On May 4, 2015, WND celebrates 18 years in business. This is no insignificant thing. For any website to sustain its operations and employ a staff of contributors and employees for close to two decades is already unusual. For that site to do so while in constant opposition to the aggregate ideology represented by more "mainstream" news and entertainment is that much more so. It is therefore strangely apropos that the last few weeks saw the publication of yet another commentary about WND generally – and this column specifically – by one Terry Krepel, a liberal who fancies himself a leftist watchdog.
Like so many self-appointed guardians of left-wing ideology, Terry's writing consists entirely of commenting disapprovingly on the writing of conservatives. His Tripod website for "ConWebWatch" (an arrangement that could only look less professional if it were somehow still on GeoCities) serves as the virtual headquarters for what Krepel sees as his mandate to "criticize the critics." This consists solely of monitoring and chastising anyone with whom Krepel disagrees. Among the nefarious conservatives who so outrage him, and perhaps foremost among them, is WND's own Joseph Farah.
If that sounds familiar to you, it's because in outlook and approach Terry is almost indistinguishable from Michael Ross, a left-wing troll previously profiled in this column. While, to his credit, Krepel is not a stalker (and by contrast, if you look at Mr. Ross' Twitter feed, almost all of his tweets are devoted to attacking conservatives generally and one pundit – myself – in particular), the ConWebBlog is nonetheless a train wreck from which it is impossible to turn away. In the universe of people like Krepel and Ross, any opinion with which they disagree is automatically a "lie." It doesn't matter if there's nothing to substantiate falsehood on the part of the person at whom these lib trolls are pointing accusing fingers. No, the mere act of disagreeing with them is prima facie evidence of deception.
Advertisement - story continues below
When he's not screaming that everyone he doesn't like is lying, Krepel is feigning outrage. In a blog post entitled, "Erik Rush Discovers Gay Sex," Krepel quotes WND columnist Erik Rush, who wrote, "Apparently, shouting at the president is objectionable, but his collectively sodomizing the American people in perpetuity is acceptable as long as it is done with a sense of decorum." Krepel then cites a column in which Rush says, "Indeed – like the proverbial cellblock rapist, our president is 'ramming' as much of his Marxist agenda down our collective throats as quickly as he can."
This, according to Krepel, is very, very mean (and homophobic). According to Krepel, this means Erik Rush is obsessed with gay sex acts. It could not possibly be, to Krepel, that the idea of your government "screwing you" is a common turn of phrase in popular culture; it could not ever be the case that Erik Rush thinks we are being force-fed Marxism by the president and that Rush is using colorful language to make that point. No, in Terry Krepel's outraged eyes, it must be that Erik Rush has only just "discovered" gay sex.
Yet Krepel himself is obsessed with gay oral sex by his own logic. In objecting to a positive commentary on radio personality Michael Savage, Krepel refers on his blog to "fluffing," an industry term used on pornography film shoots. Krepel also repeatedly refers to "literary fellatio" in this regard. Exactly how is this different than using the metaphorical language Erik Rush did in the column Krepel found so horribly, horribly objectionable? The answer is ... that it isn't. It isn't different at all. Mr. Krepel is simply a hypocrite. In the world of Terry Krepel, you see, all pornographic metaphors are equal, but some pornographic metaphors are more equal than others.
This brings me to Krepel's more recent column criticizing WND and the reason for this week's Technocracy. Krepel writes, in a piece entitled "The Two Sides of Phil Elmore," that I "will debunk some of WND's most cherished conspiracy theories, but he'll also write screeds attacking liberals, feminists, and (of course) President Obama." The thesis of Krepel's commentary seems to be that WND should not welcome the content of Technocracy because the opinions expressed herein are occasionally at odds with the certain opinions repeatedly expressed at WND overall. On the microblogging site Twitter, Krepel asked me directly: "Nobody takes WND (and, by extension, you) seriously. Why stay with them and hurt what credibility you have?" Coming as it does from someone who can't even figure out how to register and forward a domain name for his website, this is not exactly a compelling argument – but let's answer that question.
Advertisement - story continues below
WND is not monolithic. Yes, the opinions expressed in Technocracy sometimes run contrary to opinions that run elsewhere on the site, but this is true of any legitimate news organization. Fully 18 years after its founding, certain facts remain facts no matter how many times liberal trolls like Ross and Krepel dismiss them. This site was the first Internet-only news organization. It was also the first Internet-only news site to secure credentials to cover both the White House and Capitol Hill. Among Internet content providers, it was the first to see one of its books made into a feature film, the first to launch a movie production house and the first to start a book-publishing enterprise. As for the opinions liberals hate so much, founder Joseph Farah gives the libs plenty to gnash their teeth over, grinding out an unprecedented six opinion columns per week. WND has repeatedly broken major stories that achieved mainstream attention only later. Regardless of your opinion of its articles concerning theology, alternative-science and arguable conspiracy theories, this is a news organization that has left an indelible mark on the American news landscape.
WND endures because it continues to hack a trail through the jungle of today's news that others inevitably follow. Trolls like Krepel, Ross and their ilk have no ideas of their own; they spew Democratic talking points. They write no new opinion; they only complain about the opinions of conservatives. For 18 years, WND has given these wretched souls something to lament. It is my fervent hope this site remains a barbed thorn in liberals' flanks for many years to come.
Media wishing to interview Phil Elmore, please contact [email protected].