A "Quiet Shift Toward Doubters" the RNS & Tribune Reports

[Pyreaux]

From reporting, Religion News Service and Salt Lake Tribune are noticing how the Church’s messaging / resources have changed. The new resources are aimed at doubters and those who support them. The Church published two new essays as part of its “Topics & Questions” / “Gospel Topics” section: one called “Seeking Answers to Your Questions” (for those who themselves are doubting), and another called “Helping Others with Their Questions” (for members who have loved ones or friends experiencing doubt).

Why is this News?

Both curiosity and subtextual skepticism, "because it’s quiet, a little too quiet". Its interesting because the Church almost never telegraphs major cultural pivots. Subtle compassion is showing up in manuals, leader training, and Church content: quietly, without fanfare. That makes it more sociologically intriguing. "Something significant is happening"

RNS framed it as strategic pastoral evolution, empathetic and maybe long overdue. The Salt Lake Tribune, being more critical, implied the quiet tone could reflect timidness or caution, unknown risks, like Church wants to change without alienating its base or appearing reactive to critics. What both seem sure of is this institution is shifting tone in a way that signals long-term reform but it’s doing it in the most Mormon way possible: calm, careful, almost invisible.

The Older Messaging

In previous years, rhetoric around doubt often just emphasized the danger of doubt, avoiding doubt, how doubt is from the devil, that doubters should avoid certain influences, or implying that doubt is necessarily under your control. I agree a bit, if we want my dad to not be angry, we suggest he not watch the news. But he's already seen the news, and believes "X", what now? Elder Dale Renlund’s 2019 remarks warned about “perpetual doubters,” or statements that people who allow doubt to dominate are opening a door for negative influences. 

The New Way to Engage:

1. Listen Well and Ask Many More Questions

The essays encourage listening with humility and empathy. They advise members to avoid judging, to acknowledge and respect questions, to ask open-ended questions like “How do you feel?” or “Can you tell me more?” instead of dismissing or shaming. 

2. Avoid Negative Presumptions

They also recognize that many people who doubt have already done research or thought through questions internally, not assume that a doubter is uninformed, lazy, or simply looking for excuses. 

3. Be Very Patient and Longsuffering

The materials stress that the struggle with doubt may take time. They encourage patience, continued love / relationship, even while faith isn’t fully settled. Try not to engage thinking there is a quick fix.

Why Is It Low Key?

The Church has not made this a loud, high-profile campaign. There was a brief press release when the essays were first released (Dec 2023), and some internal communications (e.g. to educators) when updates were made (June 2024). But the general membership's awareness, especially among people not closely following church publications or media, many seem unaware these resources exist. Even some bishops said they hadn’t heard of them. Is it a Long Game strategy? Are they working behind the scenes? Large institutions often pilot changes quietly before up scaling them. Imagine a Preach My Gospel 2.0, new temple interviews and missionary discussions implementing this more empathic direction over a checklist of orthodoxy.

The Hope of Retention

By recognizing the emotional / intellectual struggles of people who doubt, the Church may be better positioned to retain members who are wrestling with questions. Feeling listened to and respected tends to reduce alienation. Since “faith crises” are a major reason people leave or become inactive, providing tools for empathy and open conversation may stem some losses.

In a more connected, information-rich world, many people encounter critical histories, doctrinal questions, scientific issues, etc. The Church seems to be acknowledging that people will have questions, and it’s better to help them address those than ignore them and hope they'll go away. It signals an adjustment toward more transparency (at least in tone), though not necessarily the sort of "full disclosure" of all contentious topics like critics suggest, but more willingness to engage.

What is seen. Doubters are sharing more openly online and in podcasts. Churches who ignore that often seem out of touch. Adjusting messaging helps the LDS Church stay relevant to information-savvy people. It also helps shape the narrative from "doubt is the problem," it becomes "doubters are people we want to engage with compassionately."

For existing members, especially those who have friends or family doubting, this change in message gives them tools for more compassionate conversation. It may help reduce friction; less shame, perhaps fewer defensive reactions, more conversations. Public perception may improve among observers who have seen faith communities deal with doubt poorly. If the Church is seen as more humane in this area, that could aid its social reputation.

Risk of Resistance?

While many see this shift as positive, there are also criticism and risk. People are watching to see whether this is genuinely implemented or just ornamental. The Church didn’t widely promote these resources, many aren’t aware of them. Tools are only useful if people know about them. Critics argue that doing it quietly limits impact. Local leaders (bishops, etc.) may not incorporate these messages into talks, classes, calls, etc., so the change doesn’t reach the grassroots.

Not everyone welcomes change. Some members prefer traditional messaging, unambiguous authority, firm verses, fewer shades of ambiguity. So, there may be pushback. Also, some may see this shift as diluting doctrine or weakening discipline, so there may be tension.

Some are set in their ways, still give talks that revert to older styles; doubt as sin, doubt as a lack of faith, etc. Some members may feel confusion, they read compassionate resources from the top but still hearing more traditional warnings, and we'll get a mixed message. While the tone in essays / resources may be more empathetic, but individual experiences vary. For many doubters, the way they are treated in their local congregation, by family, by leaders, may still be harsh or dismissive. The institutional messaging is one thing; lived experience is another.

