Philippine Journalist's Code of Ethics

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS CODE OF ETHICS (1988)

I. I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by
omission or improper emphasis. I recognize the duty to air the other side and to correct substantive errors promptly.

II. I shall not violate confidential information on material given me in the exercise of my calling.

III. I shall resort only to fair and honest methods in my effort to obtain news, photographs and/or documents, and shall
properly identify myself as a representative of the press when obtaining any personal interview intended for
publication.

IV. I shall refrain from writing reports which will adversely affect a private reputation unless the public interest justifies it.
At the same time, I shall fight vigorously for public access to information, as provided for in the Constitution.

V. I shall not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties; nor shall I accept or offer any
present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my personal integrity.

VI. I shall not commit any act of plagiarism.

VII. I shall not in any manner ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief,
political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin.

VIII. I shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise. I shall exercise caution in
publishing names of minors and women involved in criminal cases so that they may not unjustly lose their standing in
society.

IX. I shall not take unfair advantage of a fellow journalist.

X. I shall accept only as tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of my profession, invoking the conscience
clause when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience.

XI. I shall conduct myself in public or while performing my duties as a journalist in such manner as to maintain the
dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watchword.

This document was drafted by the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), discussed and finalized in a multilateral workshop
conference held during the National Press Week of 1988. The conference was attended by representatives from the
PPI, National Press Club, Philippine Movement for Press Freedom (PMPF), National Union of Journalists of the
Philippines (provisional committee), Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Media sa Pilipinas, Press Foundation of
Asia, and Photojournalists Guild of the Philippines. It has been adopted by these and other media organizations, and
has been translated into Filipino by the Bukluran ng mga Mamamahayag sa Sariling Wika (BUKLURAN), a PMPF
member-organization.

Source: The book Press Freedom: The Peoples Right by Ed Aurelio C. Reyes, pp. 169-170.

Retyped for information campaign by: Gregorio V. Bituin Jr.

The Journalists Creed

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
responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal
of this trust.
I believe that clear thinking, 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 journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by ones
own pocket book is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual
responsibility may not be escaped by pleading anothers instructions or anothers 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 supreme test of good journalism is
the measure of its public service.
I believe that the journalism which succeeds the 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 the privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a
chance, and as far as law, an 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 todays world.
25 Bible Verses aboutMedia
Luke 11:34 ESV / 165 helpful votes

Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but
when it is bad, your body is full of darkness.

Philippians 4:8 ESV / 112 helpful votes

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything
worthy of praise, think about these things.

Psalm 101:3-4 ESV / 83 helpful votes

I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless. I hate the work of those who fall away; it
shall not cling to me. A perverse heart shall be far from me; I will know nothing of evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 ESV / 60 helpful votes

But test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

1 Corinthians 15:33 ESV / 51 helpful votes

Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals.

Isaiah 52:7 ESV / 43 helpful votes

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes
peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, Your God
reigns.

Matthew 6:22-23 ESV / 38 helpful votes

The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light,
but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness,
how great is the darkness!

James 3:5-11 ESV / 36 helpful votes

So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set
ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set
among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on
fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has
been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of
deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in
the likeness of God. ...

1 John 2:15-17 ESV / 30 helpful votes

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father
is not in him. For all that is in the worldthe desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and
pride in possessionsis not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away
along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Psalm 101:3 ESV / 26 helpful votes

I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless. I hate the work of those who fall away; it
shall not cling to me.

Ephesians 5:19-20 ESV / 21 helpful votes

Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to
the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Mark 9:43-47 ESV / 21 helpful votes

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with
two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is
better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes
you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two
eyes to be thrown into hell,

Colossians 3:16 ESV / 17 helpful votes

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom,
singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

1 Corinthians 6:12-13 ESV / 17 helpful votes

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will
not be enslaved by anything. Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for foodand
God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the
Lord, and the Lord for the body.

Isaiah 21:2 ESV / 12 helpful votes

A stern vision is told to me; the traitor betrays, and the destroyer destroys. Go up, O Elam; lay
siege, O Media; all the sighing she has caused I bring to an end.

