The headline of a May 9 WorldNetDaily column by Scott Savage -- the Ohio librarian at the center of a controversy sparked by his recommendation of a book by WND managing editor David Kupelian -- reads, "Persecuted librarian censored again." An editor's note states that the column was originally written for the magazine of the American Library Association. It claims that the ALA "said the piece was 'timely and well-written' and publishable 'at its current length'" but that it "abruptly changed its mind and informed Savage he had to cut the column in half or not see it published."
WND makes no case that Savage was "censored," as the appearance of this column at WND demonstrates. Requesting that the column be edited is not prima facie evidence of "censorship." Certainly WND has edited or requested edits to items it has published. That's not censorship; that's part of the publication process. Additionally, WND offers no independent confirmation of the ALA's action, nor does it offer a chance for the ALA to respond to Savage's claims.
Moreover, given that WND has served as the public-relations division of the Alliance Defense Fund by promoting Savage's plight unsullied by any attempt to contact anyone at the Ohio university where Savage works for a response, it's difficult to argue that Savage was "censored" in the first place.
Will Savage figure out that he is, at least in part, just being used by WND to pump sales of Kupelian's book?