This week the Washington Post published a new piece in its investigative series on multiple figures within the leadership of the Anglican Church in North America.
In the video below I join Anglican TV’s Kevin Kallsen to discuss Bishop Julian Dobbs, who serves as the dean of the denomination and effectively as its lead bishop during the inhibition of Archbishop Steve Wood. Dobbs underwent two investigations of misapplied funds, both of which resulted in him being cleared of wrongdoing by the denomination. Now a past ACNA bishop who unilaterally separated from the denomination this autumn is calling attention to the matter. Is it a needed wake-up call, or an intentional misdirection? I hope that you find our conversation to be informative.
Comment by Dennis Crowley on January 1, 2026 at 2:23 pm
I have been in journalism-news since 1977. I am currently with World News Group as a radio Correspondent. I spent many years in Washington DC, including writing articles in 2014 for Juicy Ecumenism. I have also worked for AP Broadcast and Mutual News-NBC Radio. A bigger problem than any allegations against Julian Dobbs is news reporters and outlets who broadcast-print allegations to “break-the-news-and-get-it first.” When allegations get proven false or taken out of context -the damage is done. I have taken my own personal share of heat for withholding stories until I get all the accurate facts. I have also learned from my share of screwups.
Comment by Dennis Crowley on January 1, 2026 at 2:30 pm
One addition to my previous comment- Anglican Unscripted and Juicy Ecumenism get the facts and take the time to cover the stories in context. CBS News is also taking steps to address issues .
Comment by Dennis Crowley on January 1, 2026 at 2:34 pm
One more comment- Anglican Unscripted and Juicy Ecumenism take the time to cover all sides of issues such as this. CBS News is taking steps to address issues such as credibility.
Comment by Ann Olesen on January 1, 2026 at 2:44 pm
From a journalistic standpoint, this video represents a systematic breakdown of professional standards. The hosts have abandoned the methods by which conclusions ought to be responsibly reached.
First, it violates the most fundamental rule of journalism: independence from subjects under coverage. The hosts disclose personal friendships, financial donations, and professional collaborations with Bishop Julian Dobbs, then proceed to litigate the case on his behalf. In professional journalism, such entanglements trigger recusal. Disclosure does not license advocacy. Continuing after admitting these conflicts collapses the boundary between reporting and personal defense.
Second, the hosts repeatedly engage in source poisoning. The primary critical source is framed as a manipulative actor who “keeps files,” “uses leverage,” and conducts “psy-ops.” These are serious character claims presented without independent verification and based on unnamed third parties. This is preemptive credibility destruction, a textbook violation of fairness and due process norms in journalism.
Third, the treatment of evidence is professionally indefensible. Internal investigations are cited as conclusive while their methodology, independence, scope, and documentation are left entirely unexamined. A journalist does not accept institutional self-exoneration at face value, particularly when institutional accountability is the prime subject of public concern. The episode substitutes institutional authority for verification, effectively asking viewers to trust power rather than interrogate it.
Fourth, the hosts repeatedly minimize alleged financial misconduct through rhetorical framing, emphasizing aggregate dollar amounts (“$78,000 total”) and personal anecdotes (“this doesn’t match my experience”) in place of documented analysis. This violates standards of proportionality and relevance. Financial governance is assessed by compliance, disclosure, controls, and conflicts of interest, not whether sums feel modest or whether donors felt comfortable. Reducing governance questions to personal reassurance is not reporting.
Fifth, the episode blurs the line between “truth” and “truthiness.” It collapses commentary into conclusion. The hosts praise the Washington Post for “sunlight” while simultaneously instructing viewers that the findings are non-disqualifying, already resolved, and essentially settled. Facts are filtered through a predetermined outcome. This is verdict-driven narration. Journalism demands skepticism toward all parties. This segment directs skepticism in only one direction.
Taken together, these are structural violations of journalistic ethics: lack of independence, unbalanced skepticism, unexamined sourcing, and substitution of personal trust for evidence. In moments of institutional crisis, journalism’s role is to widen accountability. This episode does the opposite—shielding insiders while questioning the legitimacy of scrutiny itself.
This video is inappropriate. It defends a bishop while wearing the costume of journalism.
Comment by Jeffrey Walton on January 2, 2026 at 12:16 pm
Thanks for your (AI generated?) thoughts, Ann. I am a religion writer and blogger, not a professional journalist. Anglican Unscripted is a commentary show in which the hosts chat about what is in the news, and Kevin kindly invites me on occasion to join the show. It is important for viewers to know what I disclosed so that they can factor that into their own assessments, but I am not censored from providing my thoughts in a venue like Anglican Unscripted.
Comment by Dennis Crowley on January 1, 2026 at 3:08 pm
Kevin and Jeff took the time at the very beginning of this video to point out personal connections to Bishop Dobbs and Barnabus Fund. That is very professional. Most journalists would not take the time to do this. In my many years of covering the Church and Christianity in Washington DC, I have noticed a trend by the Washington Post to do a hatchet job, or distort the facts on conservative evangelicals. As a result, readers will treat everything they see in this publication as suspect.
Comment by David Gingrich on January 6, 2026 at 9:00 am
“CBS News is taking steps to address issues such as credibility.”
I will believe this when I see it.