World Net Daily is a legitimate news outlet, albeit one with bias.
But do you concede that 4 out of 5 dentists choose Listerine?
The link doesn’t work, but out of curiosity, what actual news does WND report? Isn’t this one of those tabloids you see when you are checking out at the store that has BatBoy on the cover, or a skull giving predictions about 2012 or some such? Or am I mistaking it for another tabloid?
-XT
I think you’re think of Weekly World News.
World Net Daily (AKA World Nut Daily, AKA Wingnut Daily) is a right wing political web site. It’s been one of the primary drivers of the Birther nonsense.
ETA the link works for me.
That’s Weekly World News. Neither it nor WND report news. WND reports how the news villifies Democrats and/or vindicates Republicans regardless of whether this is actually so or not. I read on WND how Iraq’s weapons were moved to Syria, for example.
My bad. Thanks. 
Probably why I’m not familiar with it…I try to stay away from the crazy when possible.
It’s being blocked, probably by the content filter on the firewall here.
-XT
Just 'cause you recognize that someone’s out to get you doesn’t mean that they’re not out to get you.
I’m sorry, *what *Bush witch hunt? When was Bush, you know, taken to court over anything? Nice false equivalency ya got there.
Dems have been outraged (“wet and spluttering”) for years now. Until recently, though, it didn’t mean a thing- you guys could safely ignore them. Now that the Dems are in the majority, though, you’re all butthurt and pointing to something, *anything *the Dems have done which is even remotely similar… and hoping that if you point loudly enough we’ll think it’s all fair.
So they’re a news outlet… with a bias. Why, exactly, should the Obama administration take them seriously, again?
Oh, you poor persecuted thing, you. Complaining that your side is less popular accomplishes what, exactly? If popularity is what you’re looking for, maybe you’d be happier at some other website.
I’ll just have to take your word for it, then. I’m sure everyone thinks that they, personally, are more fair than anyone else.
Oh, look! We haven’t seen a Kool-Aid comparison in hours!
One thing I’ve noticed- whenever someone accuses the other side of “drinking the kool-aid”, odds are they’re actually the ones with the red mustache.
WND has reported on the Birther conspiracy, immigration, etc. Granted, there is a lot of commentary, but it is a news source (albeit one with bias).
If you look at the front page of World Nut Daily you could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that they’re a bunch of Musllimphobic nutjobs and not a reputable news source.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned already but :
In May 2008, then-White House counselor Ed Gillespie publicly sent a scathing letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, accusing them of deceptive editing and blurring the lines between “news” and “opinion.” Soon after, then-White House press secretary Dana Perino expounded upon the campaign against NBC from the White House podium:PERINO: The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President’s policies are being mischaracterized, or the situations on the ground weren’t being accurately reflected in the reporting. We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point.
Fox’s take on it :
[INDENT]– INGRAHAM: Now Karl, why would the White House agree to do an interview with Richard Engel? I mean, this is the guy who, you know, really didn’t want to give the surge any credit and NBC, an organization, obviously that’s called this a civil war. Now it’s kind of not gone back and changed his view on that. We’re in a recession, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, why bother really at this point? [The O’Reilly Factor, 5/19/09]
– E.D. HILL: You know, I’m sure you know from watching this program that, you know, Bill has, you know, has been reporting for more than a year on a pattern suggesting that NBC News basically panders to the left and is, in essence, in the pocket for Barack Obama. Why go on a venue like that to begin with?
GILLESPIE: Go on a venue like MSNBC?
HILL: Yes.
GILLESPIE: I don’t know. It’s — you know, the – you know, there are elements there who are clearly advocates for a candidate or a point of view, not even commentaries or commentators really or analysts. So I don’t know why he would. [The O’Reilly Factor, 5/22/08]
[/INDENT]
I already admitted they have some bias. So do the networks. For Obama to ignore them is damaging to America.
Obama is not ignoring Fox, and WND is not even an ostensible news source. It’s a pure political advocacy site.
Comparing the broadcast networks to WND is in Glenn Beck territory.
Comparing Fox News to outlets that are–at worst–merely biased in some aspects, is in Glenn Beck territory.
I don’t deny the part you quoted, so far as that goes, but I do disagree with the conclusions they (and you) draw from it. I don’t think the libertarian model is perfect or flawless; IMO the criticisms of it are mostly valid. But I find it dubious to therefore we must enshrine a self-selected group of experts who will definitively determine truth and falsehood for the poor, benighted masses. It isn’t the way we run our legal system, it isn’t the way we run science, it isn’t the way we run our government.