Ephesians 5:11 ESV / 11 helpful votes

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Psalm 150:1-6 ESV / 9 helpful votes

Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his
mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound;
praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and
pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals! ...

Ephesians 5:3 ESV / 6 helpful votes

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is
proper among saints.

1 Corinthians 3:18 ESV / 5 helpful votes

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him
become a fool that he may become wise.

John 3:16 ESV / 5 helpful votes

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not
perish but have eternal life.

Luke 1:1-4 ESV / 5 helpful votes

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been
accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers
of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things
closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that
you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Matthew 18:9 ESV / 4 helpful votes

And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life
with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Romans 6:16 ESV / 3 helpful votes

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of
the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
righteousness?

Romans 6:16-22 ESV / 3 helpful votes

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of
the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become
obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having
been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms,
because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to
impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves
to righteousness leading to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in
regard to righteousness. ...

Revelation 13:1-18 ESV / 1 helpful vote Helpful Not Helpful

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its
horns and blasphemous names on its heads. And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet
were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and
his throne and great authority. One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal
wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. And they
worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast,
saying, Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it? And the beast was given a mouth
uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two
months. ...
Journalism and Humility (Marvin Olasky)
The author of this monograph, Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of World, a national news magazine
from a biblical perspective. He is considered the father of compassionate conservatism and was an
informal advisor to Texas Gov. George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign. Olasky has been a
professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin since 1983 and is a senior fellow at the
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. His writings have also appeared in The Wall
Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, and many other newspapers. He has written 20
books, including a journalism text for Christian colleges entitled Telling the Truth. Born into a Russian
Jewish family, Olasky received an A.B. from Yale University in 1971 and a Ph.D. in American Culture
from the University of Michigan in 1976. He has taught for the World Journalism Institute.
By Marvin Olasky

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you
look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is
yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but made Himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:3-7).

Put the two words journalistic humility into the Lexis-Nexis electronic retrieval system. Ask for all articles over the
past year that include the term. Heres the reply message: No documents were found for your search. You should
edit your search and try again.

A generation or two ago the reportorial ethic came as close to emphasizing humility as it ever has. A California
friend of mine remembers that at The Orange County Register she enjoyed being a fly on the wall, listening to a
variety of views and then presenting them fairly rather than imposing or even insinuating her own. Columnists (like
liberal Supreme Court justices) could flaunt their opinions, but reporters were to be strict constructors of stories and
avoid legislating from their notepads.

This was journalism still based on statements of faith such as The Journalists Creed, written by Walter Williams,
Dean of the University of Missouris Journalism School from 1908 to 1935. The creed states 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.
Williams called for reporting that fears God and honors man . . . self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its
readers.

Its hard to tell how many reporters followed that creed, let alone the Apostles Creed. Movies throughout the 20th
century tended to emphasize journalistic cynicism and rudeness, but some reportersparticularly Christians like
McCandlish Phillips of The New York Timessaw themselves as public servants, not puppet masters.

The chasm between modern mainstream media and Christianity now seems immense. Last month Mark McGuire of
the Albany Times Union wrote that the gorge was inevitable because of the conflict between religious faith and
journalistic skepticism. He offered the hoary journalistic joke, If your mother says she loves you, check it out. He
concluded that reporters cant take anything on faith, while Christianity is built on faith, so never the twain shall
meet.

That analysis is provocative but flawed for one main reason: A major theme of the Bible is its repeated declaration
that If your heavenly Father says He loves you, check it out. Why else would Luke stress at the beginning of his
Gospel that he relied on eyewitnesses, that he had followed all things closely for some time, and that his goal was
to offer the recipient of his letter, Theophilus, certainty concerning the things you have been taught?

Why else are we instructed in Psalm 107 to give thanks to the Lord, for He is good? The psalm explains how God
delivered from distress those who wandered in desert wastes, those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of
death, those who went down to the sea in ships and, amid storms, reeled and staggered like drunken men. The
psalm gives the experience of deliverance that millions have had, and concludes, Whoever is wise, let him attend to
these things.

