Editorial Standards

We are committed to factual accuracy in all our reporting. Before publication, we:

• Verify information through multiple independent sources whenever possible
• Review documents, recordings, and other primary evidence
• Seek comment from all parties named in our reporting
• Fact-check all claims, dates, names, and figures
• Distinguish clearly between facts and analysis

When we make errors, we correct them promptly and transparently. See ourCorrections Policy.

We strive to be fair to all parties in our reporting:

• We give subjects of critical reporting opportunity to respond before publication
• We present responses and denials fairly and in context
• We do not suppress information that contradicts our narrative
• We acknowledge when evidence is disputed or inconclusive
• We distinguish between allegations and proven facts

Fairness does not mean false equivalence. When evidence clearly supports one conclusion, we will state that conclusion while still presenting opposing views.

We take the protection of our sources seriously:

• We never reveal confidential sources without their explicit consent
• We use anonymous sourcing only when necessary and when the source has direct knowledge
• We explain to readers why a source has been granted anonymity
• We verify the credibility and motives of anonymous sources
• We operate under journalist shield law protections

Whistleblowers and victims who come forward take significant risks. We honor their courage by protecting their identities.

The Berean Examiner maintains editorial independence:

• We are not affiliated with any denomination, church network, or ministry
• Our reporting is not influenced by donors or advertisers
• We do not accept payment for coverage or favorable treatment
• We disclose any potential conflicts of interest
• Editorial decisions are made solely by our editorial team

Our only allegiance is to truth and to the Word of God.

When reporting on abuse and misconduct, we prioritize the wellbeing of victims:

• We give victims control over how much of their story is told
• We do not publish identifying details without consent
• We use trauma-informed interviewing practices
• We provide resources for support and healing
• We follow up with victims after publication to ensure their safety

Our journalism exists to serve victims, not to exploit their pain for clicks.

In investigations involving victims or witnesses who face credible risk of retaliation, The Berean Examiner employs a relayed-testimony methodology consistent with established investigative journalism practice. Accounts may be communicated to us through trusted intermediaries — people with direct personal knowledge of events who relayed them because direct sources could not safely come forward publicly.

When relayed testimony is used, we apply the following standards without exception:

• Corroboration threshold: No relayed account is published unless corroborated by at least one additional independent source or by documentary evidence reviewed by this publication.
• Relay chain assessment: We evaluate the credibility, proximity, and independence of each intermediary before accepting their account.
• Consistency across sources: Accounts from unconnected individuals describing the same conduct with consistent detail carry significantly greater weight than a single relay.
• Explicit labeling: All relayed accounts are clearly identified in the text — readers are never left to assume a relay is a direct interview.
• Independence verification: We confirm that relay sources did not coordinate their accounts before bringing them to us.

This methodology does not lower our standard — it adapts it to protect people who would otherwise be silenced. Refusing to publish unless every subject speaks on record would systematically shield institutional abuse from scrutiny.

Every individual and institution named in a critical investigation by The Berean Examiner is given a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication. This is a non-negotiable editorial requirement, not a courtesy.

• We transmit a written summary of findings and specific allegations to named parties with reasonable advance notice.
• We provide a genuine opportunity for a full written response — not merely a perfunctory contact.
• Responses are published fairly and in full context, including denials and alternative accounts.
• Where no response is received, we state that explicitly in the published report.
• We remain willing to publish substantive responses after publication and will update articles accordingly.

Silence in response to a right-of-reply request is itself meaningful. We note it — and publish our findings when the evidence meets our corroboration standard.

The Berean Examiner operates under established legal protections for independent journalism:

• California Shield Law (Evidence Code § 1070): Protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources or unpublished newsgathering materials.
• California Anti-SLAPP Statute (CCP § 425.16): Provides robust protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — suits filed not on their merits but to silence or burden journalists. Defendants may seek early dismissal and attorney’s fees.
• First Amendment protections: Opinion, editorial commentary, and biblical analysis — clearly labeled — receive the highest constitutional protection and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.
• Fair comment doctrine: Commentary on matters of public concern, including the fitness of religious leaders with significant public platforms, is protected expression.

We take legal threats seriously and retain access to qualified media law counsel. We do not modify factual reporting in response to legal pressure — only in response to demonstrated factual error. Intimidation is not correction.

We believe in being transparent with our readers:

• We explain our methodology and how we obtained information
• We link to primary sources and documents when possible
• We clearly label opinion, analysis, and news reporting
• We disclose our biblical framework and editorial perspective
• We welcome feedback and respond to reader concerns