WND -- Absolutely No Credibility

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

WND -- Absolutely No Credibility

arbilad · Head Chef

Whatever you look for, you'll find. If you think that WND's credibility is destroyed because of one commentary piece, then I would have to disagree.
First, that was a commentary by one person. A commentary is just that - that person's opinion. They were not representing it as news. It's in the commentary section.
Second, the commentary section has widely varying viewpoints. They have some hard left liberal commentaries on there too. I would disagree with those commentaries as well. That doesn't mean that I distrust WND news stories.
Third, WND is not a homogeneous political entity. You speak of "their pro-huckabee stance". I know that Chuck Norris, a columnist there, is pro-Huckabee. But the editor and owner of the site, Joe Farah, was pro-Duncan, and now that he's dropped out, doesn't know who to support. Other commentators there are in favor of Paul or Romney. It's a very heterogeneous commentary section.
If you want to rail on that opinion piece, I agree with you that there are many problems. But opinions there cover the whole spectrum. So you cannot impeach the credibility of the whole site based on one opinion piece. But nice try.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Nice little swipe at the church that guy took. Religious bigotry at it's best!

arbilad · Head Chef

Yeah, I just finished writing a letter to the editor. The author of that opinion piece, Andrew Longman, is a bigot.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Most common people do not differentiate between a sensationalized editorial, bigoted commentary, so-called investigative reporting and an actual news article.

And it is a shame that journalism is the first to overlook that differentiation.

I may not be able to "impeach", as you put it (how exactly does one "impeach" something that has no elected authority in the first place?), the credibility of WND by this one commentary, but it is just another in a line of things that they have published that brings their integrity and commitment to a fair treatment of things into question. A number of us have noted in the past in this forum that they tend to report things rather sensationally and from only one standpoint.

arbilad · Head Chef

Just because many people say a thing doesn't make it true. You may or may not be right. If you are, prove it with examples. Many of us have also been advocating Ron Paul on this forum. Since many of us are saying it, does that mean that you'll be supporting Ron Paul now, Cat?
I actually think that many people can differentiate editorial from news story, especially when the editorial is labeled as such. And for those too stupid to understand that when they click on "Commentary" they will get commentary, they must think that the site is awfully schizophrenic, because the opinions range all over the board.
"Impeach" is a legal term. For instance, if you impeach the credibility of a witness, that means that you cause the jury to doubt that witness's testimony.

-- Edited by arbilad at 13:48, 2008-02-04

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

So nice to know some things never change...

Like the freedom to voice one's opinion and then to be ridiculed for it.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

My opinion is that people know commentary when they see/read it. WND commentary ranges all over the place. News With Views commentary seems pretty one sided, but then again, it is commentary, but they seem as a whole to be anti-Mormon. I don't see that with WND.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, if you have felt ridiculed, I apologize. I removed a line from one of my posts that may seem to ridicule you.
But the fact remains, I would like to see evidence of what you say is the case, not just the assertion that it is so.
If you like I can find anti-mormon opinion pieces from major newspapers. Does that mean that you'll stop reading the newspaper?
Yes, the opinion piece you link to was bigotry, pure and simple. Like I said, you can find that in any major newspaper.
WND on the whole seems to be fairly neutral about our church. There was a time in the past where they even employed a church member and let him post reports on general conference.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree, Cat.

That's a major gaffe, and reprehensible. Zero Credibility, Agenda Driven, No accountability... it's the perfect storm for this sort of nonsense...

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

My beef with WND has nothing to do with the fact they include a piece which is clearly anti-Romney or has an anti-Mormon denigrating reference. I brought this up simply to point out the fact they do not report things objectively. Which is what a number of other forum members here have stated in the past.

WND puts out the impression that they are unbiased in their reporting. And yet, they describe themselves and purpose as "to serve as a watchdog on government - to expose corruption, fraud, waste and abuse wherever and whenever it is found." That is not unbiased or objective. They look to put a spin on everything they possibly can.

