[DrewsMum]

He didn’t demand anything.

So you don’t think ANY source should be banned? Is there never a reason to not use a source? Of course there. Credibility is the number one reason.

There are blogs that can’t be sourced in breaking news and are still treated as red headed step kids around here, so why is WND given more face time and credit than many credible conservative blogs? I’m not pushing for blog acceptance here, I am just saying that sources are discriminated against all the time around here (and rightfully so), so why shouldn’t WND be held to at least the same standards?

[Strategerist]

WND given more face time and credit than many credible conservative blogs?

Because WND tells people what they want to hear, and the primary criteria for whether something is true or false is whether it's something they want to hear or not.

And yes, people WANT to hear that North Korea is about to EMP the US.
People enjoy being outraged more than perhaps anything other than sex, and it lets people go on anti-Obama rants. Also lots of people have fantasies about building up their Warlord survivalist empire after society collapses.

I have to emphasize again that EMP is a legitimate concern, but I'm 99.99999% certain that the author of this piece is lying about "U.S. officials" having a specific concern about a North Korean EMP at this moment, and the claim about the US being on alert for such a thing at this moment is false.

[Notary Sojac]

I don't think WND should be banned, but then I don't think that any site should be outright banned as a source except for those where there is a copyright dispute.

But I would suggest a different category (Fantasy "News") for WND and the like, which would take it out of the breaking news sidebar and separate it from sources which have at least a minimal level of credibility.