The XXX Press
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!
I tend to believe WND before most of the alternatives.
I question the reporting of any news source. Why are you bringing up “100% correct”? No one and nothing is perfect. If you choose to rely on WND, that’s your business. I think it’s amateurish and unreliable— and their recent reporting on the revelation of the Ark of the Covenant is a concrete example. [It was terribly written, not properly sourced, and false.]
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?
The XXX Press
Thank you for your answer but you are wrong.
Well, if I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last. I’m not losing any sleep over it.
So where do you get personally get your unbiased news?
I asked the same of Star Traveler. Where do they get their unbiased news?
You said — If the sources were confused, then WND should have posted the article with appropriate skepticism, rather than “World Net Daily Exclusive” and full acceptance.
—
Ummm..., the “appropriate skepticism”, as you are saying was needed — would be to take a “position” on it, and not simply just “reporting” it...
Now, that’s different than an overall “worldview” that a news outlet may take on things. And that “worldview” (in and of itself) may indicate the choices that one makes in printing this article and this story, versus another one.
But, to indicate skepticism is going a bit further than simply an overall worldview. I think that the MSM does go to that extent (but they are careful to try and “cover it up” that this is what they are doing) — in showing “skepticism” in certain things. You know like skepticism for the Republican’s viewpoints or agendas and so on.
So, one has to be careful with skepticism, I think, if you’re a news outlet.
You said — So where do you get personally get your unbiased news?
—
Well, first of all, I think unbiased news does not exist, no matter where you go. So, if you’re looking for that, you’ll never find it.
All news outlets and agencies have their agendas and worldviews and biases. What you do is simply recognize, know, and understand that worldview and bias and go from there.
Now, the MSM may have a worldview which will tolerate nothing from our Creator God (the one that our founding fathers knew) and thus, they will have a worldview that precludes that Creator God from having anything to do with our government or interacting with our lives as citizens in this country and influencing and affecting politics.
I know that. And so, I can read news from those sources, know that this is where they are coming from and understand that I’m going to get certain biases there, from that viewpoint.
It’s likewise, here on Free Republic. There are *biases* all over the place here, and it erupts into “violence” at times (violent outbursts and namecalling and accusations and so on... that kind of “violence” doncha know... LOL...).
So, you get to even know the “bias” of fellow FReepers, too, as they discount or criticize or categorize you according to their own biases.
That’s why I call those others the “World-Nut-Daily” complainers... LOL... talking about their biases, which of course, reveals my bias...
There is no bias-free location for your news... :-)
Ah, the question of a person who takes my post personally.
I don't play that game.
That is a good point. However, WND takes a "let's throw this out there and see what happens" attitude with some things.
You said — However, WND takes a “let’s throw this out there and see what happens” attitude with some things.
—
Just because I do agree with the general worldview of WorldNetDaily doesn’t mean that I would like everything that they present. And in this case, I’m not talking about the Ark...
I’m talking about the incessant number of articles on Obama’s birth certificate issue. That’s about like these “birthers” on Free Republic and their incessant Magpie chattering, whom I call the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd... LOL...
But, that doesn’t mean that I don’t like all things “WorldNetDaily” though. I think they’re a good outlet for the Judeo-Christian Western worldview, and they do provide that for several writers and authors, plus their own stories.
I also think they are driven by the need to get viewers to their website, as any news agency would be driven to do, too. But, that’s just “business”, that’s all. I’m glad to have a business which presents the “worldview” that others of the MSM absolutely disdain.
And *that* is why you’re going to find a story on WorldNetDaily about the Ark of the Covenant, and not on all the other MSM news sources...
So, that’s fine, throw it out there, for something that might be something to pay attention to, or not. Let the reader decide. This kind of thing fits entirely into the Judeo-Christian Western worldview and I appreciate getting notified of these things (even though, when I heard about it, I doubted the original source’s motives as to what was going to be shown and what was going to be done, as you can see from my posts about it a few days ago...).
So, you are telling me there is no unbiased news; truth or not?
You asked — So, you are telling me there is no unbiased news; truth or not?
—
There’s truth in all news stories (and it varies as to how much), but there are no unbiased news agencies and outlets, as all of them have their “bias” and so does each poster here (along with everyone else on the planet... LOL..)
No, they will blame Boooosh and the neo-con jooooos.
World Net Daily is not the problem, the problem is the lying crypto-Marxist demagogue who apparently usurped the White House with the willing acquiescence of the mainstream media.
It is never a waste of time to battle tirelessly for ANY provision of the Constitution. We don’t have to apologize for whatever whomever thinks of our efforts. The truth will out and we will be vindicated in the end.
Oh..., I don’t think that WorldNetDaily is a problem. I like it...
But, I do think that the Obama Derangment Syndrome people may need some medication... LOL...
However, aside from all that, as to whom I place the blame for Obama, it’s not “Obama” doncha know..., it’s those almost 10 million voters more that voted for him than for our guy... they were the real problem.
I tend to agree with you on this.
Me too.
That's what I've been saying for several months.
Same here. Use their tactics against them. If you can find their dirty little secrets, report them far and wide.
The MSM,
OWNED [LITERALLY]
MANAGED [LITERALLY]
LOCK STOCK AND BARREL
BY THE GLOBALIST OLIGARCHY
were
ORDERED to do so. Of course, so many are dyed-in-the-wool globalists themselves, they wouldn’t have to be ordered to kowtow slavishly before lord OThuga in word and deed 24/7.
INDEED.
WND
has done a lot of good patriotic service at a very needful time.
Of course it’s not perfect.
I believe their motives are right and their policies, practices and principles are right to mostly right.
And, they have sources that the MSM either does not have or would only ignore.
I love World Net Daily. It has far more credibility than any Democrat big-city newspaper or network newsroom, hands down.
= = =
INDEED.
Though that’s an extremely low bar. LOL.
As though CNN et al
were better???????????????????????????
Thanks.
That’s been my assessment from this distance.
I appreciate your insider’s perspective.
Blessings,
They reported on the ARK stuff as it was presented to them.
I do not fault them for that in the least.
Sheesh.
There are lots of nuts running around loose and in charge of the White House.
Reporting on the nuts does not automatically equal one being a nut as well.
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.