An objective journalist or editor would have required the commentator revise the story / editorial written to get the information correct. This was not a letter to the editor. It was a piece, written by an acknowledged contributor (and possibly paid for), in which the contents were implicitely endorsed by publishing it with clearly false information in it. WND published two commentaries (here is the other) the same day by pro-Huckabee contributors railing on Romney, this was just one.

In another thread here the other day, I was informed that Gov. Romney is guilty of "lies of ommission" in his campaign and since he is a member of the Church, that is nigh unto unforgiveable because of the perception some have of him and pedestal they have put him on waiting for the chance of knocking him off it.

So, guess what? The second "commentary" was made by one of WND's listed columnists. Chances are, it was therefore a piece Mr. Farah (WND's CEO and Editor) compensated the columnist for. Which brings up Mr. Farah's so-called objectivity. It is quite clear he lacks objectivity, well because he simply knows better than the simple minded masses. Talk about "lies of ommission!"

Secondly, I have written reams on the shortcomings of Mitt Romney. I've explained specifically why he's a phony and not to be trusted.
Reading through his other editorials, it is clear though he may not officially endorse Huckabee or Paul, he isn't above attacking those who do not agree with the nebulous evangelical movement he is part of that is looking to redefine our social and government structure after their own interpretation of the Bible. Oh... and it is clear that each of his editorials seem to end on the plug to buy one of his books...

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

I treat WND like the New York Times. Verify, verify, verify.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

WND's mission statement:
WorldNetDaily.com Inc. is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.

I admire news services that openly admit and advertise their bias and agenda. "Transparency" is one benchmark for me, and I'm automatically suspicious of any news service that claims a lack of bias or any sort of complete neutrality. WND passes the "transparency" test with flying colors.

It's this "uncompromising journalism" claim I think many (including me) have a problem with. I guess we can have a good discussion about what the phrase means. But from where I'm standing, it has to do with how well you report 'the news'. And you're not really reporting 'the news' if you engage in fact-picking (i.e. reporting what supports your agenda, glossing over or ignoring what doesn't)

Remember this thread about this WND article?

LM

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 15:26, 2008-02-04

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

But didn't Dan Rather's supporters say, that even if the letter was forged, the story was true, so why did it matter if the evidence was fabricated?

arbilad · Head Chef

I remember that thread, LM. And they reported on the facts as they became available. They had several articles on the subject. When the Sheriff's side came to light, they reported on that too.
But I'm sorry, Cat - you're asking for objectivity in an opinion piece, and that just floors me. Like I said, they have opinion pieces all over the range.
And so what that they pick on Romney. There's a lot to say on the subject of his candidacy, and it isn't good. All you've proven is that articles run on WND typically don't support your worldview.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Arbi, um didn't the article say that Romney was funded by the Mormon church? Since when is that a criticism of Romney? Can't you recognize how that sort of thing plays right into antimormon hysteria? The idea that the church is behind the scenes pulling the strings... something the church has never done--as it attempts to remains politically neutral.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

The article I have major problems with - as you say, it is anti-mormon. But Cat took issue with other opinion pieces that have lambasted Romney. Not all of them accuse him of being funded by the mormon church.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I suppose if they were a balanced news organization they'd have a sizeable number of pro-Romney pieces you could put us to...

--Ray

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

I once visited WND regularly.

No more.

They are biased and bigoted as a whole.

PLENTY of examples have been sighted over the past little while. Simply go there and look, they are all over.

