When a press-release mill decides you're not credible, you've got problems.
A May 30 WorldNetDaily article states that PRWeb, "the biggest press release factory in the world" has decided that WND is not “credible” and is a “biased source of news,” after an Obama-bashing group called BOPAC had a press release rejected purportedly for citing a WND article. Of course, any sentient being could tell you that.
Needless to say, WND took great umbrage at this. It declared that PRWeb had "set itself up as a new gatekeeper of political correctness and journalistic propriety," with added outrage and manhood-measuring from WND editor Joseph Farah:
PRWeb is owned by a publicly held company called Vocus, which doesn’t even include any editorial managers among its top executives.
“The question I have is who might Vocus or PRWeb have within its team with the journalistic credentials to make such a call,” wondered Farah. “I have more than 30 years of experience running major-market daily newspapers, doing investigative reporting, hosting a nationally syndicated talk-radio program, consulting with NBC and other major media outlets, teaching journalism at a major university. The WND editorial staff has hundreds of years of combined experiences like mine. Is there even one person at Vocus or PRWeb who has those kinds of credentials?”
Farah loves to beat his critics with his "journalistic credentials," as we found out (except that he learned we have journalistic credentials too).
WND followed up by trying to further spin things in a May 31 article making a vague claim that "WND has been officially accredited by the United Nations for all its departments and affiliates worldwide." WND offers no proof of this, despite claiming that "Confirmation has been delivered to the independent news site that the U.N. media accreditation department officially has approved WND’s letter and accompanying application." The rest of the article rehashes the PRWeb stuff.
The headline on the article states "U.N. recognizes WND as 'bona fide media,'" but that term appears nowhere in the article, quoted or otherwise.