As happens with Associated Press stories, the wire service's report headlined "Conservative Christian attorneys gain influence under Trump" is getting prominent play nationally.

I first read the piece in the print edition of today's Houston Chronicle.

Moreover, it's on the New York Times website and in hundreds of papers across the nation.

The subject matter — the rise of a Texas-based law firm that pursues religious liberty cases —  definitely interests me.

But AP's implementation of that storyline makes for a frustrating read.

Just the first three paragraphs raise my hackles:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Lawyers who espouse a conservative Christian agenda have found plenty of opportunities in Texas, suing on behalf of Bible-quoting cheerleaders and defending a third-grader who wanted to hand out Christmas cards that read in part “Jesus is the Christ!”

But for the First Liberty law firm, the last few years have been especially rewarding: Their attorneys have moved into powerful taxpayer-funded jobs at the Texas attorney general’s office and advised President Donald Trump, who nominated a current and a former First Liberty lawyer to lifetime appointments on federal courts. Another attorney went to the Department of Health and Human Services as a senior adviser on religious freedom.

It’s a remarkable rise for a modest-sized law firm near Dallas with 46 employees, and it mirrors the climb of similar firms that have quietly shifted from trying to influence government to becoming part of it. The ascent of the firms has helped propel a wave of anti-LGBT legislation and so-called religious-freedom laws in statehouses nationwide.

After reading this story, here are three journalistic questions:

1. What is the "conservative Christian agenda" espoused by the First Liberty Institute?

AP reports that agenda as a fact but never provides evidence to back it up.

The firm's website describes its mission as protecting religious liberty. In AP's view, is that characterization synonymous with "a conservative Christian agenda?" 

From First Liberty's website:

We believe that true religious liberty means recognizing the fundamental right of every individual—including all ages, races, genders, and faiths—to follow their conscience and to live according to their beliefs. Because of that, our mission is simple: protect religious freedom for all.

Later in the story, AP reports: 

About a dozen prominent Christian legal groups are scattered across the country, none bigger than the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF, which raised more than $50 million in 2016. Others include Florida-based Liberty Counsel, Washington-based Becket and the American Center for Law and Justice, which was founded by Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers.

Is it accurate to describe Becket as a Christian legal group? Becket's website says that it "exists to defend the free exercise of all faiths, from Anglican to Zoroastrian." In 2015, Becket won a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling for the religious freedom of a bearded Muslim inmate.

Keep reading, and AP says:

Sasser said First Liberty is different than similar firms, such as ADF, in that they represent people of all faiths.

That note — which might be news to Becket — was apparently added after the original publication of the AP story. This clarification is appended to the end:

This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Sasser’s name in the final paragraph and clarifies that First Liberty represents clients of all faiths.

Bottom line: AP casts this as a story about Christian legal activists. In doing so, does the wire service miss the bigger picture? That would be these firms' focus on religious liberty.

2. Does the "so-called religious-freedom laws" phrasing in the third paragraph reflect bias, which the wire service claims to abhor?

In previous posts (here and here), we've explained why the use of "so-called" is troublesome in stories that purport to be impartial.

AP's own stylebook urges caution in use of that term:

so called (adv.) so-called (adj.) Use sparingly. Do not follow with quotation marks. Example: He is accused of trading so-called blood diamonds to finance the war.

With that wording, the wire service seems to editorialize that these laws may not, in fact, be about religious freedom.

If there are questions about the laws, here's my advice: Quote people on all sides. Provide context. But don't insert opinion without attribution into a news story.

3. Who are the sources on the broad themes pushed by this story?

The idea is promoted that the firm's rise — along with the increase in these sort of cases — is tied to Trump. Yet religious freedom cases have come and gone in waves for years. 

"Legal Alliance Gains Host of Court Victories for Conservative Christian Movement" was the headline on a major New York Times story in 2014 — Trump didn't announce his candidacy until 2015.

Repeatedly while reading this story, I found myself stopping and wondering, "Says whom?" At one point, AP says of First Liberty:

There is no denying their expanded reach

That would be a great quote from a source. But it strikes me as not a great statement from the news organization in a straight news report.

I could go on, but I'll stop typing now. I'd welcome readers' thoughts on the story and the journalistic questions.