Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/5/2004 11:17:48 AM EST
Found an interesting story, one I'd heard alluded to before.

Forgive if it's too tin foil hat-ish.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 1:14:17 PM EST
Reliable compared to what? CBS? CNN? The stuff you see posted here?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 1:21:28 PM EST
I take what I see as "straight reporting" on WND with as big a grain of salt as anything that comes out of ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/FOX. In short, I don't trust any of 'em. WND might be a little looser with the facts, even.

The op-eds are often interesting, though.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:16:30 PM EST
without reading the article, no
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 4:09:52 PM EST
Think "National Enquirer" when you see WND.

I like the opinion columns, but it was a WND article last year that had everyone in a tizzy with $100 dollar M1 Garands from the "DCM". The M14 article. Remember that one? Par for the course. Not a single fact checked on that 20 year old retread article.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 9:09:41 PM EST
WND is a joke. The guy running it, Farah, spins whatever conspiracy theories he wants for the day without regard for facts or analysis or even the bare minimal use of brain cells.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:25:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 10:27:43 PM EST by JackBurton]
Yeah, and then fucktards like Hannity cite it as a credible news source.

WTF is that moveon.org link doing there???
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:27:18 PM EST
I perfer the Weekly World News
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:56:13 AM EST
Most of the headlines are linked to primary sources. There, you would have to consider the credibility of the linked news service.

The internal content (editorial, etc.) has a conservative Christian slant to it. I personally don't see that as a bad thing, understanding that it is editorial opinion.

For some interesting reading, go through their archived articles on TWA 800.

I visit WND almost every day.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:05:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Most of the headlines are linked to primary sources. There, you would have to consider the credibility of the linked news service.

The internal content (editorial, etc.) has a conservative Christian slant to it. I personally don't see that as a bad thing, understanding that it is editorial opinion.

For some interesting reading, go through their archived articles on TWA 800.

I visit WND almost every day.


The links to other sources, like Reuters or AP, have their own known biases.

My problem with WND is that their "reporting" is NOT confined to their marked-as-such editorials. Their "Chinese hacker" thing was some dumbass "reporter" who works/worked for WND itself, who went to somewhere in China and chatted with some kids at an internet cafe. The "reporter" then prattled off all sorts of paranoid nonsense about Chinese military computer networks, relying solely on what these kids -- who were obviously not merely pulling his leg, but actually ripping it off him and beating him over the head with it -- told him about their exploits and the future direction of the Chinese military's computer networks.

The "stories" were just plain ridiculous, and were treated as "hard news", not editorializing, not Walter Mitty daydreaming. That's the sort of crap that WND puts out under its own bylines. The rest, you can get off Yahoo or any other AP/AFP/Reuters affiliate.
Top Top