That appeal not for blind faith but for attending to the lessons of experience emerges throughout the Bible. For
example, we can continue thumbing through Psalms and note 116:1, I love the Lord, because He has heard my
voice and my pleas for mercy. Or Psalm 118:5, Out of my distress I called on the Lord; the Lord answered me and
set me free. Or Psalm 119:65, You have dealt well with Your servant, O Lord, according to Your word.

The Bible also offers the evidence from Israels history to explain why we should have faith in God. In Joshua 24:7
God tells the Israelites, Your eyes saw what I did in Egypt. In Acts 7:36 Stephen tells of how Moses showed Gods
power by performing wonders and signs not only in Egypt but at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for 40 years.

Yet, what of the famous words in John 20:28? Jesus asked the apostle who became known as Doubting Thomas,
Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
Those sentences are sometimes taken, out of context, as signifying that faith and evidence are opposed.

The context is important. The other 11 disciples have told Thomas, We have seen the Lord. Thomas was doubtful
because he did not trust the eyewitness evidence that others provided, and its in this sense that those who believe
without seeing for themselves are blessed: They are not so self-centered or solipsistic that they refuse to accept the
testimony of anyone other than themselves.

Journalists also must rely heavily on what others sayand what reporter will not go to press when 10 people say
the same thing, even if he has not seen it himself? Doubting Thomas, despite the name, is not a model for
journalists: Hes the model for a reporter who will always be scooped.

I could go on, but its evident that the Bible does not favor blind faith. Instead, the Bible regularly appeals to personal
experience, just as journalists do. The canyon between Christianity and todays mainstream journalism is large, but
it does not have an evidentiary river running through it.

What, then, is the central difference? Id suggest that the real difference is humility, and the real problem journalism
faces is arrogance. Thats particularly worth contemplating at Christmastime because were celebrating the ultimate
in humility, God lowering Himself to mans level so as to free us and fit us for life with Him.
JOURNALISM AS A RELIGION

What happened to the fly-on-the-wall, humble journalism that did exist in some newsrooms (and may still be present
at some smaller newspapers)? Several realizations and trends undermined it. One was that journalists often were
not present when key events occurred, and they often could not be flies on the walls in the closed rooms within
which decisions were made. Reporters thus had to rely on what Doubting Thomas found inadequate: eyewitness
reports and the testimony of others.

One difference, though, is that the eyewitnesses doubted by Thomas had a unanimous testimony, but reporters
today garner conflicting descriptions and interpretations. Journalists need investigative time to cut through the
chatter and find out what the fly would have seen and heard. That takes brains, heart, and time. The lazy or rushed
way out, which over time became the norm, has been to quote person As and person Bs account of what
transpired, balancing various subjective views in the oft-vain hope that objective truth would emerge.

Meanwhile, 20th-century intellectual trends were undercutting the philosophical foundation on which journalistic
objectivity was based, so that by centurys end professors would regularly house the words objective truth within
ironic quotation marks. That started in the 1920s, when Freudianism swept into American colleges and suggested
that we might think and act as we do because of childhood events of which our conscious minds are unaware. In the
1930s Marxism became hot, and with it came the notion that what we believe to be objectively real depends on our
class background.

By the 1950s and 1960s existentialists were putting subjectivity on a pedestal, and what was called The New
Journalism emerged, filled with idiosyncratic ways of seeing and writing that in the hands of a few led to brilliant
prose, but in the typewriters of most ended up in self-indulgent self-celebration that was as far from humility as Tom
Wolfe was from the literary sheep who tried to follow his example.

Toward the end of the century postmodernism was attacking the sense that objective reality even exists. In the face
of such con-fusion the confidence that a journalist could be objective gave way to expressions of defeat, even
despair. Two months ago Doug McGill, who worked on The New York Times and other publications for 27 years and
has now gone independent, wrote in an essay titled The Fading Mystique of an Objective Press, Its a matter of
routine that reporters feel or know they are being lied to. Yet they take the quotes and pass them on, unchallenged.
And they rationalize this essentially corrupt practice.

