Lest we give WorldNetDaily too much credit for commiting a rare act of actual journalism, it's important to remember that the vast majority of the original "news" WND publishes is biased, misleading or incomplete (or even completely false).
A (sadly) much more typical example of WND's journalism is a Jan. 11 article about the latest filing by failed lawyer Larry Klayman in WND's defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine for a parody article claiming that WND had decided to recall and pulp Jerome Corsi's birther book.
As they have repeatedly done, WND and Klayman rail against Esquire and the judge that dismissed the lawsuit while not only refusing to tell the full story or quote from any legal brief filed by the defendants, they also fail to tell their readers the reason the lawsuit was dismissed.
And it's a pretty damning reason: WND editor Joseph Farah admitted at the time the Esquire blog post was published that he knew it was a parody. As the ruling states, Farah "immediately recognized" that the Esquire article was satire -- telling the Daily Caller that the post was “a very poorly executed parody” -- until it became "inconvenient" for him to do so. The judge added: "Political satire can be, and often is, uncomfortable to its targets, but that does not render it any less satiric or any less an expression on a topic of public concern."
That truth remains inconvenient for Farah, Klayman and WND. And that sort of thing is why nobody believes WND.