Smaug · Senior Member

It doesn't have the nickname of World Nut Daily for nothing.

arbilad · Head Chef

A demeaning nickname does not proof make. They aren't perfect, but I don't know a newssource that is. At least they have never been caught making up the news, like the New York Times. And while their commentators do support different candidates, you can also detect strong biases in mainstream news sources. For instance, broadcast and print media love to report the improper use of firearms, but they rarely report on the legitimate use of firearms in self defense.
Does WND claim to be unbiased? Not that I'm aware of. Do I agree with everything they say? Not by a longshot. But it is a source of news for those of us tired of the propaganda that the mainstream sources dish out.
It's like the conservative radio station I listen to. On some days I even disagree with most of what's been said. But even then, they get more right than mainstream sources will in a week.
Noone here has yet pointed out a failing WND has that mainstream sources do not. And, on the whole, they get more right than the mainstream sources do.
LM accused WND of sensationalism. There's a measure of truth to that. But nowadays you have to be a discerning reader no matter what the source, and at least the facts that are currently known are almost always there in the WND story to find.
News is renowned for using sensationalist headlines and writing style to draw readers in, and yet somehow that is considered a failing on WND's part that makes them unworthy of reading.
Do I wish that WND went in less for sensationalism? Sure. But they suffer from it no more than does any other news site. Should we expect better of them? Sure. But they're still a good news source, and more valuable to me than many others.
As I said, they're not perfect, and you have to sort the wheat from the chaff. But they break some pretty important news stories first. Here is a list of some of them: WND Scoops
That's a pretty impressive record.

arbilad · Head Chef

While we're on the subject of accuracy and lack of bias, let's look at the original post to this thread and the assertions it makes.

Assertions in this post:
1) Some people on this board put a lot of credibility into the things that WND publishes.
2) WND is an electronic rag
3) WND is a webzine
4) The article referenced in the post is represented as journalism, but the original poster puts the word in quotes because he does not believe it to be a good example of journalism.
5) The article is purportedly full of journalistic integrity, although this phrase is also put in quotes because the original poster doubts that.
6) The article in question was written by one of their contributor writers.
7) The article is pro-Huckabee.
8) WND itself has a demonstratably pro-Huckabee stance
9) A particular comment, quoted in the post, was made in the article.

Ok, now I will address these points.
Regarding number one, yes, there are a few posters here who rely on WND for a non-insignificant portion of their news. Speaking for myself, I rely on multiple news sources, even though I feel that WND is one of the better available sources. So, mostly true, and I'll give cat that much.
Second, assertion number two makes a judgment based on the value of the site. There are many possible interpretations of "electronic rag", but I'll have a try at guessing Cat's intent and say that he was asserting that they have low journalistic standards. I linked earlier to WND's exclusive scoops. They must be doing something right with such a record of exclusive stories. I'm not going to say they are perfect, because they're not be a longshot, but it appears that they have some very skilled reporters working for them. So assertion number two is false.
Assertion number three labels WND as a webzine. This seems to be accurate enough, although I've never really thought of WND as a webzine, they seem to fit the description I got from Wikipedia closely enough that it's not an issue.
There is something demonstratably wrong about assertion number 4. The piece wasn't represented as journalism. It was represented as opinion. There are starkly different standards for journalism pieces and opinion pieces. Therefore assertion 4 is wrong - it wasn't attempting to be or masquerading as journalism.
Which leaves us with assertion 5. Since we are dealing with an opinion piece, why are we worrying about the standards of journalism? Opinion pieces have different standards. So assertion 5 is wrong, because this opinion piece is making no claims to have journalistic integrity.
Assertion number 6 is only true in the sense that the person who wrote it is a writer (by definition; he wrote it, thus he is a writer) and he contributed the piece to WND, thus he is a "contributing writer". However, that is not the point that Cat was trying to make. Later in the thread he asserts that it is likely that Andrew Longman, the author of the piece, is a regular writer for WND. However, his name was not present in the archives of regular of even occassional contributors. If he has contributed to WND in the past, it is on a rare basis, because I could not find any evidence of it. So, in the mainstream meaning of the phrase, Andrew Longman is not a contributing writer of WND.
I'll grant that assertion 7 is correct. The writer is definitely pro-Huckabee.
However, assertion 8 is not accurate. WND does not have a pro-Huckabee stance. If WND can be considered to have an official candidate at all, it is Rep. Duncan Hunter, who is no longer running. Apart from that, they have had commentary pieces supporting various of the other candidates. That they post some pro-Huckabee articles is true. That they endorse Huckabee is not.
Assertion 9 is obviously true.

So, out of the original post, only 4 of the 9 assertions are fairly accurate. The rest are demonstratably false. And yet the post is accepted uncritically by those who dislike WND because it criticizes WND. So, it seems a bit strange to me to criticize WND for lack of objectivity and bias when the original post in the thread shows a lack of objectivity and bias. Hold things to the same standard. To me, WND seems to be doing pretty good, comparatively.
BTW, just to make it absolutely clear, I do not agree with the linked article and I think that it is obviously badly written. But you can't judge the whole site by one contributor. Look at one of their regular contributors, Marilyn Lois Polak. She is very, very liberal. And yet I doubt that you'll find many people accusing WND of being too liberal. And she contributes much more often than does Andrew Longman.

-- Edited by arbilad at 09:31, 2008-02-05

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Sheesh Arbi... I'm not sure why you thought this was even something anyone else was interested in debating about. It sure comes across as if you are saying your perceptions and opinions are more valid than anyone elses...

My responses to your assumed assertions in my opening post:
1. Self evident
2. Rag (comes from the fact that cloth rags were often used as one source of fiber for the pulp used to create the newsprint in the past) is a term used to describe a newspaper. "Yellow Journalism" is the term used to describe a newspaper that relies on sensationalism. I didn't state WND was yellow journalism, though in many instances the label may fit. Just because they have broken stories exclusively in the past doesn't change the fact they have a history of pushing the envelope and stretching the truth. Shoot, The National Enquirer even gets things right some of the time, but it doesn't change the fact they have a certain reputation...
3. A webzine is a webzine is a webzine. It is really any sort of periodical publication that is published on the internet as opposed on paper.
4. Anything other than a letter to an editor or advertisement that is published by a newspaper is considered journalism, even if it is labeled "Commentary" from an occasional contributing author. So, since we can clearly tell it isn't a letter to the editor, the question is, is a commentary piece published by WND an editorial (commissioned by the publications editorial staff / board and hence represents the publications stance) or an op-ed (opposite editorial that represents only the author's viewpoint)? Why is it that WND doesn't make the clear differentiation for it's readers, because there really is a distinction between the two? I guess the assumption is that most readers aren't "too stupid" to realize a piece is mere op-ed or editorial commentary when they come to an article just from a direct link to it and not from the webzine's front page.
5. Hence, because they have no disclaimer stating it was just op-ed or editorial, I was being sarcastic about the journalistic integrity of the piece, so au contrair mon frair. The author wrote the piece in such a manner to make it appear to be more than just an opinion piece.
6. Your response is not germaine to the point you are claiming I'm asserting. I have found the author has contributed at least 3 or 4 other pieces of writing. But once again, it isn't germaine. WND picked up and published his piece. Therefore, he is either on their staff or he is a contributing writer. One doesn't have to be a regular columnist to be a contributing writer.
7. Uh yeah, the author kind of stated it.
8. Uh, no I didn't say WND was pro-Huckabee, the reference was back to the author. Wrong pronoun used as I was typing on the fly... but then again, unless balancing commentaries are provided, it would be easy for the "stupid" readers to assume that WND has a bias against a candidate.
9. A quote from the article is an assertion on my part?

In journalism, credibility is questioned because of anonymous sources; errors in facts, spelling, and grammar; real or perceived bias; and scandals involving plagiarism and fabrication. That is not just limited to "news" stories. Editorials and Op-ed pieces that a publication chooses to publish should not be of the "gotcha journalism" ilk (or purposely manipulating and distorting facts to create a particular impression... it is considered unethical, though it seems to be what people expect these days).

Generally speaking, a good, credible news publication is going to provide a balance of voices in the op-ed pieces it publishes on a topic or issue. Didn't Ray ask that evidence be provided showing that WND has provided that sort of balance?

