- Text smaller
- Text bigger
WorldNetDaily.com is as legitimate a news service — if not more so
— than any of the “big media companies.” We’ve proven that time and
again for three years.
Having said that, “media critic” Norman Solomon also owes every news
reporter and editor here at WND an apology.
article about WND’s editor Joe Farah, featured in Office.com on Friday, Solomon called all of us liars.
He didn’t say it in so many words, but tell me what you would think if he said this about something you had worked hard to research, source, edit, write and publish:
“As for the veracity (of WND),” Solomon says, “I wouldn’t stake my life on the veracity of any of it.”
Wouldn’t “stake your life” on us, Mr. Solomon? That’s too bad — if you did stake your life on our honesty, you’d be around a long, long time.
Maybe you’d rather bet your life on CNN / Time Warner, Mr. Solomon. Yeah, they’ve got a great track record of being honest and, well, loaded with veracity. But then again, you have probably forgotten the “Operation Tailwind” fiasco; our own Joe Farah
the lid off that whopping media lie, which ended up causing more casualties at CNN than anywhere else.
Perhaps you missed our Citibank-firearms business series. Because of WND, Citibank
reversed its policy of not doing business with people with gun-related businesses. If that story lacked “veracity,” Mr. Solomon, I submit to you that Citibank would not have had a policy to change.
Or maybe you prefer your news coverage sprinkled with a little military
psychological warfare attached — i.e., propaganda. CNN is good at that, too, besides lying about what U.S. soldiers did and did not do in Vietnam.
Then, of course, there are our sources who
pass things to us
first because (ahem) they don’t trust those establishment, high-dollar news corporations you obviously prefer.
But, I guess government documents, witness statements, first-hand accounts and actual testimony in corruption cases aren’t really “honest” if they are printed online in this newspaper, eh Mr. Solomon?
And, I guess when
Matt Drudge single-handedly broke the Lewinsky scandal story, the ensuing impeachment of President Bill Clinton was just a mass hallucination, huh?
It is precisely this kind of moronic and sophomoric assessment of something genuine and genuinely good that deprives the American people of truth and honesty in the media — not the other way around. Guys like Solomon are impediments to truthful and honest reporting, not the arbiters or guarantors of it. People like him give all journalists a bad name — even those of us that are trying to change the perception of journalism and its participants.
If Solomon had really attempted to be fair instead of judgmental, he himself would have found the examples I gave (and the many others I did not mention) as proof that WND is a top-notch, professional, and honest purveyor of news and information.
More importantly, though, I’d like to know what this “media critic” thinks we’ve lied about? The Office.com story didn’t say — either that, or Solomon didn’t offer any examples.
Here’s more from that interview: “The executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and an associate of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Solomon cautions readers to be savvy when they come upon sites that call themselves independent news agencies. The public should assess funding and other issues when determining the type of reporting on a site.”
“The myth is that we have these independent Web sites that come out of nowhere,” he says, “but they really have tremendous economic backing.”
Maybe he’s talking about ABPNews.com or one of a few others that had “tremendous economic backing” but are now broke and on the verge of shutting down. ‘Cause he sure as hell isn’t talking about WND or
The Drudge Report.
How’s that for a “fairness and accuracy in the media” advocate? What he says sounds like a “myth” to me.
It’s one thing to be fairly criticized with examples cited that justify that criticism. It’s completely another to have someone make blanket assertions about the alleged lack of credibility in a news organization solely because it is Web-based.
“Media watchdog,” indeed, Mr. Solomon. Give me a break.
And, an apology for calling me and my colleagues liars.