Church culture over decades has built up expectations and attitudes that are harder to change. Habit, local norms, peer culture matter. The resources don’t necessarily promise that every historical, scientific, doctrinal difficulty will be fully resolved or explained in ways satisfying to every doubter. Some topics remain controversial, and the Church should probably still control how much is discussed in official settings.

What They'll Say: anti-LDS voices

Voices critical of the LDS Church (ex-members) will interpret this shift in various ways. Some may see it as:

A. Progress

They may view these changes as evidence the Church is recognizing pains among its members and the dangers of alienation, stopping the exodus, so is attempting corrective change. For critics who feel the Church has previously been too harsh or dismissive toward doubt, this can be welcomed.

B. Too little, too late

Others may hold on to the old narrative with deeper issues. Even if local leadership changes, people will still either be hurt by ongoing or past dismissive or judgmental behavior. A critics firm in their new identity, may not want doubters to stay in situations that cause harm (e.g. mental health, identity issues) when leaving is healthiest (or personally lucrative) path in their minds. 

Retention Matters More Than Conversion

Sociologists like Stark, Finke, and Putnam say: Retention is far more powerful than conversion in determining long-term membership. Even a small improvement in member retention rates can produce exponential growth over decades. Here’s why:

The Church activity rates vary by region (North America: ~40–45%, Latin America: ~25–35%, Africa/Philippines: ~55–65%).

The Church adds ~250,000–300,000 converts per year and "loses" roughly the same through inactivity or quiet resignation.

Now, imagine: If conversion stays flat but retention improves by just 10–15%, that means hundreds of thousands more people stay engaged annually.

Those retained members raise families, serve missions, and reinforce local units leading to organic generational growth without needing more proselytizing effort. Within one generation (20 years), that could mean a 30–50% increase in active members even with no rise in baptisms. That’s how denominations stabilize after "crisis decades." Catholicism, Evangelicalism, and the LDS Church all see that pattern when pastoral care improves.

Why the "Shift to Doubters" Is the Retention Fix

Sociologists of religion (like Jana Riess, Benjamin Knoll, and Armand Mauss) have shown that disbelief is not what leads to disaffection. When people feel: unheard, shamed for questions, or made to choose between faith or honesty… they leave. But when they feel safe to wrestle with questions inside the faith, even if they don’t get tidy answers, they tend to stay connected, even if less rigidly.

The Church’s new messaging is basically designed to keep emotional and social belonging intact while someone processes doubt. Normalize questioning as part of faith development (echoing scriptural wrestles: Enos, Alma the Younger, Peter’s doubt, etc.). Empower family and leaders to respond with empathy rather than fear or judgment. In short, this is the psychological equivalent of patching a major leak in the retention pipeline.

Membership Stabilization, Then Growth

If this institutional shift holds, here’s what the next 10–25 years can look like. Instead of plateauing or declining (as mainline Protestant churches did), the LDS Church could maintain positive net growth, especially globally.

The largest "inactive" demographic of mid-age members and post-mission millennials will start to reengage through family networks and online fellowship. Gen Alpha Latter-day Saints will have been raised in homes where questions are accepted, will have lower attrition rates in college years. As the "Faith crisis" becomes a normal stage of development, not a point of exit.

Religious social scientists predict that when a faith tradition transitions from rigid to resilient, it retains roughly 70–80% more of each generation. Over time, openness to questioning will yield a stronger intellectual ecosystem within the Church: faithful scholarship, spiritual depth, and nuanced teaching. This could make future leaders more relatable, adaptive, and confident in addressing tough issues.

What Likely Will Happen in the Future

The Church may begin to more proactively publicize these resources, mentioning them in General Conferences, local meetings, or via social media—so more members know. As feedback comes in, the Church might add more resources, covering more difficult, complicated, or controversial questions. Possibly more multimedia: videos, small group curriculums for doubters. Over time, if messaging is consistent, there could be a cultural shift among members: more open conversations about questions, less stigma about doubting, more patience among families and leaders. That might mean more members staying, not leaving, when faced with challenges.

I won't fail to suggest God himself may have inspired this correction. The Lord is guiding the Church to build Zion through love and patience rather than fear and exclusion. There’s strong evidence this shift was deliberate and data-driven, not accidental. The Church has world-class data analysts. The Correlation Department and Research Information Division track membership activity and exit causes across thousands of units. Anonymized metrics show where and why members disengage. This "doubter empathy" rollout began now after years of data has been pointing to relational causes, not doctrinal disbelief alone. We’ve been learning from Catholic and Evangelical patterns The Vatican’s post-Vatican II reforms and the Evangelical “Deconstruction” response both showed that compassion and humility slow the loss curve dramatically.

Between 2010 and 2020, the Church quietly gathered an enormous amount of data through exit interviews, internal surveys, and monitoring of online discourse, of the "lost generation" (mostly Millennials) revealed why people left: not disbelief in doctrine per se, but feeling dismissed, gaslit, or unheard when they asked tough questions. That’s why the new messaging focuses on relational trust, which the data showed is the real tipping point.

