Yesterday, a story reported exclusively in WND became the hottest topic in the country as Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama sparred over a statement by a Hamas leader that sounded much like an endorsement of the latter.
There were hundreds of stories about the political feud in print. The story led most TV and radio newscasts in the late afternoon. It was the buzz of many talk shows from coast to coast.
All of these stories, newscasts and talk shows have one amazing thing in common: Not one mentioned the context of Hamas' kind words about Obama, the forum in which they were made, or the name of the only news agency that published them.
It was almost supernatural.
I have seen WND slighted in this way in the past by my colleagues in the establishment press. But this example shows the lengths they will go not to mention the source of an original story – a story that becomes, even for a moment in time, the biggest story of the day.
Think about this. When John McCain joked on Comedy Central about Hamas preferring Obama, did any of the reporters writing these stories for the New York Times, Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc., bother to ask the key question: "Where on Earth did Hamas ever state its preferences for Obama? We didn't report that – who reported it?"
Maybe they did ask themselves that question. Maybe they didn't. But they certainly did not let their readers know the answer. Do they just assume that all their readers are familiar enough with WND's reporting that they don't even need to mention it?
I don't think so.
I think they don't like getting shown up by WND.
They don't like to acknowledge there are reporters like Aaron Klein who actually talks face to face with leaders of Hamas – going where most of their reporters would fear to tread.
They don't like to acknowledge there is real independent journalism being done on the Internet – not just celebrity gossip and political horse-race handicapping.
They don't like to acknowledge the impact WND and the New Media are actually having on our society including our political system.
It's just hard for me to believe people I have worked with for 30 years could be so stingy with credit for stories done by others who aren't part of their little club any more.
I know I may sound whiny and over-sensitive about this slight, but I'll tell you why. It's not just about me and my ego. I have a team here – a solid, experienced, professional news team. I have to watch out for them. I have to watch out for Aaron Klein, who risks his life on a daily basis interviewing dangerous people. The least he should expect for that kind of work is credit!
It is indecent and shameful that other media people would overlook his work in this way. They overlooked his original story. It wasn't deemed important enough to be picked up by any other news agency. Only when it was picked up by a presidential candidate was it ever mentioned again. But, even then, not one other media enterprise had the common decency to explain the "who, what, when, where, why and how" of that story's origin.
Unbelievable!
I'm flabbergasted, as you can probably tell.
To its credit, when McCain first started referencing the Hamas-Obama story, Fox News let its readers and viewers know what McCain was talking about – a story reported only by WND.
I know what you're thinking. You're saying, "Farah, get over it. What do you expect? You should know better."
But I won't accept that.
If the Big Media won't credit WND for its stories, maybe I should not credit them for theirs.
What do you think?
Â
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
Â
Order Farah's latest book, "Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution"