An anonymously written May 2 WorldNetDaily article does its best to lay out its case:
Friday will mark the eighth year of Britain’s ban of a prominent American talk-radio host and bestselling author from entry because opinions he expressed on the air purportedly made him a threat to national security.
On May 5, 2009, Michael Savage, host of the nationally syndicated “The Savage Nation” and a member of the National Radio Hall of Fame, was blacklisted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, which lumped him together with Muslim jihadists and leaders of racist groups for “seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred,” as WND reported.
The British government, however, has never specified what Savage has said that might threaten the nation’s security.
Further, government correspondence by top officials revealed the decision was made in an attempt to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.
Now, with Donald Trump in the White House, a new petition is urging the president and the U.S. State Department to demand that Britain remove Savage from the list.
What WND doesn't tell you: This petition is hosted by WND, and appears to be a business decision rather than any act of altruism or journalism.
WND has had a long-running business and personal relationship with Savage -- it published a couple of his early books, it hosts Savage's website, and WND editor Joseph Farah was touting as early as 2003 about being a "frequent guest" on his TV and radio shows and has guest-hosted at least once. Onetime WND columnist Ellis Washington was so creepily enamored of Savage that he proclaimed himself Savage's "authorized biographer." (No book on Savage by Washington ever surfaced.)
The petition itself reads a bit like a press release, asserting that "Michael Savage has been known to his millions of listeners for more than 22 years as an advocate of the patriotic values of borders, language and culture" and that "Michael Savage has never advocated violence, and his political views are protected by the First Amendment, which is rooted in the civil-rights tradition that began with Britain’s Magna Carta." Savage does, however, have a history of violent rhetoric, which WND conveniently ignores.
But the clue to the petition's real intent comes at the end of it, which states this: "Note: By signing this petition, you agree to receive confirmation email and future notices from co-sponsors WND.com and MichaelSavage.com."
In other words: The petition is being used to build the email lists of both WND and Savage. It's a business proposition, not a cry against censorship.
WND and Savage should stop pretending it's anything else but that.