IT’S JULY 2017. I’m watching The Rachel Maddow Show while on a visit to my parents in Las Vegas. Maddow gives a long monologue detailing the background of a Trump administration official. She’s 15 minutes in before she explains why listeners should care. I don’t remember the details. I do remember yelling at the TV that Maddow needed to stop burying the lead. I would definitely fail her in introductory newswriting.

I also remember marveling at how my hippie libertarian father had transformed from a George W. Bush voter into a Maddow devotee. My dad started watching MSNBC after he became disillusioned with the second Iraq War, first religiously watching political commentator Keith Olbermann, then Maddow. Like many cable news viewers, he relished their emotional delivery, particularly their outrage and “can you believe this” shtick. Stuck at home due to a prolonged, terminal illness, he watched for hours and came to share their outrage. He voted Democrat for the first time in 2004, at age 50. Over time, even my father’s most strongly held views shifted.

Fast forward to May 2025. As part of my academic research on Christian nationalism, I’m in Phoenix attending Freedom Night with Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk. The event is held in the massive auditorium of Dream City Church. The woman sitting behind me sings joyously off key during the 15 minutes of worship music. Now she’s chirping along to Kirk’s commentary with amens and Fox News-isms, such as “Sleepy Joe.”

Kirk, a right-wing activist and evangelical Christian (who was killed at a speaking event in September 2025), is at the peak of his leadership of America’s conservative youth movement. His guest for the night is Sage Steele, a former ESPN anchor turned President Trump-favored independent broadcaster. Amid an anti-transgender tirade, Steele brings up a politically motivated hoax from 2021 purporting that schools are allowing students to identify as animals and use kitty litter boxes. Sounds of outrage and incredulity ripple through the auditorium. Kirk backs Steele’s promotion of disinformation, asserting this is happening in public schools in Arizona and across the country. An attendee asks if teenagers were really pulling down their pants to use litter boxes in hallways. Kirk doubles down: “Yes. If you are shocked, then it means you have to consume non-mainstream media. ... I encourage you to reevaluate where you get your news from. ... You are in an information cycle that is not rooted in reality.”

Over time, even my father’s most strongly held views shifted.

Kirk and Steele were the truth-tellers, Kirk insisted, and the mainstream media couldn’t be trusted. Uttered in a place of worship, this common right-wing spiel likely carried sacred weight for its listeners.

That same night, Kirk’s X account cited mainstream reporting from The New York Times and Politico, as he regularly did. As media scholars Jeffrey M. Berry and Sarah Sobieraj illustrate in The Outrage Industry, that’s what many cable TV pundits do: Take the reporting of the mainstream press, interpret it through an ideological lens, and convince audiences why they should be outraged.

Maddow and Kirk, however, are not the same. To measure news value for a particular outlet, Ad Fontes Media developed a bias chart to examine how much original reporting a site includes versus how much aggregate information it uses. It notes which sites include unfair persuasion or even propaganda. To measure ideological bias, Ad Fontes uses reviewers from left, center, and right political perspectives to evaluate a news source across multiple stories over time. (Ad Fontes is helpful but also critiqued for glossing over the biases in mainstream for-profit journalism and for establishing a false “center.”)

On the Ad Fontes media-bias chart, The Rachel Maddow Show on MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) scores 30.8 out of 64 in reliability (mixed reliability, with some contextual issues but verifiable facts) and -18.7 out of -42 in political bias (pushing her just over the line from “strong left” to “hyper-partisan left”). Salem Media Group’s The Charlie Kirk Show scored 13.64 in reliability (unreliable, with unfair persuasion and misleading information) and 25.49 in political bias (placing him on the far end of the “hyper-partisan right”) on the same chart.

While Maddow dealt more in fact than Kirk, both used outrage to get attention. Outrage sells. Outrage gets remembered. Outrage can shape us.

Watching our digital consumption

THE OLD ADAGE “you are what you eat” applies today to what one consumes digitally: We become what we give our time and attention to. This includes cable news, podcasts, social media, late-night television, and binged series. You fill in the rest.

In You Are What You Love, theologian James K.A. Smith argues that we are constantly formed by secular liturgies, the rituals and habits of everyday life. If we spend most of our time shopping, then materialism will command our hearts. If we spend our time on social media, then we will covet what others have. If we watch tons of cable news, we’ll parrot what we hear, and it will shape our worldview. There’s no way a weekly church service (or more commonly, once a month) can compete with these other cultural rituals.

