Have Journalism Standards Disappeared?
Reader Note
This article analyzes the reporting methods, sourcing, and editorial decisions used in publicly available reporting. Readers are encouraged to review the original articles and referenced materials in full before reaching their own conclusions.
After the NCW Heritage Council launched our "Unity Is Our Strength" billboard in Wenatchee, Washington, several articles and social media posts were published in response. As I read through each one, I found myself asking a simple question:
Have today's journalistic standards disappeared?
Journalism plays an important role in informing people about current events, discussing ideas, and sharing perspectives that shape our culture. But in the age of AI, people have begun to care much less about truth, trading it in for whatever gets the strongest response (instant gratification). Truth is no longer the standard; attention is.
People care much less about whether an article is true or whether its arguments are well-supported. Instead, they base their opinions on who the author is and whether the article aligns with their existing narrative.
This has affected journalism in an interesting way. Journalists have begun to get sloppy, publishing articles as truth before checking whether the information is even accurate. Too often, they include a brief disclaimer acknowledging that key claims have not been independently verified, only to spend the rest of the article building a narrative around those same unverified claims.
If the customer wants slop, many publishers are willing to serve it. The overall standard has become so low that many people consume information like machines, accepting whatever is placed in front of them without stopping to examine whether it is true.
Perhaps it is time we started holding journalists to the same standard they claim to uphold: the truth.
Let's examine one recent Partial example.
“New Wenatchee Billboard Draws Scrutiny After OUT NCW Pride Campaign” by Source ONE News
Source ONE begins with “WENATCHEE — A new billboard outside the Igloo Drive-In in Wenatchee is drawing scrutiny after the LGBTQIA+ advocates said the sign appeared following its own Pride-themed billboard campaign in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee.”
(For those trying to keep up with the ever-growing acronym, I wish you the best. Recently I have even seen LGBTQIA2S+ or even LGBTQQIP2SAA)
Now, back to the journalism.
At first glance, the phrase "advocates said" appears to signal careful reporting. A reader naturally assumes the publication has gathered information from multiple sources and is simply attributing a particular claim. As the article unfolds, however, much of the reporting traces back to a single Facebook page rather than independently verified reporting.
The very next sentence reads:
"According to information published on social media by LGBTQIA+ advocate Shayla Winter of Progressive Devilry on Facebook..."
This sentence raises an important question about the article's sourcing. Rather than first describing its own investigation of the website or indicating that it had contacted the NCW Heritage Council before publication, the article turns almost immediately to a Facebook post by Shayla Winter as a significant source for much of the reporting that follows.
Imagine if a newspaper wrote an article about your business, church, or family and built much of its story around a Facebook post written by someone who wasn't even part of your organization.
There is nothing inherently wrong with quoting a social media post. Journalists do it all the time. The question is whether those claims are independently verified before they become the foundation of a news article. A Facebook post is not a substitute for an investigation. It is not a primary source for the internal operations of an organization it does not represent. Good journalism should begin by gathering facts directly from the organization being reported on, reviewing available public records, and verifying claims through multiple independent sources before publishing them.
Now one cannot help but notice how closely portions of the published reporting track the Facebook post the article repeatedly cites. The same themes, allegations, and lines of inquiry appear throughout both.
Perhaps that is coincidence. Perhaps it reflects substantial reliance on a single source. Whatever the explanation, readers should ask themselves a simple question:
Where does the reporting end and the Facebook post begin?
When a news article mirrors the narrative of one outside source so closely, it is reasonable to ask whether the publication independently investigated the story or relied so heavily on one outside source that readers may reasonably struggle to distinguish between original reporting and repeated allegations.
The following paragraph is a good example:
"Winter said they could not locate a business or trade-name registration for 'NCW Heritage Council' through Washington Department of Revenue or Secretary of State records. She also said no person or organization has publicly claimed responsibility for the billboard."
And it goes on.
