Right-wing publisher: We run "some misinformation" -WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah...

As a friendly reminder, the topic of this thread is to expose the lies, deceit and flagrant disregard of facts by the extreme right wing smear machine that is World Net Daily or as I like to call it "Pinocchio Gets a Computer."

The OP has obviously struck a chord as evidenced by the incessant efforts by others to misdirect it into yet another Birther attack on sitting POTUS. I suspect the very mention of WND triggers some mouth watering inbred response to the mental midgets who support this unfounded notion.

Funny how the "Birthers" are just a modern day incarnation of the "Birchers." (John Birch Society)



ON TOPIC:

A few more examples of WND's intolerant, bigoted propaganda:

World Net Daily Sells Lies with the Pink Swastika

SOURCE

World Net Daily caught in Photoshop lie

(w/ pix)
SOURCE

Zombie lies about Obama at WorldNetDaily

SOURCE

And for those lacking reading and comprehension skills:

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I post a story about WND admitting to being the liars that KK has been so kind to demonstrate that they are and the reaction is quite odd, especially for ATS. First people take the time to post "So, I dont like WND anyway so...so!!!" Then they try to change the topic to something completely different. Then I get a personal attack.

These certainly are interesting reactions to posting a story about someone admitting they lie.

It's funny when I recently got a copy of my long lost birth certificate, the one with my little foot print, the dummies spelled my middle name wrong on the copy.

reply to post by inforeal


With all due respect

Right-wing publisher: We run "some misinformation" -WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah...,

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by inforeal

 

With all due respect

Right-wing publisher: We run "some misinformation" -WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah...,

They'll never listen to you, Sinnthia, their egos are on the line!
But for what it's worth, I am very glad you started this thread... I have always suspected WND of being liars, now I have lots of lovely proof..
Vicky

I have been keeping an eye on this thread since it started.

To provide context, it is my opinion that WND is to news just as much as The Enquirer is. But, we are not talking about their news articles (or those that they claim are news.), we are talking about their commentators (opinion journalist) that contribute to their site.

Given that, Mr. Farrah should gain a better handle on the English language. Effectively he torpedoed himself and his site by saying "misinformation". After reading the exchange and what it was in context to, I infer that his intent was to explain that stringent standards are not the same when it comes to opinion articles and that there could be false information that hasn't been verified by the author.

In that sense, he is actually speaking for basically every periodical, newspaper and magazine (e-zine) that has a section for opinion writers. Some have higher standards than others this is true, but the editor isn't going to pull a paper from running if there is less than truthful arguments or speculations within the opinion piece.

Either way, Mr. Farrah's miscalculated words set himself up for the damage that will come from it. Persons that truly believe what is on that site will not waiver. Similar to people who had absolute trust in Dan Rather and even though it was proven he used false information, still retain that trust in his reporting (when he was that is.)

Many that were on the fence and maybe only read WND to broaden their information input will most likely drop them as a source for any information. And of course, those that already distrusted the site and saw it as a ultra-right wing rag will just keep moving on.

This is my objective view on the situation and I believe to be the most plausible. While opinion columnist typically have to have some notoriety and editors don't want to have egg on their face when one opines on blatantly false information, some false information does get through.

What part of "OPINION" column do you not understand?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
To shut up all the birther claims, why not have Obama just submit his BC and be done with it? I think with the lack of evidence ( or the lack of effort in part by Obama to just show the damn thing ) increases the hype, and increases the back and forth banter.

What keeps the argument fueled, is that since no one has seen cold hard evidence of his BC, keeps the argument open.

Seeing scanned copies of different docs does nothing to ease the pain. But then again, who knows?

if what has already been shown over the past 21/2 years, has not answered your question about his BC, then there is no use trying to convince you,...so, yours and the other birthers questioning becomes irrelavant, and is reduced to ignorant babbling.

The original posting to this thread is a cheap shot because it misleads readers into thinking this news organization admits to intentionally misrepresenting facts. That's not at all what Farah was saying.

He was saying that his organization, like any other news organization that publishes "OPINION' columns, is going to inevitably be posting columns containing substantial misinformation. That includes pretty much every newspaper in the country that allows opinion columns and letters to the editor, etc. It also includes cable television channels that allow guests on to vent their opinions.

The editors for such publications have to accept opinion articles as is, at least to the extent of the opinion and alleged statements of fact and theory made therein. And publication of an opinion column also does not act as an endorsement of the writer's opinion.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I have been keeping an eye on this thread since it started.

To provide context, it is my opinion that WND is to news just as much as The Enquirer is. But, we are not talking about their news articles (or those that they claim are news.), we are talking about their commentators (opinion journalist) that contribute to their site.