So, now in the mid-2020s, the Church knows exactly what was driving disengagement. We’re in a world-wide disillusionment cycle. Governments are distrusted. Media is manipulative. Algorithms reward misinformation. All institutions are assumed to lie. That’s the post-trust era sociologists like Shoshana Zuboff and Jonathan Haidt describe, and the LDS Church seems to have read that moment perfectly.

Because in a world where everyone’s "selling" something, what Gen Z and Alpha people crave is sincerity. Boomers still believed in hierarchies and brand loyalty. Gen Z believes if it smells funky, it’s dead. The Church of Boomers can’t win Gen Z’s heart by appeals to "the Church is true. So, stay and obey." but it can demonstrating honesty, humility, and stability, "the Church is a source of answers and belonging, if you keep the faith while you work it out."

Ether 12:23–27 "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble... then will I make weak things become strong"

When external critics (online ex-LDS communities, TikTok “truth exposers,” etc.) attack Church culture for "stonewalling," this new approach neutralizes that entire line of attack. In other words, the Church isn’t trying to win arguments anymore, it’s learning to outlast the outrage cycle. That’s wisdom.

The LDS Church historically excelled with Boomers - who admired its order, structure, and clean family values. But Gen Z’s radar for manipulation and gaslighting is extremely sensitive, they grew up with influencers, propaganda, and trusted institutions lying to them. They won’t accept perfection, for there is none, but they’ll trust sincerity. They won’t follow blindly, but they’ll trust someone who admits uncertainty yet stays faithful anyway.

It’s all been expertly timed to coincide with the next leadership handoff - a moment when tone and style can refresh without doctrinal overhaul. It's the most data-backed institutional reform in modern LDS history: emotionally literate, empirically informed, and future-proof. Whether one attributes that to divine guidance or brilliant institutional learning - the outcome is the same. The Church is shifting just in time to regain trust in the Age of Distrust. If they stay consistent for the next decade could make the LDS Church one of the few religions that actually grows in the West through the 2030s and 2040s.

Edited October 6, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

............................

It’s all been expertly timed to coincide with the next leadership handoff - a moment when tone and style can refresh without doctrinal overhaul. It's the most data-backed institutional reform in modern LDS history: emotionally literate, empirically informed, and future-proof. Whether one attributes that to divine guidance or brilliant institutional learning - the outcome is the same. The Church is shifting just in time to regain trust in the Age of Distrust. If they stay consistent for the next decade could make the LDS Church one of the few religions that actually grows in the West through the 2030s and 2040s.

Perhaps, but also possible that it is highly accidental in nature.  As if this is the way the LDS Church would have moved forward in any case, staid and unremarkable.  Moreover, this Conference suggests that the Brethren understand very well that the fastest growth is in Africa.

Too bad that Chairman Xi Jinping hasn't realized that his CCP could very profitably adopt Latter-day Saint tradition (real or a clone) in order to get China back on track.  Currently in the doldrums.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps, but also possible that it is highly accidental in nature.  As if this is the way the LDS Church would have moved forward in any case, staid and unremarkable.  Moreover, this Conference suggests that the Brethren understand very well that the fastest growth is in Africa.

Too bad that Chairman Xi Jinping hasn't realized that his CCP could very profitably adopt Latter-day Saint tradition (real or a clone) in order to get China back on track.  Currently in the doldrums.

The problem with China is authoritarianism. I like to think that adding more members of the Church would make pushback against such a regime worse. Or are you suggesting that members would happily lick his boots?

[longview]

On 10/5/2025 at 4:31 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Too bad that Chairman Xi Jinping hasn't realized that his CCP could very profitably adopt Latter-day Saint tradition (real or a clone) in order to get China back on track.  Currently in the doldrums.

Keep in mind that CCP is VERY intolerant of the Falun Gong. This group is innocuous and focused on meditation and being peaceable. Not only are they heavily persecuted in China but agents go around the world seeking to undermine this organization. It is the publisher of the The Epoch Times. I have a subscription for it.

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, longview said:

Keep in mind that CCP is VERY intolerant of the Falun Gong. This group is innocuous and focused on meditation and being peaceable. Not only are they heavily persecuted in China but agents go around the world seeking to undermine this organization. It is the publisher of the The Epoch Times. I have a subscription for it.

The Falun Gong actually denounces modern medicine and science and promises that virtue will lead to the development of supernatural abilities. The CCP does hate them and are doing their usual repression thing since they are an authoritarian state. That is terrible. Freedom of religion is cool and good and the Chinese regime is not. This does not make Falun Gong cool and good.

The Epoch Times spreads disinformation and baseless conspiracy theories and support far-right authoritarian lunatics throughout the world. It is objectively bad at practicing journalism in an ethical and honest way and uses disingenuous misinformation tactics to confuse and mislead.

[Tacenda]

I listened to the Saturday night's general conference session and was very moved by Sister J. Annette Dennis's talk. She was speaking to me! I have a lot of hope that if I do return to my ward, I may be a little more accepted to not be a doubt germ any longer because of this wonderful sister's message! Yahoo!

