WorldNutDaily

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
there is a serious problem growing in the world
it's so bad that it has even spread to ATS

people taking WorldNetDaily as a legitimate news source

now, let us devote this thread to compiling a list of errors, debunked articles, fabrications, ect
from worldnetdaily

i'll start

in their article "Help pick biggest cover-ups of 2006"

they include as number 7 on their list that WMDs WERE found in iraq




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is a serious problem growing in the world
it's so bad that it has even spread to ATS


its not so bad of a problem...

whenever some ATSer quotes and / or posts a link from that site, about ten others post about how unreliable that source is...

then the discussion goes on from there with reliable sources...





posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
you're right ALL, but still, i want a definitive ATS reference source, just to facilitiate the rapid debunking of worldnetdaily in a given thread



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Is world net daily any more or less of a source than prison planet or rense?

Just asking, because not long ago, someone say a story on WND that fit their agenda and felt perfectly comfortable using WND as their source.

Further, many stories on WND are stories that don't get covered on MSM.
Just becasue they don't get MSM media coverage doens't make the source illegitimate. :shk:



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I have no problem with dismissing them as a source, as long as information clearing house and al-jazeera goes with them.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Is world net daily any more or less of a source than prison planet or rense?


So if others embellish the truth (and I don't know enough about Prison Planet or Rense to say if they do), it's OK if WND does it too?


Further, many stories on WND are stories that don't get covered on MSM.


WND has a strongly conservative bias, that focuses on sensational and even blatently false news. If you want to find a diamond in a pile of #, go ahead.

Here is one of many examples of the WND bias/lies:

World Net Daily: "Google has 'Liberal' Bias"

World net Daily has published another classic piece of disinformation: "Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam".

www.tpmcafe.com...

Apparently WND criticizes Google for taking down articles from its News site that describe Muslims as

"dirty rag-towel wearing ‘War Lords ' (tell me, isn't that an 7th century concept ?), eating road kill for din-din"
. Oh why, oh why won't the MSM cover these articles...I wonder...



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Is world net daily any more or less of a source than prison planet or rense?

Just asking, because not long ago, someone say a story on WND that fit their agenda and felt perfectly comfortable using WND as their source.


any ATSer can use any source if it fits their agenda, this doesn't make it legitimate though


i am all against mainstream news sources but i am just saying that this source may not be reliable...

of course, sources like prison planet, may be biased towards, well, the whole "prison planet" and the new world order strains of thought...

see where i am going???

the trick is to find an unbiased source...

and if you can find one, i would love to read all about it





[edit on 11-12-2006 by they see ALL]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
WND constantly uses their own articles as a reference source. It goes round in round like that forever.

One WND article references a second WND article. The second WND article references a third WND article (as proof, keep in mind), and then finally the third WND article will reference the first WND article.

It's nonsense.

Every other link on their site is selling something, so not only are they untrustworthy, they're greedy.

They have stories like this all over their site.



- WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Impossible: Why man couldn't have written the Bible




- SPECIAL OFFER
RETIRE THIS YEAR ...
And still make 6-figure income. Learn how




- High-blood pressure cured in 3 minutes ...




PAGE 2 NEWS HIGHLIGHTS
# 'Ray gun' cancer cure nears speed of light
# It's official: Global warming is hot air
# Panic grips Bermuda over tidal wave rumor
# How white was Jesus Christ?


There are real stories on their site, but I've never seen one that's exclusive to them and not carried elsewhere.

I think they carry that handful of real stories to lend the rest of their crap some semblance of respectability.

Additionally, I suspect that anytime there's a real (but hard to believe) conspiracy on WND, it was put there to discredit itself by association with these flaky schmucks. What better way to render a possibly true story completely unbelievable than to feature it next to bat-boy calibre journalism of the sort engaged in by WND...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
article that i just found, everything about it is pure hatemongering (even the title)


Doubts grow over Muslim lawmaker's loyalty


they have him in a picture (which looks photoshopped) supposedly distributing nation of islam propaganda....

does anyone else think this picture looks fishy?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
people taking WorldNetDaily as a legitimate news source

I was actually watchin FOX news one day, and they actually cited worldnutdaily in one of their reports.

I mean, the national enquirer literally has a better track record when it comes to breaking news than WND.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I was actually watchin FOX news one day, and they actually cited worldnutdaily in one of their reports.


i threw up a little bit when i read that

and i thought fox was bad enough with just hannity, o'reilly, and frequent appearances by coulter



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
By its vary nature any reported news is biased. Every reporter just like every human being has his own filter for information. And that stuff about "Extend your life" and "Exclusive: why the Bible wasnt written by humans" those are clearly ads for sponsors. Did you miss the big red "Advertisement" and "Special Offers" headings? I guess you think infomercials are real news programs too?
And if youre gonna attack Fox for its bias you cant use O'Rielly, Hannity or Colmes or any of their COMMENTARY shows. Thats like attacking the op-ed pages for a bias. THEIR OP-EDS!!!

