I couldn’t agree more with Jon Henke on this. Â World Net Daily has long been a rag of a publication for a while now, and I make a point not to link to them unless the purpose is mockery, or to dispel some untruth they are peddling.
Interestingly though, I’ve heard the publisher of WND, Joseph Farrah, speak, and I found him very thoughtful and engaging. Â I suspect he’s catering to an audience with his paper, and I’m sure it makes him a lot of money, but I think what he peddles isn’t adding anything helpful to the conversation.
7 thoughts on “Organizing Against World Net Daily”
Worldnetdaily is the talk radio of the internet. There was a regional talk show host that was like WND, e.g., he never met a conspiracy theory that he didn’t think worthy of respect and promotion. But, once every couple weeks he would say straight-up, “No one should pay any attention to my opinions — I’m only an entertainer. . ..” Of course none of his fans would ever hear anything but the conspiracy theories. WND is to political news what the National Enquirer is to space aliens.
But, speaking of the internet, WND also is a key part of the Republican Noise Machine. Whether or not they get paid directly by the RP is hard to say, but I’m sure their opinions are actively facilitated by Republican operatives. As a result, it is possible that (like the National Enquirer) they may from time to time actually scoop a real news story, but that hardly makes them a source to go to for credible news.
I’ve had the same suspicion on the World Net Daily for quite sometime. I also avoid the Dailymail.co.uk as a lot of its headlines are just short of being similar to the Star or National Inquirer at times
Whenever I read blog posts about who the “true conservatives” are why certain “looney” types should be shunned or left behind, the following comes to mind:
It seems to me that we all need to stand together, not fracture amoung ourselves. But, what do I know, I’d still like to see the original birth certificate…
It’s not really about defining conservatism. I’ve seen Libertarians destroy themselves for years by expending too much time arguing about what it means to be a libertarian, and trying to define large groups of people outside of it.
It’s more about whether having a group as part of the coalition help the coalition or hurts it. Henke argues that having this group in the coalition hurts it. I agree with him on that. It doesn’t necessarily mean these people are or aren’t conservative, just that what we’d have to give up to get this voting bloc isn’t worth it.
Their are a couple more dimensions than just “looney.”
One is whether an entity is promoting looneyness (or any given issue) solely for the profit motive, and therefore promoting opinions or ideas just because they are sensational, and therefore attractive to a large audience. That does not contribute to any rational progress at all.
Another is more ideological: A lot of “true conservatism” is pure authoritarianism, and thus anti-liberty — though of course don’t tell them that. I believe there is a lot promoted on WND that could have downright scary outcomes.
For an example, I happen to believe the Ron Paul Movement last year was seriously harmed by its apparent tolerance and embrace of some very unsavory elements, most notably racists. Should I stand together in solidarity with racists, hate-mongers and bigots, because they mostly keep their bigotry closeted, and happen to give lip-service to one or two issues I care about?
Sebastian, once you start down the road of “who is worthy”, where do you stop? I’m a conservative Christian – I figure that you’ll get around to me pretty soon. Moderates speak of big tents, then they start excluding people. Henke lost me at “Birthers” – do we really need perjoratives to refer to other conservatives? The moderates seem to think they don’t need the “far right” to win. The problem with that argument is that it was soundly disproven in November of last year.
I was lost at “Birchers”. They were far less crazy than is commonly believed.
Comments are closed.