Starnes' entire career appears to be built around presenting one-sided culture war stories designed to fire up the conservative base, so it was hilarious to hear him declare that he prides himself on his accuracy, assuring his audience that when they read his stories, they are "getting the most accurate information possible":
You mean like the time he reported that a high school runner was disqualified for thanking God, which turned out to be totally false?
Or his report that the military was blocking the Southern Baptist Convention's website as an act of hostility toward Christianity, which was likewise entirely wrong?
What about the time he claimed that "roving gangs of thugs" had taken over New York City in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or when he falsely claimed that the Obama administration had not called for the release of Rev. Saeed Abedini from Iran?
Or how about his false report that two female middle school students were forced to ask one another for a kiss during an anti-bullying presentation?
And who can forget his article alleging that the military was going to court-martial soldiers for sharing their faith, which was entirely untrue?
Is that what Starnes meant when he said "you can read my stories and you can be assured that I am sharing with you accurate information"?
Because, ironically, that is not true.