Actually, I need to step back – it would have been dubious to embrace the authoritarian media model in 1950; it’s flat-out absurd to do so in 2009, given the direction the media (all of it, including but certainly not limited to Fox) has taken in the last 60 years. If most journalists were studiously, meticulously practicing their craft, you might have a case. But everyone knows this isn’t the case. Survey after survey shows that people do not trust the media to accurately report the facts; and again and again we see incidents that show why. Sweet god, last week we had news anchors on the “real” networks and newspaper columnists all over the country repeatedly ascribing quotes to Rush Limbaugh with no sourcing save freaking wikipedia. Whatever one thinks of Limbaugh, this is obviously journalistic malpractice; in the UK, it’d easily be grounds for a libel suit. Hell, it’d get anyone laughed off the SDMB. Yet, CNN and the rest happily report it as fact for a week, then issue a half-hearted one-time semi-retraction. These are the “experts” we should give our unalloyed trust?
I’m sure some Fox viewers really do buy the “fair and balanced line” wholeheartedly. But I suspect that most are well aware of the bias, but watch it because they believe Fox will give them information that other networks won’t. And the objective fact is, they’re right.
Can you think of a single news story that made Obama and/or his people look bad that was broken by anyone other than Fox? I’m not talking about stories that get dropped in their lap and they more or less have to cover; I’m talking about things that reporters go out and investigate and find out. Every candidate, every administration, has its embarrassing stories; Bush did, Clinton did, they all do, and Obama is no exception. It’s par for the course. But AFAICT, the only ones finding those embarrassing stories on Obama is Fox.
Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, the ACORN kerfuffle, and so on … all were reported on Fox, and only later – in many cases much later – did other media pick up on them (IIRC, the NYT did not even mention the Jones flap until he’d already resigned) I can’t think of a single damaging or embarrassing story on Obama that originated anywhere but Fox. If I’m wrong, correct me, but I can’t think of any. Doesn’t that seem to indicate that Fox is filling a need in the marketplace of ideas? That the other outlets have some pretty glaring blind spots.
(Of course, the more blindly partisan can insist that these are not legitimate stories, but that’s ridiculous. Candidate Obama had to gave several speeches about Wright because he knew voters were concerned about it, President Obama accepted Jones’ resignation for the same reason, and it’s also why Congress defunded ACORN.)
Finally, and perhaps most to the point: whatever the merits of the authoritarian media model, it’s not the case the administration is making. If they were also criticizing MSNBC, I’d still disagree, though I’d credit them with consistency. But that isn’t the case at all. They’re only going after opinion journalism that doesn’t agree with them.
So who is Obama’s version of Jeff Gannon of Talon News?
Shodan, nice try, citing the Moonie Times as if it had any credibility. Or does it, to you?
OK, just for the fun of it: Cite?
IOW, when did you stop even pretending?
What network is Glenn Beck on?
All those stories were phony, contrived and manufactured. Not one of them contained any revelations about Obama. Not one of them was newsworthy.
He was on CNN Headline News for the longest time. That never made any sense to me.
He didn’t go full metal lunatic until he was on Fox, though.
I would say asking Keith Ellison to prove he’s not a terrorist simply because he’s Muslim (seriously - for no other reason) is full metal lunatic. I would also say claiming his opposition to openly gay people serving in the military is not due to any homophobia, but because their actions might derail the mission is crazy. 'Cause ehh, the gays are going to fuck each other in the ass so much, that the terrorists win?
But your point, I suppose, is right. He managed to go even crazier than that after he left for Fox.
His act went crazier, that is. He’s an entertainer. Are there really all that many people who take it at face value?
True. Of course, the converse is also true…just because you think someone is out to get you doesn’t mean they really are.
All of which is irrelevant of course to what you quoted and my own response. Certainly the Pubs are out to get the Dems…and vice versa.
You are kidding, right?
I should probably point out to you at this point (since it seems to have escaped you) that I’m not a Republican…so, my butt is perfectly fine at this point.
For the same reason a Republican president needs to take left wing news agencies seriously. If you don’t get this then I’m at a loss to explain it to you. It’s sort of Politics 101 stuff.
Again, are you serious here? I have to ask because my normal response of ‘are you sure you are comprehending what I’m writing’ may border on a mod rebuke, and I’m not really in the mood for that atm.
Naturally. The evidence (from your own responses) is fairly conclusive however who is more biased here. Of course, MMV and all that.
Why thank you…I thought it quite clever as well. I COULD have worked in ‘nuke em from orbit’ or something about 1920’s death rays, but thought that would be a bit much…
Remove the red mustache from thine own lips before attempting to comment on the mine own…
-XT