Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily must really love that no-name website that proclaimed it "trustworthy" -- it has devoted another story to it. But it's not telling the full truth about the website that gave WND that silly little award.
This time around, WND proclaims how the editor of the Discerning Times at Enumclaw.com, Tim Williams, said he "actually considered placing WorldNetDaily at the top of the list and the Drudge Report second."
As before, WND identifies the Discerning Times at Enumclaw.com only as an "independent news organization." In fact, Enumclaw.com and its Discerning Times print product are operated by something called the Sound Doctrine Church of Enumclaw, Wash.
The church has been accused of being a cult. The church's response to this is to claim that all real churches are accused of being cults.
Also unmentioned in both WND articles: The church's associate pastor, Malcolm Fraser, has been charged with first-degree rape of a child. WND clearly knows about this because it published a Dec. 13 article by Bob Unruh on the case. Unruh takes Fraser's side in promoting the idea that he is an innocent victim of “disgruntled ex-members” of the church. Unruh also identifies Enumclaw.com as a "church publication," which means WND knows full well that it's not an "independent news organization."
Williams did not disclose what role this sympathetic article playing in him placing WND so high on his list of "trustworthy" news sources, though surely it must have played some role. Indeed, Williams promoted the article on the church's website.
Meanwhile, Enumclaw.com devotes a significant portion of its content to proclaiming Fraser's innocence, and the Discerning Times began publication only in August 2012 -- just four months after Fraser was charged -- raising questions about whether it exists solely to defend Fraser and attack the church's critics (which the November edition of the paper is mostly devoted to).
Similarly, WND did not note its story on Fraser in its articles touting its "trustworthy" award. Wouldn't a truly trustworthy news organization have disclosed those conflicts of interest?
The same goes for Williams' so-called "news" organization as well. As we pointed out, Williams could not have read WND and found it to be engaging in "top-notch journalistic practice."
If WND really wants to be considered a trustworthy news organization -- which, Williams aside, it isn't -- it should stop its constant promotion of a bogus award by a biased group nobody has heard of and start reporting facts, starting with the truth about how the birther conspiracy has been discredited.
