discernment, accountability, and a shared commitment to truth. Only then can Christian journalism fulfill its calling to inform, correct, and build up the body of Christ rather than simply reacting to the next crisis.

‍

‍

‍