Okay, if Julie Roys is not fit or qualified to report on the various sex scandals, abuse scandals, and financial scandals among Christian televangelists, Christian megachurch preachers, Christian faith healers, Christian rockers and Christian rappers, is there another better source of information about these things that we are allowed to pay attention to? Or is it better that these things be un-reported and covered up?
I was an admirer of Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church of Hammond (I was baptized there) until Dr. Robert Sumner came forth with his revelations about the problems there. My perception was that Christians were entitled to know about these things, and I personally thanked Dr. Sumner for making them known. (I was a personal friend of Dr. Sumner and his family). Anyway, there was a massive torrent of accusations unleashed against Dr. Sumner by the Hyles defenders, all about the details of Sumner's faults and offenses, and lots of name-calling - Peter Ruckman called him "Scumner." So if Sumner was not morally fit enough to document the problems with Jack and Dave Hyles, then who was? And how was it a sin for Sumner to talk about Hyles, but not a sin for the "100% for Hyles" folks to tell us all about Sumner?
I'm sure that Julie Roys has some failings, some biases, and some skeletons in her closet, and she appears to be aligned with the liberal American Baptist Churches denomination. If this means she has no moral standing to report on the serious problems in modern celebrity Christianity, are there other journalists who do have such standing, or should the problems not be reported?