Funny thing I noticed this morning when reviewing the article one more time... most of the actual news articles WND "publishes" are links to other online news source articles... like Reuters, AP, and London Times... the couple that are listed as WND bylines appear to be nothing more than summations of news that was sourced elsewhere. Most of what they "publish" seems to be "commentary".

Anyway, that is all I have to say on this. I now return you to your regularly scheduled world views and debates...

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I assumed by your posting this here instead of at your blog that you were opening the issue to discussion. I was merely refuting your points.
You keep coming back to "WND must approve of that position because he is a contributing writer". That's not the case at all. Otherwise, WND is very schizophrenic. Read Marilyn Lois Polak's stuff sometime. Her positions starkly contradict those of other regular writers.
You may not have been looking, but the piece is labeled "commentary" at the beginning of the article. It is clearly commentary. They have all sorts. What I am saying is that you cannot infer much about WND itself from one commentary piece. Otherwise, you would have to assume multiple conflicting things about WND, because some of the commentary pieces are so different.
WND actually has a very good reputation amongst a large group of people. It is illogical to assume that because there is a group that claims a certain thing, it must be true. There is a group on this board that claims that Ron Paul would be the best candidate. Yet you haven't assumed that position just because a group of us claims that it is true.
I was merely pointing out in my lengthy piece that you made several factual errors. People do it all the time. All I'm saying is, give WND a break; they posted a commentary from a misguided soul, but that doesn't, as your thread title states, take away all their credibility.
I'm curious, Cat; what news source do you read that you agree with all the time?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Discussion: Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
Debate: To dispute or argue about.

As said earlier, I've said all I have to say on this. I wasn't looking for a debate against my opinion, nor for that matter even a discussion of the merits of said opinion or lack thereof in other folks perceptions. I wasn't even writing an "op-ed" piece of commentary. I was simply expressing yet another case of personally being incredulous at what this particular webzine selects to publish.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, those definitions are not the only definitions of those words. For instance, check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate
Debate can also mean discussion.
But even aside from that, you just stated openly that you weren't interested in people discussing the topic. You simply wanted to state a controversial opinion and have it stand unopposed. That to me is very odd. This is a discussion board. If you post it, and someone is interested in discussing it, it will be discussed.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

You must really be in a debating mood Arbi... because now it seems you are taking exception with my stating I wasn't interested in debating my opinion.

Debate does not mean discussion. Discussion does not mean debate. They are two mutually exclusive concepts. Discussion can be used in debate, but the two concepts are not synonomous. (FYI, I did pull the definitions cited from dictionary.com, specifically from the American Heritage Dictionary definitions...) Multiple definitions for a term does not equate divergent concepts to be one and the same. A definition is an abstract way of trying to describe the concept. Kind of like describing the flavor of salt.

Oh well, I guess I'm just "too stupid" to realize that I just don't understand much, particularly my own motives in posting something.

Hey, if it floats your boat to debate about or discuss the topic of WND's credibility, great... have at it. Just remember that debate or discussion doesn't include the equivalent of mudslinging against a person (or that person's opinion / intelligence) who expresses an opinion you don't agree with.

arbilad · Head Chef

Debate does not mean discussion. Discussion does not mean debate. They are two mutually exclusive concepts.

1.a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

Since the first definition at dictionary.com calls it "a discussion", I cannot see how they are mutually exclusive concepts, when one word is used in the definition of the other.
I have no problem with you not discussing the issue. Discuss or not as you feel like it. I have no problem with that. I merely wish to claim that same right to myself; if I want to discuss an issue, I should feel free to. The only topic banned on this board is the doubting church leaders or church doctrines. Everything else relates to the method of discussion. If you post something, that topic is open to discussion.
I have not been mudslinging against you. At every point I have addressed the points you made, and not your competency, perceived or real. My "stupid" comment was in reference to those who click on the Comments section at WND and expect to find news stories. You yourself admitted that you didn't do that; you clicked on a link sent to you. So I'm still stumped about why you've made it personal.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Selective semantics rolleyes

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

Put the dictionaries away boys! This is america and words mean what we say they mean, especially when we're packin heat!