If it is true that journalists write the first rough draft of history, then it is critical for journalists of faith to be epistemologically self-conscious. Why is that? The reason is that historians have an advantage over journalists in that historians select an event or person to investigate after the fact. As Robert Drake has noted (World and Life, Morris Publishing), this historical selection is possible because writing history starts with a known goal. The historian looks back from that goal to see how the goal was reached. So the historical investigation always has guidelines and an intellectual gyroscope directing the content and interpretation of the historian's narrative. That historical intellectual gyroscope, cognitive guideline, is missing for the journalist because the journalist is writing contemporary, instant narrative. So the journalist is excluded from using a historical event or personage from guiding the narrative. Both the historian and the journalist deal with facts, but the historian can wait for hindsight before fact selections are made. The journalist cannot wait because fact selections are made daily, under the pressure of deadlines and competition. Since the journalist cannot see the final consequences of a reported event, story framing and selection must be guided by the journalist's interpretive framework (i.e., worldview). It is the journalist's worldview which not only selects some stories and ignores others, but also guides the reporter in which facts and sources to pursue and how to pursue them. This is why a journalist's presuppositions (or worldview) are critical to a story. Worldview governs the selection process. That's why the Institute teaches Christian worldview to our journalism students - because an understanding of one's worldview is foundational for an honest and courageous performance of one's vocational calling as a journalist.