Give us an example, since in order to "know" anything about Newsmax one is required to know that they routinely (as you say) "twist" stories from other sources.
"Routine" is your word, not mine, although it may fit. They so color their stories that I stopped reading them on a regular basis long ago.
I did read a recent piece of theirs headlined "John McCain: Torture Worked on Me," which claimed that McCain's experiences as a victim of torture contradict his oft-repeated assertion that torture fails to produce actionable intelligence.
Typically of NewsLax, they only tell half the story. I'm not a big fan of McCain or his "anti-torture" resolution; however, one shouldn't have to mislead or lie to make a point. McCain has repeatedly said over the years that torture on him resulted in him giving NO useful information to the Viet Cong and that he gave quite a bit of FALSE information. Was this in the NewsLax story? Of course not. They picked out a couple of minor USELESS tidbits of info McCain gave to his captors, while ignoring the rest of his remarks.
Again, this is why when I read a story from NewsLax, even when they are quoting another source (as they did with the McCain story and most of their stories) I wonder what they are leaving out. Obviously, from reading some of the other posts on this thread, I'm not the only one who asks the same question. If they reliably reported the gist of this story from the WSJ, that's great.