[Okrahomer]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to the Saturday night's general conference session and was very moved by Sister J. Annette Dennis's talk. She was speaking to me! I have a lot of hope that if I do return to my ward, I may be a little more accepted to not be a doubt germ any longer because of this wonderful sister's message! Yahoo!

“No more a stranger, nor a guest, But like a child at home.”

Edited October 8, 2025 by Okrahomer

[JVW]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Epoch Times spreads disinformation and baseless conspiracy theories

CFR please

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

and support far-right authoritarian lunatics throughout the world.

CFR please

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is objectively bad at practicing journalism in an ethical and honest way

Objectively? CFR please

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

and uses disingenuous misinformation tactics to confuse and mislead.

What "disingenuous misinformation tactics"? Please provide examples. Is there any non-disingenuous misinformation tactics?

In these CFR requests and responses I'd really like to see actual Epoch Times articles, in context, with the relevant quotes that are "disinformation", "conspiracy theory", "supporting far-right lunatics", and "objectively bad journalism", and "unethical" and "dishonest" please. You are making a TON of claims here.

I personally don't like Epoch times that much, but as far as a newspaper goes it reads like a newspaper. I didn't have the same experience that you seem to be having with the site. And I think it may have a point over you in your claims, at least as far as Chinese reporting is concerned, because the CCP has straight up sent gangs to destroy their printing presses out in Asia on several occasions afaik. And one aims suppression fire where the target is in a war, so if there wasn't anything truthful in the paper it would be reasonable to assume that the CCP would safely ignore them.

Edited October 8, 2025 by JVW

[JVW]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to the Saturday night's general conference session and was very moved by Sister J. Annette Dennis's talk. She was speaking to me! I have a lot of hope that if I do return to my ward, I may be a little more accepted to not be a doubt germ any longer because of this wonderful sister's message! Yahoo!

I'm glad for you Tacenda. That's really nice to hear.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

CFR please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Yeah ... this is not really a news source but a PR machine.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

What "disingenuous misinformation tactics"? Please provide examples. Is there any non-disingenuous misinformation tactics?

In some circles, "disingenuous misinformation tactics" means telling the truth or whatever doesn't support left-wing insanity. 

2 hours ago, JVW said:

In these CFR requests and responses I'd really like to see actual Epoch Times articles, in context, with the relevant quotes that are "disinformation", "conspiracy theory", "supporting far-right lunatics", and "objectively bad journalism", and "unethical" and "dishonest" please. You are making a TON of claims here.

When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is just as reliably far-left as the mainstream news in the US and the UK. This is some of what Wikipedia has to say about The Epoch Times:

"The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party, trumpets far-right politicians and movements in Europe, and has supported President Donald Trump in the U.S." <- Note the "neutral encyclopedic" tone. As if the word "trumpet" weren't as biased as possible.

Note that, to the far-left, all three of these peccadilloes are mortal sins, with the last one being the unforgivable sin. If you read the Wikipedia article to its conclusion, you will find that it is an almost unremitting catalog of hate-spewing accusations -- most of which are sourced from reliably left-wing organizations. I have no doubts whatsoever that a great deal of the opposition to The Epoch Times is generated and/or paid for by the Chinese Communist Party.

It is all of a piece with the CCPs hyperventilating over Falun Gong, and its desperate attempts to dehumanize that religion's adherents, which of course helps justify the genocidal passion they display towards them. As you noticed from your correspondent's ranting about FG, they've inspired a whole generation to hate certain people with unauthorized religious beliefs. Yes, FG believes some peculiar things, but the CCPs main problem is that FG promotes loyalty, not to the CCP, but to principles hated by the CCP. Naturally, anything that doesn't lead to loving The Party is not to be endured.

The abject terror and hissy-fitzing that the left seems to have for The Epoch Times makes it hard not to consider that it might be a sometimes reliable source of news. 

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I personally don't like Epoch times that much, but as far as a newspaper goes it reads like a newspaper. I didn't have the same experience that you seem to be having with the site. And I think it may have a point over you in your claims, at least as far as Chinese reporting is concerned, because the CCP has straight up sent gangs to destroy their printing presses out in Asia on several occasions afaik. And one aims suppression fire where the target is in a war, so if there wasn't anything truthful in the paper it would be reasonable to assume that the CCP would safely ignore them.

 If a person has an objective bone in their body, then The Epoch Times is just another news organization with a bias and point of view that needs to be recognized in order to judge how to interpret what they report, and how to understand it. To some people, The Epoch Times is anathema, and they wouldn't be caught dead reading it. Or they read it only through red-tinted glasses.

As for me, I am a subscriber to Ground News, which in one digest affords me the ability to find as many points of view as possible. 

Edited October 8, 2025 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Yeah ... this is not really a news source but a PR machine.

Exactly what I expected you to post. Thanks.

[Benjamin McGuire]

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Exactly what I expected you to post. Thanks.

You are welcome.

