[Doctor Stochastic]

...they have never claimed to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

They could ask someone for help. Real journalistic endeavors do have scientific editors. If they wish to play the game, WND should remember that the headslap is still legal. I don't get the point of publishing misleading comments such as "Modern physics is now considering a theory ...." which is clearly false. When WND does things like this, it reflects on their other reporting. A publication (internet, refereed, popular, newspaper, etc.) is still only as good as their reputation; that's why Molly Ivins isn't taken seriously. Clearly WND is not a reliable source for anything at all.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your reply! To me, it seems extremely difficult to find any large publication which is free of bias, e.g. New York Times, Washington Post. And we can count on second and third tier publications (Drudge, tabloids, internet publications) to be sensational though not well researched.

IMHO, we are best informed when we read them all with tongue in cheek – selecting points of interest and doing our own investigation to verify what seems to ring true.