Notice what is happening here. The article is not reporting that Source ONE searched the records. It is reporting that Winter said she searched the records. Likewise, it does not report that Source ONE determined no one had publicly claimed responsibility. It reports that Winter said no one had.
That distinction matters. Readers naturally expect a news organization to independently verify factual claims before publishing them. Instead, the article repeatedly attributes key factual assertions to a single outside source rather than making clear what the publication verified for itself.
If Source ONE independently confirmed these facts, it could have simply reported that it searched the records or contacted the relevant agencies itself. Instead, the article repeatedly relies on what another source says happened.
The article later states:
“Winter said they noticed language on the NCW Heritage Council website that appeared similar to language used in other local conservative Christian messaging, including material connected to Freedom the Con and public efforts by Keyton Lawter and Vector College’s Turning Point USA chapter to replace Pride displays in Wenatchee. Source ONE News has not independently verified any direct connection between the new billboard and Grace City Church, Vector College, Freedom Con or Lawter.”
This should make us think
If “Source ONE News has not independently verified any direct connection” why are they even posting this in the first place. The article presents details to readers, inviting them to associate the NCW Heritage Council with organizations and individuals that the publication itself acknowledges it cannot connect.
The article then quotes Winter's message to OUTFRONT Media (The Billboard company), stating that the NCW Heritage Council has:
"no registered business on the DOR or SOS as a legitimate business."
Earlier in the article, readers are told that Winter "could not locate a business or trade-name registration" through Washington Department of Revenue or Secretary of State records.
Those are not the same claim.
Not finding an organization in a particular database is not the same as establishing that it is not a legitimate business. One is the result of a search; the other is a conclusion.
This distinction matters because the message sent to OUTFRONT Media goes beyond reporting what was—or was not—found in a database. It presents a conclusion that could influence how the company views the organization before the underlying facts have been independently verified. Because the article presents the quotation without additional analysis distinguishing verified facts from the source's own conclusions, readers may be left with the impression that the quotation reflects an established fact rather than an allegation or opinion from the quoted source.
Good journalism should distinguish between what has been verified, what has been searched, and what has merely been inferred. Readers deserve reporting that makes those distinctions clear rather than allowing one to become evidence for the other.
It is partially in response to such irresponsible journalism that the NCW Heritage Council was established. One of our primary goals is to bring the Truth in love.
One final observation for your consideration.
The primary source behind many of these allegations publishes under the name **"Progressive Devilry."** Whether the name is intended as satire or something else, Christians should at least pause to consider it.
Jesus said of the devil:
"He was a murderer from the beginning... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44 (ESV)
The point is not that everyone who uses a provocative name is dishonest. The point is that Christians are repeatedly commanded to exercise discernment. We are told to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21), to examine the evidence, and to hold fast to what is good.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this entire story is that a newspaper chose to build much of its reporting on the claims of a source calling itself "Progressive Devilry."
Whether readers find that concerning is for them to decide.
~ The Watchman
References
Primary Sources
Source ONE News.New Wenatchee Billboard Draws Scrutiny After OUT NCW Pride Campaign. Facebook post, June 2026.https://www.facebook.com/SOURCEONENews/posts/new-wenatchee-billboard-draws-scrutiny-after-out-ncw-pride-campaign/1687185720083557/
NCW Heritage Council. Official website.https://www.ncwheritagecouncil.org
Progressive Devilry. Facebook posts discussing the NCW Heritage Council and the "Unity Is Our Strength" billboard.(Referenced throughout Source ONE's reporting.)
Background Sources
Stonewall News Northwest / SGN.Wenatchee Pride billboards go up, as Pride flags go down in parts of the region. May 19, 2026.
NCW News.Wenatchee banner debate exposes deeper community divisions. May 15, 2026.
NonStop Local (KHQ).LGBTQ groups push back on Wenatchee's new banner policy at city meeting. April 2026.