Its all biased from the World Nut to MSNBC. If I see a house fire and I tell someone later that day what I saw its automatically biased. Anyone with any sense knows that and if people dont or they like to get their info from a source that shares their personal bias than so be it. Nothing can change that.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
i'm not attacking them for simple bias

there's the fact that they reference their own articles for evidence
the continual factual errors
the slander and hate mongering
the amount of fabricated evidence they have

etc

and i brought up o'reilly, hannity, and coulter because, from everything i've seen, they are horrible human beings
my problem is that fox news actually allows those people a media outlet
i'm not attacking fox news for o'reilly's views, just for the fact that they give him a show

[edit on 12/13/06 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
If their full of hate and their only sources for information are their own articles than why attack them? Eventually theyll destoy themselves like a shallow gene pool. They'll lose what little, if any, credability they have and just devolve into another shaking fist shouting unintelligable profanities. Unless you just like doing that sort of thing. Then, by all means, continue.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you're right ALL, but still, i want a definitive ATS reference source, just to facilitiate the rapid debunking of worldnetdaily in a given thread


thisguyrighthere, did you not read the second post i entered?

this is an attempt at making a quick reference guide for debunking worldnetdaily in a thread



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
By its vary nature any reported news is biased. Every reporter just like every human being has his own filter for inform

I used to think that.
Then I started reading WorldNutDaily articles.

And if youre gonna attack Fox for its bias you cant use O'Rielly, Hannity or Colmes or any of their COMMENTARY shows. Thats like attacking the op-ed pages for a bias. THEIR OP-EDS!!!

Bollocks. If o'reilly is just an opinion editorial, then he can stop calling it the 'no spin zone'.


Its all biased from the World Nut to MSNBC.

Lets be realistic. Its immpossible for a human being to have an absolutely objective, completely blank, utterly un-biased report. But that hardly means that MSNBC is ANYTHING like WND. WND flat out makes crap up. And the crap that it flat out fabricates is consistently far right wing nutso material.


If I see a house fire and I tell someone later that day what I saw its automatically biased.

Yes. And MSNBC, CNN, even FOX (generally) will say 'yesterday at approximately such and such time, such and such house was on fire. The cause is as yet unknown, state local fire fighting representatives'.
WND will say 'bin laden used one of the 20 nukes he secretly snuck into the use to set that house full of orphans on fire. Local democrats prevent firefighters from responding with barricades of paperwork and red tape."



Anyone with any sense knows that and if people dont or they like to get their info from a source that shares their personal bias than so be it. Nothing can change that.

The problem is that WND simply makes up stuff. You can sort through the bias on the other news sources, like FOX, but with WND, all there is is the bias.

If their full of hate and their only sources for information are their own articles than why attack them? Eventually theyll destoy themselves like a shallow gene pool.

Hateful people will be done in by their own hatred?
Sir, let me be the first to welcome you to the United States of America. I hope you like it here, its a great little country, but things are done a little different 'round here." *shakes hand*

[edit on 13-12-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
What is the purpose of this thread? To totally debunk WND? Why? So that it can no longer be cited as a source on ATS? I don't think that's going to happen.

Some of the other comments in this thread regarding Fox News makes it sound like they are next on your list. To be honest, it seems like you have a problem with conservative news sources in general.

It just seems peculiar to me that you are devoting so much energy to this. Because, after all, it would be incredibly simple to tear down practically any news source, such as MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc. using many of the arguments that are used against WND.

Maybe you should start similar threads for all other news sources. Now that would be interesting.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Some of the other comments in this thread regarding Fox News makes it sound like they are next on your list. To be honest, it seems like you have a problem with conservative news sources in general.

i have no particular problem with conservative news sources or conservatives
i just think that fox news could do it in a much better way
mainly without o'reilly, hannity, and coulter (because those are the type people that give good conservatives a bad name)




It just seems peculiar to me that you are devoting so much energy to this. Because, after all, it would be incredibly simple to tear down practically any news source, such as MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc. using many of the arguments that are used against WND.

no, the other news agencies do not compare to the outright fraudulent nature of some of the news that WND puts out
sure, the other sources make mistakes, but they mostly don't INTEND to fabricate information

WND is less credible than most supermarket tabloids



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What is the purpose of this thread? To totally debunk WND? Why?

Because its utter lies and complete garbage? People look at it and think that it might be a relevant, respectable, sensible source of news. It doesn't scream out 'absolute nutters write these fantasies'. Why should we not try to help peopel not be duped?




So that it can no longer be cited as a source on ATS?

There is no source of information that we censor or don't permit on ATS.


Some of the other comments in this thread regarding Fox News makes it sound like they are next on your list.

FOX news is pretty biased.



To be honest, it seems like you have a problem with conservative news sources in general.

I certainly don't. Its crap news sources that I don't like, and that others don't like. Foreign Affairs is seen as a conservative/neo-con news source, but I'm not bashing it. Heck, I think its a great news source. Because the peopel that write for it are smart, educated, honest, and they do their research. WND isn't any of those things.

it would be incredibly simple to tear down practically any news source, such as MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc. using many of the arguments that are used against WND.

Alright, so go ahead and do it.

Please show us where the peopel that run MSNBC are outright fabricating material and constantly pushing fantasies, like WND does with its 'al qaida has snuck in 40 nukes into the us and is going to use them,...sooon!" which they've been humping for years now.


Maybe you should start similar threads for all other news sources. Now that would be interesting.

If you think that there is a problem with a news source, then by all means, start a thread on it and show what the problem is.



madnessinmysoul
WND is less credible than most supermarket tabloids

Literally. There have been instances where National Enquirer and the like have actual broke the news on some stories (usually gossipy type things of course). Thats because they have no journalistic standards or system, and people basically submit what they want. If it looks like it'll sell copy, the publishers run it. WND, on the other hand, is less concerned with money, and more concerned with pushing lies and fantasies.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Maybe Im not clear on the definition of "debunk" but it seems to me this thread is simply a bash fest with people just yelling at a wall. Ill have to go grab my dictionary.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join