This thing you wrote -

44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is just as reliably far-left as the mainstream news in the US and the UK.

This isn't true. But when you have moved as far to the right as you seem to have, everything (including the entire center) seems to be leftists. Research into wikipedia suggests that it isn't significantly left leaning. But it is recognized that the individual editors do tend to include some bias. The challenge with this is the point I just raised. When you get far enough to the right, then nearly all of the Wikipedia contributors become left leaning. If most of the population tends to be left of where you are, then even truly unbiased sources become left leaning. This has been for a while part of the challenge facing the far right and the far left. 

53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 If a person has an objective bone in their body, then The Epoch Times is just another news organization with a bias and point of view that needs to be recognized in order to judge how to interpret what they report, and how to understand it. To some people, The Epoch Times is anathema, and they wouldn't be caught dead reading it. Or they read it only through red-tinted glasses.

The problem is, at least from my perspective, is that you don't actually seem to have an objective bone in your body. It doesn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who is not in agreement with your far right perspectives, that you would appreciate something like the Epoch Times. For me, there were several issues with it. One of my issues was the fact that I suddenly ended up as a subscriber without my ever having asked for it. I suspect this is part of how its readership grew so dramatically. But, it was also about its choice of news - whether or not it is unbiased in its coverage, it is certainly biased in what it chooses to cover. And really, once I start reading the conspiracy theory stuff in it, I figured my time was better spent elsewhere. The thing about internet news is really that simple for most people. We don't have the time to actually read everything, and so we look for those sources that tend to cover the news we want to read, and which aligns with our perspectives.

Of course, we can measure all of this, right? This website measures all sorts of media for bias. Wikipedia isn't there because it doesn't present itself as a journalistic content provider. But the Epoch Times is in there. You can select more than one provider and compare them. So when I put in NPR (National Public Radio) and compare this with The Epoch Times, the Epoch Times comes out as significantly more biased than NPR. The reason why a comparison like that is interesting is because I expect that you believe that NPR is terribly liberal (far left). But, whatever.

[JVW]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is, at least from my perspective, is that you don't actually seem to have an objective bone in your body. ... For me, there were several issues with it. One of my issues was the fact that I suddenly ended up as a subscriber without my ever having asked for it. I suspect this is part of how its readership grew so dramatically. But, it was also about its choice of news - whether or not it is unbiased in its coverage, it is certainly biased in what it chooses to cover.

Nobody has an objective bone in their body, we all make attempts though, but that's not why I quoted you here. What I wanted to say was that I had similar issues. Many years ago I was a subscriber and then I changed my mind after awhile because I stopped following politics (I liked subscribing to a variety of leaning news organizations at the time). Unsubscribing from them was very difficult, which means they have good sales people but it left a bitter taste in my mouth. I also agree that what a news outlet chooses to cover can reveal their native bias. I understand that Epoch Times chooses to cover issues that will generate the most traffic, is the most relevant, deals with China (since they're a Chinese newspaper), and appeals the most to people on the right. However, I don't think that the reporting of the topics they chose was worse than any other major news organization, and in fact, in many cases I think their journalism and writing was better.

To save from a separate post I'll add this bit here at the end. Both you @Benjamin McGuire and @The Nehor I am wondering what news sites you view as highly reputable, non-conspiratorial, fair and balanced, factual news organizations? I would be interested to add them to my repertoire when I get motivated enough to study a topic in depth which happens on occasion.

Eh, I guess I should say this too. Wikipedia? I don't know how long ago you went to University but when I attended Wikipedia wasn't allowed as a source. Wikipedia is a very lazy response and does nothing to satisfy my desire for CFR from the one who you were attempting to CFR for. I heard all of this nonsense from Nehor so I want the CFR from him, with all due respect.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Yeah ... this is not really a news source but a PR machine.

This appears to consider there’s been a recent improvement, so needing to be careful with older material, but possibly current while still necessary to check with other sources due to being only “mostly factual”, seems to be worthwhile.  I would be careful with it even if there has truly been a positive change overall because at this point one doesn’t know how often they will intentionally or unintentionally slip up and go back to old habits.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

Quote

Under new leadership since mid-2024, the Epoch Times has taken substantial steps to improve editorial accuracy and journalistic responsibility. According to a March 2025 NewsGuard review, the outlet corrected or removed 41 of 50 previously false or misleading articles and had not published any verifiably false claims for 10 consecutive months. However, NewsGuard noted that these corrections primarily occurred only after inquiries, and some misleading articles remain uncorrected.

Ben, not seeing much in the wiki about the change save this.

Quote

On July 1, 2024, Janice Trey was appointed as interim CEO.

Given the money laundering and other suspect activities of the past, even with the improved rating, I think it needs to prove its trustworthiness longterm before being used as any sort of authoritative source.  There are more reliable conservative voices out there that can be more depended on for now.

Also MediaBias has its own issues, methodology may not be as rigorous as it should be.  It is a starting place for research on media imo, just as wiki is, rather than authoritative.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

if there wasn't anything truthful in the paper it would be reasonable to assume that the CCP would safely ignore them.

