Posted on 06/27/2009 11:08:48 AM PDT by Evil Slayer
Managing Editor David Kupelian takes on XXX-rated press corps...............
Dear WorldNetDaily reader,
Everyone reading this knows exactly why we elected the most left-wing president in history, even though a recent Gallup poll reveals conservatives are the largest ideological group in the nation.
It's because Barack Obama had an advantage no other presidential candidate has ever had – the total backing of the "mainstream media," which was so enchanted by the prospect of a young, eloquent, cool, liberal – and for the first time in history, black – president, that they essentially picked Obama up, held him high over head, and giddily raced together across the finish line.
Indeed, immediately after Election Day, when it no longer mattered, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell publicly admitted the paper's reporters and editors had utterly neglected to vet either Obama, who "deserved tougher scrutiny," or Biden – an omission she referred to as "one gaping hole in [the Post's] coverage."
But the problem with journalism today is not just "gaping holes in coverage" and temporary abdication of professional journalism standards. Our "big media" have come increasingly to resemble the state-run press we see in China, with its gigantic Xinhua "News" Agency, in reality a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party. Or maybe a more apt comparison would be with Russia, where although criticism of the government can be found in some newspapers and on the Internet, the country's national television channels are essentially extensions of the state: "They are all either controlled by the Kremlin or run by editors who know what not to say," says Allison Gill, director of the Human Rights Watch office in Russia.
How did the press arrive at such a sorry state?
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Sorry. Bill Clinton was our first black president.
So when America is like Zimbabwe the media will say “Ooops, Our Bad”????
and for the first time in history, black – president
Are we talking skin, or heart?
WND’s heart is in the right place, but after numerous stories that turned out bogus (’Ark of the Covenant’ about to be unveiled?) their credibility is very questionable.
Oh Boy! Get ready for the “World-Nut-Daily” crowd, coming in on this thread... LOL...
It’s really funny.... some of these “World-Nut-Daily” crowd will cry and complain more about WorldNetDaily than they will about the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times or the Washington Post... :-)
I suspect that a lot of those complainers don’t like the Christian worldview that WorldNetDaily had in a lot of its articles, when reporting about world news and news at home...
Well.., ain’t that too bad... :-)
You said — WND’s heart is in the right place, but after numerous stories that turned out bogus (’Ark of the Covenant’ about to be unveiled?) their credibility is very questionable.
—
Well, I saw that story, and it was a very confusing story, right at the source of the story, itself. BUT, it was also a very interesting story and one that many readers right here on Free Republic were interested in following.
Now, I thought, that right at the very source of the story, that it was nothing to get excited about (and you can see that from my posts on it, here...) — but I never criticized WorldNetDaily for presenting the “news” that *was out there* and *was announced* to the world.
Just because the original sources were so confused doesn’t mean that WorldNetDaily itself is the problem, in reporting what was there.
I love World Net Daily. It has far more credibility than any Democrat big-city newspaper or network newsroom, hands down.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Oh, and I will say one more thing about WorldNetDaily, in that there *is* a crowd here on Free Republic who does appreciate the “viewpoint” that it has — even though I’m not entirely enthused with WorldNetDaily over it....
That’s the Obama “birther” crowd, or what some have labeled as the “Obama Derangement Syndrome” crowd here on Free Republic. I argued strongly before the election for Obama to provide full documentation for his Constitutional qualifications for the office he’s in now. But, it did make enough difference to a large number of voters and he was voted in.
So, there is a crowd here, on Free Republic, who is still operating as if Obama isn’t President, even now... LOL... Heck, even I know he’s President; I’m not that dumb... :-) [even though I didn’t vote for him, and never would under any circumstances...]
The Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd does seem to post WorldNetDaily information here and likes their persistence in the matter. I just think this Obama Derangement Syndrome Crowd here, could concentrate on things that *will make a difference* instead of stuff that is going absolutely nowhere... (as we can well see... ).
Anyway, that crowd still likes WorldNetDaily articles in that regard, on Obama’s lack of documentation...
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You asked — And what’s all that supposed to mean?
—
Ummm..., that means that there is a group of Free Republic posters here that rag all over WorldNetDaily for their news articles and does not like their Christian worldview take on reporting the news.... LOL...
I call them the “World-Nut-Daily” bunch... :-)
I hope you’re not one of those “nuts”...
Just out of curiosity, what news sites DO you consider NOT questionable? Which one or ones do you consider 100% reliable? Which one or ones do you consider have NEVER reported something that later was found to be incorrect? Which one or ones (other then the Holy Bible) do you think are worthy of your OK?
If the sources were confused, then WND should have posted the article with appropriate skepticism, rather than "World Net Daily Exclusive" and full acceptance.
“” but after numerous stories that turned out bogus (’Ark of the Covenant’ about to be unveiled?) their credibility is very questionable.””
This statement applies to any media source on the planet. No outlet is infallible, but WND does a good job on many issues. Compared to the state-run-media, WND is a scion of truth and justice.
You said — But that’s the whole point: Why would WND report before sorting out the confusion? That’s what people expect— reliable reporting. WND doesn’t.
—
Not necessarily so, because they were quoting, as much as was available, the original sources, and thus that lets them speak for themselves. Confusion out there in the world is *not* going to necessarily be sorted out by a news article. It can report the confusion that exists and not be a problem.
I see that is exactly what happened. They did not say that it was going to happen or that this was true — they simply reported what those others were saying for themselves...
It’s called “reporting”
The problem I see — here (with some people complaining about this) — is basically from the standpoint of one of *two positions* (at least what they’re saying). It’s either (1) report what was said even if it is not sorted out and even if it is confused, or (2) don’t report it at all, if it’s confused and/or controversial.
It turns out that *because* the subject is controversial that certain *complainers* wish it was not reported *at all*.
I’m in favor of reporting what is known, so that people can sort it out on their own, if they want to...
"white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."Therefore, Bill Clinton is our first black president. Zero is just #2.
I challenge anyone to find any news outlet that gets the story right 100% of the time. Even Fox News Scouts screws up from time to time. From what I've seen, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, et al are wrong far more often than WND.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.