It is not just that Rick Ross has a bias in what he reports but that he is often quoted as a factual reporter of truth or diverse opinions. Ross is unreliable because he has significant bias as a self declared commentator. We can all find someone who says something negative somewhere but that does not make that quote authoritive. I simply feel that the "clean" and unbiased "expert" image that Rick Ross uses should not be left unchallenged. All his material is really Christian hate speak and propoganda and should not be compared to balanced reporting from organisations like the New York Times. 
 Yes I am suggesting that the site "Cult Awareness and Information Centre" is an unreliable source. It claims this report is a copy of another report but this is not verifiable at all. The site is not beyond claims of bias against organisations it feels deserve citicism.