Corrupt is a strong word, but thats what many journalists think of the reporting practice originally intended to yield
humility. Other journalists are merely confused. Mr. McGill writes, We think of objectivity as meaning neutral. But
also balanced. Impartial. Nonpartisan. Accurate. Verified. Fair. Factual. Unemotional. Detached. Scientific.
Reasoned. Unbiased. Each of these definitions implies a very different essential quality or ideal, any two of which
may be mutually exclusive. For example, a news report could be factual but unbalanced; or accurate but biased; or
neutral but also unfair.
With all these dueling definitions, publications and sometimes individual reporters pick and choose which to use at
any specific time. Pity the reporter who decides to be neutral about cancer or the Holocaust, and searches for
someone who considers cancer a good thing or says the Holocaust never happened. On most newspapers
reporters also avoid neutrality regarding individuals the newsroom sees as social cancer, such as Christians who
criticize abortion or homosexuality.

Before 1960 newspapers typically portrayed abortion as evil. For a brief period during the 1960s they offered
balanced abortion coverage; then they typically became pro-abortion. Press coverage of homosexuality (once
considered deviant behavior) changed rapidly in the 1980s, with journalists both before and after calling their
reporting objective. Should positive coverage of something the Bible views as wrong be called objective? Should
even neutral stories about clearly sinful activity receive that label? Is objectivity based on shifting social mores a
house built on sand?

Its easy to raise more questions of this sort, butregardless of the theoretical issuescurrent practice makes one
big change apparent: Mainstream journalists generally consider fly on the wall humility less important than nailing
to the wall the hides of those considered reactionary. In that sense American journalism is slowly becoming
European, with newspapers revealing a clear ideological base.

I saw the beginnings of this firsthand while serving my journalistic apprenticeship at The Boston Globe in 1970-1971
and in 1973, at a time when the Globe was transitioning from a reporting staff of sometimes cynical but often humble
old-timers to a brigade of liberal or radical Ivy Leaguers. By 1973 I was a hardcore Marxist full of myself, and had no
trouble getting into the Globe stories that insinuated my views of class warfare and capitalistic corruption. News and
feature editors encouraged me, as long as my doctrines were not so explicit as to scare typical subscribers.

Humility would not have described me or my fellow new Globe reporters. They and I still insisted publicly that we
were objective, but privately we agreed that we would give all sides what we felt they deserved, with we the
reporters serving as judges and sometimes executioners. I was witnessing the beginnings of what Jay Rosen wrote
about early this year in an aptly titled article published by New York University, Journalism is itself a religion.

Mr. Rosen describes the priesthood of the journalism profession in the United States, especially those at top news
organizations in New York and Washington. He raises good questions: How does this elite group create and
maintain its authority over what counts as serious journalism? . . . What are the god terms and faith objects in
journalism, and how are they derived? . . . What lessons do journalists at the top of the pyramid preach to others in
the news tribe?

Mr. Rosen describes the high church in journalism, with high ceremonies, like the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize, and
quotes Bill Moyerss praise of the Columbia University School of Journalism and the Columbia Journalism Review: I
think of CJR and the J-School as sort of the high church of our craft, reminding us of the better angels of our nature
and the demons, powers and principalities of power against which journalism is always wrestling.

Demons? Former New York journalist William Proctor points out that New York Times editors condemn the sin of
religious certainty yet have their own set of absolute truths. [Editors are] absolutely sure that the religious groups
they consider intolerant and judgmental are absolutely wrong, especially traditional Roman Catholics, evangelicals,
and most Orthodox Jews. And they are just as convinced that the religious groups that they consider tolerant and
progressive are absolutely right.

I saw the beginnings of the dramatic journalistic surge to the left; Mr. Rosen and Mr. Proctor are seeing the
culmination. The humility of the golden age, even if the problems of that kind of journalism are overlooked, is long
gone. The question before us seems to be: Do we hold onto the shreds of objectivity, or do we embrace the reign
of subjectivity that many journalists demand?

If we do, given the tilt of todays mainstream media, will we be stuck with newspapers pushing leftist solutions, with
talk radio and some blogs counterattacking from the right (and doing not much better at basing opinion on
evidence)? In the process, what will happen to humility?