When did something not being truthful mean it couldn’t be influential?  There are plenty of flagrant lies out there being bought as truth and acted upon, imo.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for me, I am a subscriber to Ground News, which in one digest affords me the ability to find as many points of view as possible. 

Ground News is good.  AllSides is another possiblility.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This website measures all sorts of media for bias

It has an interesting rating for the Epoch Times.  There are enough problematic articles if I am reading it correctly I would never rely on it at this point as even just my primary source.  Probably not a good idea to start there because it might push you in the wrong direction, though including it in a variety of sources seems acceptable.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

To save from a separate post I'll add this bit here at the end. Both you @Benjamin McGuire and @The Nehor I am wondering what news sites you view as highly reputable, non-conspiratorial, fair and balanced, factual news organizations? 

What a phenomenal question!

I also am very interested in a response.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

In some circles, "disingenuous misinformation tactics" means telling the truth or whatever doesn't support left-wing insanity. 

Oh good Lord.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is just as reliably far-left as the mainstream news in the US and the UK. This is some of what Wikipedia has to say about The Epoch Times:

Reality seems to have a left-wing bias.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party, trumpets far-right politicians and movements in Europe, and has supported President Donald Trump in the U.S." <- Note the "neutral encyclopedic" tone. As if the word "trumpet" weren't as biased as possible.

Note that, to the far-left, all three of these peccadilloes are mortal sins, with the last one being the unforgivable sin. If you read the Wikipedia article to its conclusion, you will find that it is an almost unremitting catalog of hate-spewing accusations -- most of which are sourced from reliably left-wing organizations. I have no doubts whatsoever that a great deal of the opposition to The Epoch Times is generated and/or paid for by the Chinese Communist Party.

Supporting authoritarian leaders is a bad thing in “left wing circles”. The Overton window has gotten whiplash over the last few years.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It is all of a piece with the CCPs hyperventilating over Falun Gong, and its desperate attempts to dehumanize that religion's adherents, which of course helps justify the genocidal passion they display towards them. As you noticed from your correspondent's ranting about FG, they've inspired a whole generation to hate certain people with unauthorized religious beliefs. Yes, FG believes some peculiar things, but the CCPs main problem is that FG promotes loyalty, not to the CCP, but to principles hated by the CCP. Naturally, anything that doesn't lead to loving The Party is not to be endured.

The persecution of Falun Gong by the Chinese government is horrific. The reeducation camps and other means of persecution of them (and many other minority groups in China) are an ongoing human rights crisis. 

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The abject terror and hissy-fitzing that the left seems to have for The Epoch Times makes it hard not to consider that it might be a sometimes reliable source of news.

That is a terrible journalistic standard.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If a person has an objective bone in their body, then The Epoch Times is just another news organization with a bias and point of view that needs to be recognized in order to judge how to interpret what they report, and how to understand it. To some people, The Epoch Times is anathema, and they wouldn't be caught dead reading it. Or they read it only through red-tinted glasses.

I don’t read it at all. I don’t trust it to be honest. Bias is one thing. Falsehood is another.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

CFR please

CFR please

Objectively? CFR please

What "disingenuous misinformation tactics"? Please provide examples. Is there any non-disingenuous misinformation tactics?

In these CFR requests and responses I'd really like to see actual Epoch Times articles, in context, with the relevant quotes that are "disinformation", "conspiracy theory", "supporting far-right lunatics", and "objectively bad journalism", and "unethical" and "dishonest" please. You are making a TON of claims here.

I personally don't like Epoch times that much, but as far as a newspaper goes it reads like a newspaper. I didn't have the same experience that you seem to be having with the site. And I think it may have a point over you in your claims, at least as far as Chinese reporting is concerned, because the CCP has straight up sent gangs to destroy their printing presses out in Asia on several occasions afaik. And one aims suppression fire where the target is in a war, so if there wasn't anything truthful in the paper it would be reasonable to assume that the CCP would safely ignore them.

I am not writing a full-on research paper on this. I also don’t have a subscription so can’t go digging.

In the past I read some articles on things like chemtrails, how the Sumerians might have interacted with aliens, a theory about tire tracks on Mars (or the Moon?) from some ancient civilization, vaccine denialism, meditation potentially having supernatural effects, and the like. There is some wild stuff out there.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Eh, I guess I should say this too. Wikipedia? I don't know how long ago you went to University but when I attended Wikipedia wasn't allowed as a source. Wikipedia is a very lazy response and does nothing to satisfy my desire for CFR from the one who you were attempting to CFR for. I heard all of this nonsense from Nehor so I want the CFR from him, with all due respect.

Wikipedia has a number of challenges that make it difficult to use in an academic context. Among them are the fact that it functions more as an encyclopedia - its articles never represent original research (in fact, Wikipedia rejects content of that sort). Pages change regularly, they can be vandalized, and so on. At the same time, in this sort of environment, Wikipedia works really well. It usually has decent summaries of existing material, it has lots of references that can be looked up, and the crowd sourcing tends to help correct biased material. For example, the Epoch Times that we have been discussing. You can read the Wikipedia page here. And you can see that there are 161 footnotes to sources. But then you can also look at this history page. And here, you can not only see documentation for every change ever made to the page (at least since they began tracking changes in this way), but you can also have it prepare for you the historical page by date. So, there is certainly a great deal of disclosure about the pages, who made the changes, and so on. It's not a bad system. You can look at the history of some of the LDS pages as an interesting exercise to see how contested content works.

