The topic is Tim Adams’ May 2011 masters thesis. [The preceding link is to a PDF. I had problems opening it in my browser. I suggest you “save as” and read it offline.] Adams came to prominence in the Birtherverse, when he, a clerk at the Hawaii Elections Division, came forward to say that Barack Obama had no long-form birth certificate. He never explained exactly how he knew that, but he nevertheless became an instant celebrity among the birthers.
Now two news sources, WorldNetDaily and ConWebWatch are reporting on his thesis presented at Western Kentucky University, one defending Adams and one painting Adams and his paper in the worst possible light.
There are two issues here: fairness and accuracy. Neither article is fair: WND ignores anything bad in the thesis and ConWebWatch ignores anything good. They are both advocacy pieces. However, Cashill is not accurate and as far as I can tell ConWebWatch is. I left this comment at WorldNetDaily:
WND is an odd source. They will print some lies and they won’t print others. Joseph Farah defends the rights of his "commentators" to say whatever they want, so the demonstrably fake story of the 1981 Travel Ban to Pakistan by commentator Janet Folger Porter remains at WND since 2009 with no hint that it’s a lie. On the other hand WND has vigorously debunked the fake Kenyan birth certificates for Barack Obama.
The problem is that it is difficult to know when WND is engaging in reporting (where they won’t usually lie outright) or printing commentary (where the commentators are free to lie outright) and I’m not sure that even WND always keep that straight. Generally all of the "experts" saying Obama’s long form is a fake are commentary or reporting of commentary. I suppose Bob Unruh is a reporter, and I don’t know what Jerome Corsi and Jack Cashill are.
What you can be sure of is that WND is a highly biased web site that engages in spin, innuendo and taking things out of context. Accepting anything from WND without confirmation from elsewhere is a recipe for embarrassment.
I was in error on one point; it is clear from the story’s labeling that Cashill is a commentator.
The Adams thesis is turgid and rambling and, in my opinion, totally unsuited for a scholarly thesis. I read a little and got disgusted.