There's "true," and then there's true. Newsmax an WND are highly selective with which facts they choose to share. They don't lie outright, but they spin like a Bolshoi ballerina on a meth bender.
Example: The headline atop this thread says that UWEC banned dorm Bible study. That is false. At most, it banned RAs from leading Bible study in the dorms they supervise.
Example: We do not know what other forms of association and organization RAs are prohibited from engaging in. NM offered carefully-pruned quotes and a misleading headline to cultivate outrage. Judging from this thread, they know what makes their garden grow.
Example: This alleged outrage occurred on July 26, and NM posted it on November 2. If this such an atrocity, why sit on it for more than three months?
No, I cannot prove that the story isn't true. I also can't conclusively disprove the existence of BatBoy, the Weekly World News favorite. As NM and WWN have roughly the same credibility, I find the stories equally plausible.
Well I guess they could have a two paragraph headline and explain that perhaps not every single instance of bible study would be banned,and perhaps there are other things that RA's aren't allowed to do, but given the fact that they have one sentence to work with I think they hit pretty close to the mark.
Given the fact that they provide names and and information that can easily be verified, I think your analogy to "bat boy" is simply a smart#@!# remark that serves as another way of saying, "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I sure have an axe to grind with Newsmax and WND. I can't prove a single thing they are saying is a lie, but they sure do suck."
And by the way, I doubt they "sat on anything". Newsmax is just like drudge, they put links and summaries of stories up as they come to their attention, they don't claim to have reporters on staff. I imagine a story like this that gets no play in the MSM, was not known to the Newsmax staff on the day it happened.