Main Menu

WorldNetDaily has premature ejournalism

On Monday, WorldNetDaily published an article whose opening sentence is:

An Egyptian foreign-service official’s comment about President Obama is turning into a sensation among bloggers for its claim that the American leader claims to be Muslim.

There’s just one problem. The basis for this claim is that somebody’s wife heard it on TV. Even WorldNetDaily admits (should you have the stomach to go down half way to the bottom of the article): “There was no independent verification of the statement.”

WorldNetDaily treats the comment as fact in its opening sentence even though WND admits that they can’t verify it.

That’s what one comes to expect from WorldNetDaily:

READY!

FIRE!

AIM!

16 Responses to WorldNetDaily has premature ejournalism

  1. avatar
    richCares June 16, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    don’t be hard on WND, after all they have the great chuck norris as a commentator as well as the famous singer pat boone. give them a break! Ridicule would not be fun without WND!

  2. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 16, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    As if this is any surprise. WND often prints stuff as facts without checking the substance of the claims. Most of their stuff is based off hearsay and one side often the most biased side.

  3. avatar
    Mike June 16, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    WND, epitomising the race to the bottom, yet again…

  4. avatar
    Daniel June 16, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    It is the hallmark of sensationalist tabloids that they intimate things as fact without actually saying they are fact, and carefully hide a disclaimer somewhere down in the text. It’s how you can easily tell the difference between tabloid journalism and real journalism.

    That people fail to recognize it in World Nut Daily is not surprising. Remember, there are people out there who think the National Enquirer is real journalism too.

  5. avatar
    Sef June 16, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Daniel: It is the hallmark of sensationalist tabloids that they intimate things as fact without actually saying they are fact, and carefully hide a disclaimer somewhere down in the text. It’s how you can easily tell the difference between tabloid journalism and real journalism.That people fail to recognize it in World Nut Daily is not surprising. Remember, there are people out there who think the National Enquirer is real journalism too.

    Do journalism schools have a course/minor in tabloidism?

  6. avatar
    mimi June 16, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    It’s still hearsay, but it’s also in this article. Page 3. Last paragraph in first column.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33001381/Egyptian-Foreign-Minister-Ahmed-Aboul-Gheit-says-Obama-told-him-that-he-is-a-Muslim-Page-3-May-2010

    Or here online:

    http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=128&view=item&idx=2041

  7. avatar
    mimi June 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    oops… did not see your prior post. Sorry, Doc.

  8. avatar
    Black Lion June 16, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    My question is which is worse…WND or the Post and Fail? Both don’t let things like facts get in the way of a story that can disparage the President or any Democrat. In my opinion WND is a joke that likes to pretend that they are a real newspaper, especially with their WH hack Les Kinsolving. The Post and Fail is pathetic because they just outright lie and never retract any of the nonsense they print.

  9. avatar
    Kevin Bell June 16, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    ” A Day without WND is like a Day without the light of truth”?????

    If you are using WND for your news. You really got’s some problems with reality.

  10. avatar
    Daniel June 16, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Kevin Bell: ” A Day without WND is like a Day without the light of truth”?????If you are using WND for your news. You really got’s some problems with reality.

    Both are tabloid blogs with specific political agendas, masquerading as news outlets. They are not subject to the journalistic ethics one would expect from an actual news source. They like to pretend to be news, but they don’t have any of the checks and balances built into professional journalism.

  11. avatar
    Ellid June 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    They’re both bad, but the hysterical tone and outright bigotry at the Pest & E-Fail *really* bothers me. WND is dreadful but at least hasn’t called for outright insurrection as yet.

  12. avatar
    Dave June 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    One other way WND is very much not like the others is the unrelenting reaching for the readers wallet. Half the headlines on the front page are ads — formatted exactly like the story headlines. Every story I’ve read eventually winds up inviting people to buy WND merchandise, or donate to WND, or both. And I just read a glowing review of a book — which turns out to be published by WND. Guess this tells us that WND’s readers are the kind that will never wonder “Do you think Farah is just in this for the money?”

  13. avatar
    Horus June 17, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    It amazes me that some websites still use WND as a credible source.

  14. avatar
    Daniel June 17, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Horus: It amazes me that some websites still use WND as a credible source.

    Sites that use WorldNutDaily as a source are usually just as credible as is WorldNutDaily.

  15. avatar
    misha June 17, 2010 at 10:04 pm #

    Daniel: Remember, there are people out there who think the National Enquirer is real journalism too.

    Saddam: “Batboy is my secret love child.”

  16. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2010 at 11:04 am #

    post from “Dispaches from the Cultural Wars” showing the foolishnes of WND
    Here’s the Worldnutdaily’s hysterical and hyperbolic reaction to what is nothing more than another presidential commission to make recommendations on how Americans could live healthier lives. Obama signed an executive order establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council. And to wingnuts everywhere, this is yet another step toward fascism.
    link to WND bull pupu: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=167317