But, all of this just illustrates why an academic institution wouldn't want it to be used in formal academic writing (and really why it shouldn't be used in academic writing) - while also pointing out that its inappropriateness in an academic setting doesn't have a lot to do with the reliability of the material.

I think Wikipedia actually works quite well to deal with your CFR. It provides documentation for the claims that are made in the article. Of course, this isn't to say that these kinds of blanket statements are necessarily useful. After all, we are never really interested in the general context but in specifics. Is a specific article accurate? Is the presentation accurate but biased? And so on. I think that it is all relative. Epoch Times is a paragon of accuracy when compared with the Alex Jones show, or the Charlie Kirk show, or (on the left) the Jimmy Dore show, or the Palmer Report. I am not sure @Calm that the specifics of the methodology are all that important - unless we are trying to determine where the center really is. Just about anyone can tell that there are things that are way off of center, and very inaccurate - and those that are aren't particularly surprising. Where you get complaints is not so much about the bias, but about the accuracy. The Epoch Times has accuracy issues - but they are not extreme. The challenge in these discussions is that there is often a wide gap over what is accurate. To a vaccine denier, the science of vaccines is what is inaccurate. To our medical system (as a whole), the vaccine deniers are projecting fantasy.

Having said that, the Epoch Times was widely known for its spreading misinformation in the context of Covid19. I could produce more detailed CFR types of references, but inevitably, we all run into the same problems. Without some sort of objective criteria for determining what is left leaning or what is right leaning, it is hard to find anything that is acceptable - once it contradicts someone's narratives, it is immediately labeled in a way that attempts to dismiss it. This is a real problem with the whole conspiracy sort of thing. The highly respected anti-defamation league suddenly goes out of style when it is discovered that it had label Charlie Kirk's group as an extremist group way back in 2019. Suddenly, the ADL is a leftist group. And yet, historically, the LDS Church has had a phenomenal relationship with the ADL. After all, they were aggressively pointing out the wrongness of groups fighting Mormonism - especially during Mitt Romney's campaign. You can see some of the LDS News releases here, here, here and here. And a couple from the ADL here and here. Somehow, the moment it disagrees with a group, they decide that there is something heinous about their crusade against hate.

At any rate, I am sure he can provide you with the CFR you want. But, let's be real. If my reply with Wikipedia is a lazy response, so is your challenge. You don't attempt to address anything the Nehor wrote - you merely posted a CFR as a response - even lazier than looking at a Wikipedia page, I think.

4 hours ago, JVW said:

To save from a separate post I'll add this bit here at the end. Both you @Benjamin McGuire and @The Nehor I am wondering what news sites you view as highly reputable, non-conspiratorial, fair and balanced, factual news organizations? I would be interested to add them to my repertoire when I get motivated enough to study a topic in depth which happens on occasion.

I don't really have a go to. I am a very casual news consumer. The news I am most interested involves the the sciences. The recent steady drip of new information coming from the James Webb telescope has been fascinating to me. I enjoy reading Scotusblog (I am a Supreme Court junkie). As I explained earlier:

Quote

For me, there were several issues with it. One of my issues was the fact that I suddenly ended up as a subscriber without my ever having asked for it. I suspect this is part of how its readership grew so dramatically. But, it was also about its choice of news - whether or not it is unbiased in its coverage, it is certainly biased in what it chooses to cover. And really, once I start reading the conspiracy theory stuff in it, I figured my time was better spent elsewhere. The thing about internet news is really that simple for most people. We don't have the time to actually read everything, and so we look for those sources that tend to cover the news we want to read, and which aligns with our perspectives.

I am not going to read through a news e-mail that I get. I am much more likely to search for a specific piece of news that I want to know more about. My agenda is my own. When something seems a bit off, I just keep reading until I feel that I can draw some reasonable conclusions on my own. I have a few basic rules. For example, anything that is fearmongering is usually written off immediately (and so I usually don't get bogged down with conspiracy theories).

I think, to get to what @Calm is looking at, there has been a shift in The Epoch Times in recent months. Part of this seems to be an economic decision. Since it has become a profitable venture, there is a need to maintain a certain level of reliability. However, a shift in this direction when it seems to be getting what it wants isn't particularly convincing. Given the role this news outlet has played in election coverage, it will be interesting to see how it handles the 2028 election cycle. And it may also be able to distance itself from its origins as the public relations arm of Falun Gong. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

am much more likely to search for a specific piece of news that I want to know more about.

This is what I do, though if I have a moment where I want to feel informed I tend to go to Reuters.  It’s rated low bias and high factuality I am happy to say (since I have been fond of it since we lived in Canada).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

Edited October 9, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not writing a full-on research paper on this. I also don’t have a subscription so can’t go digging.