In an age of misinformation and polarization, Christians of all political leanings must first check their media diet to assess how they are being formed, then invite others to do the same. By rooting our identity in Christ and a church community, we can reclaim the practices of faith and reject the imprints of a political pundit, cable news host, or social media influencer.

Outrage sells. Outrage gets remembered. Outrage can shape us.

We know our scriptures testify to the importance of seeking and speaking truth, from the Hebrew Bible’s admonitions against bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16) to Christ’s own identification as the Truth that sets us free (John 8:31-32). From this rootedness, Christians can sharpen our media literacy skills and become more savvy news consumers. This is how we break cycles of misinformation.

News across the spectrum

THE FOUNDATION FOR robust news consumption is to read widely. A self-governing democracy relies on an educated and informed citizenry who brings reason, discernment, and good judgment to governance. As Christians we must seek a better kind of politics that serves the common good. To make such informed decisions, we must read and think faithfully across the news spectrum.

In my book with Richard Hughes, Christian America and the Kingdom of God, we trace how the Christian and political Right utilized radio and cable news to promote a conservative worldview. Numerous researchers document how right-wing partisan media, anchored in Fox News and Breitbart, has cultivated an identity for its audience that merges nationalism, economic libertarianism, and a generic, pan-Protestant vision of a Christian America. It champions itself as the truth-teller against a liberal, elite media that doesn’t “get” middle America.

As Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts show in their book, Network Propaganda, this positioning keeps audiences loyal to a few Far-Right outlets and distrustful of other media. These audiences are less likely to watch news from the rest of the media spectrum that adheres to journalistic standards, and if they do see it, less likely to trust facts that go against their own preconceptions. This lets misinformation run unchecked. While misinformation exists in more left-leaning media, the authors found those readers more likely to see and believe the fact-checks in other media.

As Christians we can break our own bubbles by seeking out and supporting good journalism that covers our local area, nation, and the globe. By reading widely from many news sources, Christians can build bridges of empathy by developing curiosity about the lives of others and striving to understand why people believe what they do.

However, it’s also important to avoid news exhaustion. I recommend reading one local and one national paper daily or watching a local newscast and one national evening news broadcast.

I also subscribe to daily newsletters from multiple news organizations, allowing me to scan how different media outlets are framing the same story. Reading across several news organizations is particularly important regarding partisan political news. Audiences will perceive the most bias in political news that goes against their own viewpoint, so viewing the same story through multiple lenses can help separate the facts from the ideological spin. As an experiment, compare the same news story as reported in the more conservative Wall Street Journal, the more centrist Washington Post, and the more liberal U.K.-based Guardian.

Watch out for your own confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Confirmation bias is when we more readily accept information that “confirms” our current viewpoint while rejecting information that conflicts with it. Motivated reasoning is the “motivation” to seek out information that confirms our beliefs or self-understanding and dismiss facts that challenge us to change our perspective. We have to unlearn these habits to seek the facts that form the truth, even when that truth isn’t what we want it to be.

The smell test

THE PROLIFERATION OF news influencers, Substacks or blogs, and news sites, plus the rise of AI, makes it hard to discern what is factual and true. Christians must be discerning in what we read and what we share. The nonprofit News Literacy Project offers free and robust trainings in how to differentiate news from opinion and separate credible information from misinformation or malicious disinformation.

I teach my students the John McManus SMELL test. McManus, a former journalist and founder of GradeTheNews.org writes, “You can look up almost anything on the Internet. But most of what’s offered is really trying to sell a product, service, or point of view.”

S stands for source. Ask about the reputation of the information source. Is it known for doing original, exemplary reporting? Does it adhere to journalistic ethics? Where does it stand in terms of perceived bias?

M is for motivation. Is the producer’s goal to inform, educate, entertain, or persuade? Readers seeking reported news should use greater care if the producer’s goal is entertainment or persuasion. Reading the “about page” on many news websites may also indicate their motivation. For example, this article is meant to be informative and educational, but I’m also writing for Sojourners, a Christian magazine dedicated to promoting biblical social justice, so I’m aiming to persuade Christians that media literacy is a useful tool.