Given that, Mr. Farrah should gain a better handle on the English language. Effectively he torpedoed himself and his site by saying "misinformation". After reading the exchange and what it was in context to, I infer that his intent was to explain that stringent standards are not the same when it ......... While opinion columnist typically have to have some notoriety and editors don't want to have egg on their face when one opines on blatantly false information, some false information does get through.

While that all sounds really good and all, I cannot help but wonder how you can say it if you have actually been keeping an eye on this thread. If you want to dismiss the OP then that is fine but it did not take many posts for the harsh reality of it to pop up.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

WorldNetDaily, Serial Liar

A few choice “Greatest Hits:"

Not only did WND admit that "no witness verifies the truth" of what was said about Jones, "the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context."

After all, as ConWebWatch detailed, WND made no effort to fact-check the articles before purchasing the rights to publish them -- what some might call an act of journalistic negligence...

In 2004, WND uncritically repeated unverified rumors about a John Kerry affair and never apologized when they were proven false...

And WND editor Joseph Farah himself falsely claimed that money donated to a group by Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, went to "radical causes"; in fact, it was earmarked toward specific environmental projects.

But as Barack Obama surged in the primaries, WND reacted by uncritically repeating never-verified claims by career criminal Larry Sinclair that he and Obama did drugs and had sex.

conwebwatch.tripod.com...
ON TOPIC:

A few more examples of WND's intolerant, bigoted propaganda:

World Net Daily Sells Lies with the Pink Swastika

SOURCE

World Net Daily caught in Photoshop lie

(w/ pix)
SOURCE

Zombie lies about Obama at WorldNetDaily

SOURCE

And for those lacking reading and comprehension skills:

Editorials eh?

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
I simply suggested that the Birther claims would cease to exist if Obama was to come out and rub in all their faces, and prove that he is a Citizen.

Except that Obama has already done that, but birthers like you refuse to accept that fact!

As it is not about any bit of paper Obama produces.

Originally posted by IamCorrect
What part of "OPINION" column do you not understand?

What part of asking a random question addressed to no one in particular in a forum gets few answers do you not understand?

Originally posted by IamCorrect
The original posting to this thread is a cheap shot because it misleads readers into thinking this news organization admits to intentionally misrepresenting facts. That's not at all what Farah was saying.

Then I have to ask what part of "misINFORMATION" you are having a hard time with.

He was saying that his organization, like any other news organization that publishes "OPINION' columns, is going to inevitably be posting columns containing substantial misinformation. That includes pretty much every newspaper in the country that allows opinion columns and letters to the editor, etc. It also includes cable television channels that allow guests on to vent their opinions.

Then you need to read the article again. Everyone has editorials. No one needs to come out and "admit" they have editorials. The word "information" is quite specific.

The editors for such publications have to accept opinion articles as is, at least to the extent of the opinion and alleged statements of fact and theory made therein. And publication of an opinion column also does not act as an endorsement of the writer's opinion.

Gosh that kind sounds like stuff you just made up on a whim. There are no laws or rules stating any of that. The editors of publications do not have to accept anything as anything. Why just make things up? The reality is that there should be some journalistic integrity that prevents you from publishing known falsehoods as "information" and Farrah admits that WND is a little lax on that while Kinda Kurious proves it.

reply to post by Sinnthia


You sure like to be combative. The context of the quote from your OP is in reference to an opinion piece found on the World Net Daily website. The context of my post and discussion thereof is in regards to that context. It seems you want to bleed over to the whole of WND, which is fine, but take my post in the context it was clearly meant to be.

We aren't discussing, or rather, I was not discussing the various other content that WND has on their site. Your argument can be applied to opinion journalist throughout the media world. Or is it just conservative media that you like to make hit pieces on and then defend vigorously that stance?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

You sure like to be combative.

It would be behoove you to not attempt to dictate to me my personal likes and dislikes. Telling a stranger online what they enjoy as a matter of fact does not do much to bolster credibility. Besides, it takes two to tango the last time I checked. There are plenty of people I do not argue with so perhaps some introspection would be a great help in delineating the differences between you and them. See, because when you worry about you instead of telling me how to be me, you just seem more credible.

The context of the quote from your OP is in reference to an opinion piece found on the World Net Daily website. The context of my post and discussion thereof is in regards to that context. It seems you want to bleed over to the whole of WND, which is fine, but take my post in the context it was clearly meant to be.

Your entire post is about as "in context" as one can get. I took yours as it was but that did little to persuade me that "information" does not mean what it actually means.