I dont see the European model of ideological newspapers, often tied to political parties, as an improvement. That
system tends to turn journalists into propagandists who must follow the party line. It also doesnt bring us any closer
to the goal of humility, unless its humility before political leaders or empowered ideologues. Given a choice between
the ideological model and the traditional American model, Id buy Americanbut is there a better way?

Robert Bartley, the late Wall Street Journal editor, wrote last year, I think were coming to the end of the era of
objectivity that has dominated journalism over this time. We need to define a new ethic that lends legitimacy to
opinion, honestly disclosed and disciplined by some sense of propriety.

For Christians, what might that ethic be?

SOLA SCRIPTURA VS. LEGANTIANS

The humility of the fly on the wall approach represents a terrific idealbut concepts of objectivity can be criticized
both from secular perspectives and, at a far deeper level, from a biblical orientation. The biblical question is: Given
mans fallen nature and limited natural ability to apprehend reality accurately, can weapart from Gods grace
truly be objective? Do claims that we can be exhibit a lack of humility?

Medieval teaching about natural law and Reformation teaching about common grace tell us that we can go part of
the way to apprehending reality. Both doctrines have a biblical base in Psalm 19 (and much besides): The heavens
declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to
night reveals knowledge.

But once the glory of God is revealed by the heavens and by His coming to earth as a baby, what then? How do we
glorify Him by helping more people to see Gods holiness, revealed most clearly through His compassionate
communication to us, the Bible? How do we show the world that we value Gods counsel highly enough to live by it,
even when it hurts, and to interpret the world in accordance with it?

To me a crucial phrase for developing intellectual humility is sola scriptura, Latin for the Bible only. The phrase first
became widely disseminated during the Reformation, when Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others insisted that
ordinary folks could read and apprehend the Bible. They taught that the Bible is perspicacious, see-throughable,
which means that with careful Bible study almost all of it is clearly comprehensible.

They and others also explained the steps involved in careful Bible study. Its important to ask about any Bible
passage, What does it say? and then, What does it mean? In other words, we are to look first at what the
passage itself says, and then examine the context and the way it fits with or against other passages, because
Scripture (unlike, say, the Talmud) does not ultimately argue with itself. A key principle in the sola scriptura search
for meaning is that Scripture interprets Scripture, which means that we use clearer passages to interpret murky
ones, and that we dont rest key doctrines on obscure passages or play here a verse, there a verse.

Furthermore, since the Bible is primarily a true story of how God saves sinners, we should not treat it as a textbook.
We should distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive passages and acknowledge that in some areas, even
after conscientious study, we still see through a glass darkly. Helps in this process include creeds of the early
church and confessions developed by later church leaders who did careful biblical study along sola scriptura
principles (for example, the Westminster and Heidelberg Confessions of Faith). Those creeds and confessions must
always be checked against Scripture, but they still allow a third questionHow has the church applied a
passage?to follow up the What does it say? and What does it mean? questions.

Sola scriptura, applied properly, helps us neither to overuse or underuse the Bible. If we overuse it by saying that
the Bible says certain things that it does not say, we feed our human tendency to make up rules that purportedly will
help us save ourselves, or at least allow us to think ourselves better than others. That error feeds into many others,
including the legalism that has pushed many Christian students Ive taught into animosity toward denominations of
their youth.

On the other hand, if we turn areas where the Bible is clear into matters of personal interpretation, we fall into
antinomianism, the belief (particularly familiar today) that we make up our own rules. Just as legalism is a plague
among some conservative Christians, antinomianism is rampant among some liberal Christians.

And just as government-managed economies can fall into stagflation, a worst-of-both-worlds combination of
stagnation plus inflation, some folkscall them legantians?combine legalism and antinomianism. They demand
particular moral rules that the Bible does not, but also say that its improper to state the biblical view of abortion or
homosexuality because some Christians might read the scriptural admonitions differently. They say, I read the Bible
and decide what it says for me. No one has the right to tell me Im wrong, and I dont have the right to tell someone
elseits between him and God.

