A June 26 "open letter" by WorldNetDaily's David Kupelian -- ultimately begging for money from its readers, even though it's a for-profit operation -- starts off with your usual right-wing blather about the "liberal media," with special emphasis on complaining about how some on cable news were "making on-air jokes about oral sex" regarding the anti-Obama "tea party" rallies. That builds up to Kupelian's stirring defense of his employer:
At WND, we don't mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right.
We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news.
We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else.
We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders wants peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America.
In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows.
Except for WND's fellow right-wing travelers. Orly Taitz is one; a guy who served as a conduit for anti-abortion extremists is another.
Instead, we really do strive to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.
But what you might not realize is that what we do is very difficult. It isn't easy taking on the media elite, slaying the dragons of political correctness, bucking the tide of conventional wisdom, and constantly challenging tyranny, injustice and lies.
But how can you fight lies if you're the source of those lies?
For example, currently WND is the only news organization in the world that is vigorously pursuing the Obama eligibility story.
My point is this: If you believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that "the only security of all is in a free press," and if you want to see major growth in WND's kind of courageous, watchdog reporting
What, exactly, is "courageous" about, for instance, repeatedly smearing President Obama as a Nazi? Most clear-thinking people would call that childish and cowardly.
I'm asking you to consider becoming a WND "subscriber."
But wait, you say, I thought WND was free. Yes, it is free, and will remain that way. However, here's what I'm getting at:
Traditionally, newspapers have relied not only on advertising, but also on reader subscriptions for financial support. But in the Internet age, we find we can deliver the news to far more people by keeping the service free. Does that mean we have to lose the needed subscription revenue? Not necessarily.
It's a time-honored tradition in the newspaper business that free newspapers ask for voluntary subscriptions.
Really? Can Kupelian point to any examples of this? We worked in newspapers for 17 years and have never heard of this "tradition."
As a rule, satisfied readers who depend on a free publication for their news don't mind paying a little bit for it.
That's why voluntary subscription donations have been the lifeblood of many "free" newspapers over the years – it's the honor system, you might say.
Again, can Kupelian offer any examples?
If you'd consider supporting WND with your "voluntary subscription," here are a couple of easy options:
1. Choose the amount you would like to donate for your voluntary monthly subscription payment and it will be deducted from your credit card on that same date each month. (Just call or e-mail WND if you ever want to cancel or change the amount.)
2. If you prefer, you can make a one-time voluntary subscription payment to WND.
3. You may also donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund, to help us battle the lawsuits and threats that always accompany honest journalism.
You mean the "honest journalism" legal defense fund that paid for seven years of WND's denying it published false claims about Clark Jones, before abruptly deciding that it did?
Thank you very much. All of us at WorldNetDaily deeply appreciate your support. It's truly what enables us to keep going. And I think you'll agree, with what's going on in America today, we need a vibrant, free press more than ever.
If Kupelian could point us to a news source that, unlike WND, didn't repeatedly tell lies to its readers, thus more closely fulfilling the constitutional mission of "a vibrant, free press," we'd sure appreciate it.