In the past I read some articles on things like chemtrails, how the Sumerians might have interacted with aliens, a theory about tire tracks on Mars (or the Moon?) from some ancient civilization, vaccine denialism, meditation potentially having supernatural effects, and the like. There is some wild stuff out there.

Ok, so basically you just don't like reading anything fun. I get it.

[JVW]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Wikipedia has a number of challenges that make it difficult to use in an academic context. Among them are the fact that it functions more as an encyclopedia - its articles never represent original research (in fact, Wikipedia rejects content of that sort). Pages change regularly, they can be vandalized, and so on. At the same time, in this sort of environment, Wikipedia works really well. It usually has decent summaries of existing material, it has lots of references that can be looked up, and the crowd sourcing tends to help correct biased material. For example, the Epoch Times that we have been discussing. You can read the Wikipedia page here. And you can see that there are 161 footnotes to sources. But then you can also look at this history page. And here, you can not only see documentation for every change ever made to the page (at least since they began tracking changes in this way), but you can also have it prepare for you the historical page by date. So, there is certainly a great deal of disclosure about the pages, who made the changes, and so on. It's not a bad system. You can look at the history of some of the LDS pages as an interesting exercise to see how contested content works.

But, all of this just illustrates why an academic institution wouldn't want it to be used in formal academic writing (and really why it shouldn't be used in academic writing) - while also pointing out that its inappropriateness in an academic setting doesn't have a lot to do with the reliability of the material.

I think Wikipedia actually works quite well to deal with your CFR. It provides documentation for the claims that are made in the article. Of course, this isn't to say that these kinds of blanket statements are necessarily useful. After all, we are never really interested in the general context but in specifics. Is a specific article accurate? Is the presentation accurate but biased? And so on. I think that it is all relative. Epoch Times is a paragon of accuracy when compared with the Alex Jones show, or the Charlie Kirk show, or (on the left) the Jimmy Dore show, or the Palmer Report. I am not sure @Calm that the specifics of the methodology are all that important - unless we are trying to determine where the center really is. Just about anyone can tell that there are things that are way off of center, and very inaccurate - and those that are aren't particularly surprising. Where you get complaints is not so much about the bias, but about the accuracy. The Epoch Times has accuracy issues - but they are not extreme. The challenge in these discussions is that there is often a wide gap over what is accurate. To a vaccine denier, the science of vaccines is what is inaccurate. To our medical system (as a whole), the vaccine deniers are projecting fantasy.

Having said that, the Epoch Times was widely known for its spreading misinformation in the context of Covid19. I could produce more detailed CFR types of references, but inevitably, we all run into the same problems. Without some sort of objective criteria for determining what is left leaning or what is right leaning, it is hard to find anything that is acceptable - once it contradicts someone's narratives, it is immediately labeled in a way that attempts to dismiss it. This is a real problem with the whole conspiracy sort of thing. The highly respected anti-defamation league suddenly goes out of style when it is discovered that it had label Charlie Kirk's group as an extremist group way back in 2019. Suddenly, the ADL is a leftist group. And yet, historically, the LDS Church has had a phenomenal relationship with the ADL. After all, they were aggressively pointing out the wrongness of groups fighting Mormonism - especially during Mitt Romney's campaign. You can see some of the LDS News releases here, here, here and here. And a couple from the ADL here and here. Somehow, the moment it disagrees with a group, they decide that there is something heinous about their crusade against hate.

At any rate, I am sure he can provide you with the CFR you want. But, let's be real. If my reply with Wikipedia is a lazy response, so is your challenge. You don't attempt to address anything the Nehor wrote - you merely posted a CFR as a response - even lazier than looking at a Wikipedia page, I think.

I don't really have a go to. I am a very casual news consumer. The news I am most interested involves the the sciences. The recent steady drip of new information coming from the James Webb telescope has been fascinating to me. I enjoy reading Scotusblog (I am a Supreme Court junkie). As I explained earlier:

I am not going to read through a news e-mail that I get. I am much more likely to search for a specific piece of news that I want to know more about. My agenda is my own. When something seems a bit off, I just keep reading until I feel that I can draw some reasonable conclusions on my own. I have a few basic rules. For example, anything that is fearmongering is usually written off immediately (and so I usually don't get bogged down with conspiracy theories).

I think, to get to what @Calm is looking at, there has been a shift in The Epoch Times in recent months. Part of this seems to be an economic decision. Since it has become a profitable venture, there is a need to maintain a certain level of reliability. However, a shift in this direction when it seems to be getting what it wants isn't particularly convincing. Given the role this news outlet has played in election coverage, it will be interesting to see how it handles the 2028 election cycle. And it may also be able to distance itself from its origins as the public relations arm of Falun Gong. 

I get what your saying, and yeah, my response was lazy. I wouldn't have called out CFR on Nehor if he wasn't being about as provocative as you can possibly be in a response. He used all the defamation buzzwords you can use to describe something on the internet in one nicely bundled little post.

I agree with your views on Wikipedia and I appreciate your commentary on why it's not appropriate to use in a scholastic setting.