Thats not sola scriptura: thats sola Dick or Jane or Marvin. If we accept the premise that the Bible does not have an
objective meaning beyond what individuals may read into it, we cannot proclaim Gods glory in a way that
consistently communicates His teaching. But if we do understand the sola scriptura principle, we have a way to
bring humility back into journalism.

BIBLICAL OBJECTIVITY
The fly on the wall school of humility emphasized the role of the journalist in giving the opinions of others rather
than presenting his own. What World magazine calls biblical objectivity attempts to do the same: Biblical
objectivitys goal is to proclaim Gods opinion, as clearly communicated in Scripture, rather than our own subjective
preferences.

In theory, if we value the sola scriptura principle with its emphasis on scriptural clarity concerning essential matters,
biblical objectivity makes sense and other approaches have logical flaws. After all, if the Bible is Gods Word, can
any other words trump His? Since only God knows the true, objective nature of things, doesnt His book, the Bible,
present the only completely objective and accurate view of the world? Shouldnt our goal be to see the world as
much in biblical terms as our fallen and sinful natures allow?

That understanding underlies Worlds mission statement: To report, interpret, and illustrate the news in a timely,
accurate, enjoyable, and arresting fashion from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
We know that, given our human limitations, along with our fallenness and sinfulness, we can never achieve that
perspectivebut by following the Bibles teachings we try to come closer than we otherwise would, showing humility
before God.

Thats what we mean by biblical objectivity. We dont merely cover all the sound and fury in the world, and then
present peoples lives as tales told by idiots, signifying nothing. Nor do we cover only the good and uplifting parts of
life so as to provide sugary stories. Biblical objectivity emphasizes, like Stephens historical speech in Acts 7, Gods
holiness and mans sinfulness. World stories over a typical month try to show how terrible man is, yet how
wonderful, created in Gods image. Our articles, we hope, accurately describe the world God has made and reflect
His view of how His creatures mess up and sometimes get things right.

In practice, the pursuit of biblical objectivity is filled with hazards. If we merely take our own opinions and ascribe
them to God, we are moving not toward humility but toward extreme arrogance. At World we have a regular process
that we hope helps us avoid that: We classify issues that arise using a shorthand derived from classification of
whitewater rapids, which are rated on a scale of one to six. (A class one rapids is easy, a class six potentially fatal.)

A class one issue is onesay, adultery or homosexualityon which the Bible takes an explicit position, so we do
too. A class two involves an implicit biblical positionfor example, the importance of God-centered educationso
we know were reflecting Gods opinion, not our own, when we call for that. Certainty decreases, though, as we
move through classes three, four, and five, so on such issues we are increasingly laid back, until by the time we
arrive at a class six issue we are likely to report multiple sides without indicating a biblical preference.

Our goal of journalistic humility also pushes us to admit errors rapidly and work on ways to decrease them. When
we goof we print corrections or let our readers take us to the woodshed, and we dont talk back. We print in our
Mailbag pro and con letters in about the ratio we receive them. We read all the letters sent to us.

We try to think through techniques to make what we do transparent. For example, we try to avoid journalistic
ventriloquism, where a reporter instead of honestly presenting his own view picks an expert interviewee to say it for
him. We also try to avoid sourcery, where unnamed sources spin the news their way. If we use an unnamed source,
we explain why were doing that.

At the same time, our hope is to continue to hit hard on issues concerning which the Bible is clear. Good journalism
emphasizes truth-telling, even when it hurts, and our goal is to tell the whole truth of how the heavens declare the
glory of God but the streets proclaim the sinfulness of man. We dont grasp Gods full glory in condescending to
save us unless we understand how sinful those streets are. We thank God for His tender mercies, and plan to report
in 2005 both mercy and sin.

We know that well always fall short. Everyone on our staff needs both character (a commitment to hard work,
honest treatment of allies and opponents, and humility) and the biblical worldview needed to apprehend reality
accurately. Thats a tall order, and we are but small creatures in a great big world, singing with our readers, Veiled
in flesh the Godhead see; hail thincarnate Deity, pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel. Hark the
herald angels sing, Glory to the newborn King.