XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.computer.workshop

John Smyth wrote:

<https://www.wnd.com

Everyone should get their science opinions filtered through World Nut
Daily.

It's run by pro-Trump convicted homosexual pedophile and NAMBLA founder
Josef Fara.

By citing such lies rightists only confirm their inferior intelligence and gullibility.


Overall, we rate WND Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias,
promotion of conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.


Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY



A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake
news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked
on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not
considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section
for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate WND Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias,
promotion of conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY


Founded in 1997, World Net Daily or WND is a politically conservative news
and opinion website. WND was founded by Joseph Farah, who also serves as editor-in-chief. WND also publishes books under the imprint WND Books.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

WND is owned by WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. and is funded through online advertising, book publishing, and an online store that sells conservative-related merchandise. Analysis / Bias

Based on reviews by all of our researchers, WND is a Questionable online
news source that has a far-right bias and dabbles in right-wing
conspiracies such as President Obama’s birth certificate. They also use misleading clickbait headlines that do not always match the article’s
content (See M. Allen’s review below). WND also has an abysmal track
record with fact-checkers:

“California To Register Illegal Aliens To Vote – Automatically.” –
Pants on Fire “A U.S. Government Accountability Office report says
Planned Parenthood Federation of America cannot find some $1.3 billion
given to it by the federal government from 2002 through 2008.” – Pants
on fire White House spokesman Robert Gibbs “lied” when he said
President Obama’s birth certificate is posted on the Internet. – False
Chobani CEO Hamdi Ulukaya vowed to “drown the United States in
Muslims” and is “importing them to Idaho 300 at a time to work in his
factory.” – Mostly False Elena Kagan Tied to Obama’s Birth Certificate
– False A town in New Jersey has forbidden residents from criticizing
Muslims or Islam in keeping with sharia law. – Mostly False In early
2019, vandals targeted 12 churches in France over seven days. – Mostly
False “1 million COVID-vaccine injuries now reported on CDC’s
database,” – False Arctic sea ice reached a 30-year high in May 2022 –
False

During the CoronaVirus outbreak of 2020, WND has been accused of peddling
false and misleading information regarding the virus.

Several different media outlets have criticized WND for both promotion of
white nationalism and peddling conspiracy theories. For example, the
Washington Post and Columbia Journalism Review have written articles
describing WND as Far Right and Alt-Right. Further, The Southern Poverty
Law Center labels WorldNetDaily as an antigovernment extremist group. (D.
Van Zandt 6/19/2016) Updated (12/16/2018). Below are the detailed reviews
of each researcher.

WND is deceptive in that its news articles appear moderate and not overly sensational. However, Snopes has slammed them on many an occasion for
parsing facts and using inaccurate data. In my opinion, this site,
concerning news, is pretty deceiving as their outward appearances seem well-balanced (scam ads notwithstanding). When you take a look at their
Opinion page, their true colors are more evident. This is not a reliable
site by any measure for news, and the rest of the site is pretty much a
rag. (F. Locke Siewert (2/25/2017)

WND is a decidedly right-biased site that does carry some center and
slightly left content. This is through linking to reports from less biased sources—for example, Black students at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. The actual article is a fairly well-balanced look at
the issue by Todd Richmond of the Associated Press. The lead-in line WND
used for the article was somewhat misleading, however. Using white
supremacists in quotes seems to imply that it isn’t a factor in the
student’s demands when it is. Where the real bias on the site is evident
is on the editorial pages and staff-generated articles. Although mixed
factual, the wording is heavily weighted and misleading. Carrying some
moderate content is not enough, balanced against the editorial stance, to
rate WND anything other than right biased and Questionable. (D. Kelley 2/25/2017)

WND is far-right/alt-right. This story just came out. Direct quote “The
story, nevertheless, was issued by the AP, which explained it obtained an 11-page document that “calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east
as New Orleans, Louisiana.”

falselink

The issue here is it doesn’t link to the source but another news outlet
that uses the source that then links to the source there. This is
something you might find in a typical badly cited essay in college.
Always cite sources when referencing material.

The second issue in the article – “On Thursday, activists protesting
Trump’s effort to enforce immigration law carried out a “Day Without Immigrants” protest in which immigrants were to stay home from work or
school.

In Denver, some parents left work to take lunch to their children in
public schools when the lunchroom workers took part in the protest.”

This is minor, but it shows a significant downplay of how widespread and national the “Day Without Immigrants” was. It shows clear bias in how they
view said protest when you marginalize like this. A better solution is to
not reference it at all to limit bias in reporting.



We can see what they want to show the viewer first and what bias may or
may not exist here in these headlines.

Firstly the “PUNKED! Congresswoman Falls For ‘Russian Hacking’ Prank”
article is the same one seen on every right-leaning website out there, but
not picked up by Fox or even Breitbart as of yet. It links only to a
Youtube channel. The same group of Russian “Pranksters” also called Sen. McCain. If anybody in this country has ever tried to call a US Rep or US Senator should know, you’ll be lucky to speak to any humans.

This article is biased against liberals; however, it is sourced
accurately, and the quotes are accurate. Again I take issue with them
citing a questionable source like Breitbart which is just citing the
actual study, which they should link directly to.

poorlink

This image shows the Breitbart link but fails to direct link to the study
– the site goes on to deride the lack of teaching US History in history
course work throughout many “elite” colleges around the country.
Ironically, they fail to follow a standard referencing practice you might
learn at one of those citing primary sources only.

This article links to the Washington Times. This particular article is
decent in its reporting. A study was done; now, in the Washington Times,
they reference other entities that decry said report about the illegal registrations. The ODC poll was used in conjunction with a separate poll
by The National Hispanic Survey. As per the article: “Inside the poll is
a page devoted to voter profiles. Of the randomly selected sample of 800 Hispanics, 56 percent, or 448, said they were non-citizens, and of those,
13 percent said they were registered to vote. The 448 would presumably be
a mix of illegal immigrants and non-citizens who are in the U.S. legally,
such as visa holders or permanent residents”. As one can see from this,
their use of the poll is a tiny sample set to gauge a very broad
accusation. However, this is just reporting what is being talked about
and not make assumptions either way. It could be argued either way that
the poll is bad science or not. The most current narrative, especially
from those of the right, finds polls unreliable and bad predictors. So referencing a poll conducted in 2013 and conjunction with a separate poll
using different methods and then trying to make those 2 studies and polls
work is dubious at best. However, ODC and George Mason are both
well-respected schools. The issue of this article is the clickbait –
“VOTER FRAUD” title. There’s no actual case of voter fraud; there’s a
case of possible voter registration errors, a felony but not a fraud. (M.
Allen 2/25/2017)

Overall, we rate WND Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias,
promotion of conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 12/16/2018) Updated (01/06/2022)

Source: https://www.wnd.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)