We aren't discussing, or rather, I was not discussing the various other content that WND has on their site. Your argument can be applied to opinion journalist throughout the media world. Or is it just conservative media that you like to make hit pieces on and then defend vigorously that stance?

How did this become a left/right thing? WND is WND. I did not rattle off a list of conservative websites. It is just one. If you want to defend it by going after liberal media outlets then go for it. That is a weak and failed argument but I will bite. Got any quotes from any left wing opinion pieces discussing how they write "mis-information?" That is a pretty specific word.

Considering there is a very active birther thread right now with people posting lies from WND, being shown they are lies, and posting more lies from WND I find it hard to sympathize with this "opinion" arguement when I know what the word "misinformation" means. I am sure it helps to have a much smaller vocabulary so I am going to hit my head a few times and try again later.

reply to post by Sinnthia


The pot calls the kettle black; alas, let us set aside the tit-for-tat that we are engaging in.

How was my post not in context to the quoted article you produced? Was not that article pertaining to an opinion contributor of WND? Was not Mr. Farah's idiotic statement in reference to the information presented by that contributor? Lastly, did I not comment directly upon Mr. Farah's comments, which are in reference to false information in an opinion article?

When I made reference to you only bringing this down solely upon a conservative site I was not attempting to draw in nor create a left/right battle. It was an attempt to show that opinion pieces, regardless of political leanings have a higher probability of containing false information, or in the ridiculous words of Mr. Farah "misinformation".

Further, your inclined to see his words as an absolute truth that his goal is to spread misinformation. Maybe so. It just isn't how I see it given the context of this particular case. I also wasn't setting out to change your mind. I set out to provide another view upon the OP with a plausible argument.

In my opinion, those that take information from all middle-man sources as truth need to revisit how to research and critically think about a subject. That is why I care not what the source of an article is, unless I can get to the original source. So sites like WND on the right and Media Matters on the left are inherently partisan respectively. Each will utilize tactics that make minor changes to bits of information to push their desired agenda to their base readership.

At this point, I agree that we will disagree on the context of Farah's statement. What we apparently agree upon is that we both don't see WND as a credible source and this puts its credibility of its opinion contributors at stake merely by connection to the site.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The pot calls the kettle black; alas, let us set aside the tit-for-tat that we are engaging in.

You set it aside as I never called you anything so I am not sure what that is all about anyway.

How was my post not in context to the quoted article you produced?

Who said it was not in context?

Was not that article pertaining to an opinion contributor of WND? Was not Mr. Farah's idiotic statement in reference to the information presented by that contributor? Lastly, did I not comment directly upon Mr. Farah's comments, which are in reference to false information in an opinion article?

Yeah and I do not see anywhere I contested that. Where are you reading it?

When I made reference to you only bringing this down solely upon a conservative site I was not attempting to draw in nor create a left/right battle. It was an attempt to show that opinion pieces, regardless of political leanings have a higher probability of containing false information, or in the ridiculous words of Mr. Farah "misinformation".

If that is truly what it was an attempt at, it was a failure. Please go back and read what you wrote again. It was a combative inference toward my bias for simply bringing this story up. It is the exact same thing people do by bringing up Bush for no reason other than to distract from Obama. That does not work either.

Further, your inclined to see his words as an absolute truth that his goal is to spread misinformation. Maybe so. It just isn't how I see it given the context of this particular case. I also wasn't setting out to change your mind. I set out to provide another view upon the OP with a plausible argument.

Please take a look around the threads posting easily debunked lies that source back to WND and come back to tell me all about that other view. It has gotten to the point that if I see WND as a source, I am willing to bet my life savings the story will turn out to be false. Correlation? "Information" is information, opinion is opinion. Every good journalist knows the difference.

In my opinion, those that take information from all middle-man sources as truth need to revisit how to research and critically think about a subject. That is why I care not what the source of an article is, unless I can get to the original source. So sites like WND on the right and Media Matters on the left are inherently partisan respectively. Each will utilize tactics that make minor changes to bits of information to push their desired agenda to their base readership.

There you go again. Trying to toss barbs out in every direction, hoping to dilute the message. This is about WND and their misinformation. When you have something like that for MM, you go crazy with that thread. Media Matters could be telling a new lie every second. I could care less "in the context of this article." See how that all works out?

At this point, I agree that we will disagree on the context of Farah's statement. What we apparently agree upon is that we both don't see WND as a credible source and this puts its credibility of its opinion contributors at stake merely by connection to the site.

So while you agree that WND is not a credible source, you had to add that Farah 'probably' meant to use a different word and that left wing sites are bad too. Thanks.