Found an interesting story, one I'd heard alluded to before.

Forgive if it's too tin foil hat-ish.

Reliable compared to what?  CBS?  CNN?  The stuff you see posted here?

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.

without reading the article, no

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.

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.

Yeah, and then fucktards like Hannity cite it as a credible news source.

WTF is that moveon.org link doing there???

I perfer the Weekly World News

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.

Quoted: 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.