E is for evidence. How many people did the reporter interview? Whose voices were included? The stronger the evidence, the more confidence we can have in the reporting.

L is for logic. Is the story logically consistent all the way through?

L is for “left out.” What is missing in the story, such as key evidence, context, or voices?

These questions can be used to think critically about any text, be it a news story, a viral video, or a politician’s speech. McManus’ SMELL test can help Christians be more informed and careful news consumers.

A hermeneutic of hospitality

ONE OF THE hardest aspects of living in a polarized nation is that citizens no longer trust the same news sources; they no longer have a shared reality or factual foundation. In 2020, Pew Research Center found that those who voted Republican distrusted most traditional national news sources, such as CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times. Those who voted Democrat had high rates of distrust for the few sites Republicans trusted most. Out of 30 news organizations, Democrats and Republicans shared trust in only three—PBS, the BBC, and The Wall Street Journal. Trust in local news is higher for both parties, but overall trust in journalism has continued to decline.

Is it possible for those within the Body of Christ to communicate across our very real media bubbles? Theologian Miroslav Volf suggests we develop a “hermeneutic of hospitality.” This involves modeling an open, curious posture to the worldviews of others and finding ways to work together for the flourishing of all. One of my graduate students described this as a “hermeneutic of humility and grace.” This doesn’t mean abandoning one’s own convictions, allowing misinformation to spread, or pretending that all worldviews are the same, but rather listening deeply to understand the other’s fears and desires and then to build on common ground.

Become a ‘countercultural minister’

THE FOCUS OF much of my current public speaking is on Christian nationalism. For this work, I have synthesized the excellent advice found in these three books: Pamela Cooper-White’s The Psychology of Christian Nationalism, Caleb E. Campbell’s Disarming Leviathan, and Amanda Tyler’s How to End Christian Nationalism. All three emphasize how to build relationships across differences, and their advice applies to discussing misinformation. Media literacy is not an end in itself. We should use it as a way to welcome others into conversation, resisting the impulse to correct them from a place of our supposed intellectual superiority.

Step 1: Build relationships first. Start with hospitality. Know people as people before you engage on tougher questions. Start with friendly greetings in the grocery store or greeting them on neighborhood walks. In Jewish philosopher Martin Buber’s terms, treat them as “I-Thou,” as sacred in their own right, fully made in the image of God. Don’t treat them as “I-It,” or objects you seek to clear from your path or destroy.

Campbell argues that Christians can serve as countercultural ministers to disarm Christian nationalism and the misinformation around it. As you get to know people, listen for what they believe. A crucial active listening skill here is looping. Looping is where you empathetically paraphrase what you heard and verify you synthesized it correctly before moving forward. This practice lets the other person feel heard and understood, encourages them to share more, and develops mutual regard.

Step 2: Use gentle questions to help others think about what they believe and why; why they trust one news source over another; or what preconceptions might lead them toward confirmation bias or motivated reasoning. Ask who they listen to most for news, and what they like and don’t like about that host or influencer. (Ask yourself these questions too.)

Step 3: Build on common ground. Identify where there is agreement. For example, is the cost of living too high? Do you believe our immigration system needs reform? Start sharing your point of view in an invitational way, where you remain open to their questions and further dialogue. Ask open-ended questions, such as: How do you manage your budget to deal with the cost of living? What is your greatest concern about how our immigration system works? Use “I” statements and model humility.

Step 4: Throughout each conversation, stay rooted in your own faith practice. Pray for the other. Take breaks. The goal is not to change someone’s mind in a single conversation, it’s to establish a good relationship for deeper conversations. Cooper-White promotes a traffic-light system to know when to stop and walk away from those not interested in relationship-building conversations (“red light”); when to engage curiously with caution (“yellow light”); and when to start sharing your own thoughts (“green light”). If the other refuses to correct misinformation, is argumentative, or demonizes others who do not think like them, they aren’t ready for conversation. But those willing to listen or explain their views may be more open.

While Christian nationalism and certain news sources may reinforce individual and collective identities, people can shift away from these in favor of identities more grounded in Christ and in dignity, equality, and informed participation. In Colossians 1:20, Paul reminds us, how all things—even rival cable news viewers—can be reconciled through Christ. Our job is to continually seek the truth and plant seeds.