A Nov. 4 WorldNetDaily "news" article -- in reality, a promo for David Kupelian's WND-published book "The Marketing of Evil" -- singles out negative reviews of the book on Amazon, inferring that the critics are only interested in lowering the book's Amazon rating, sarcastically dismissing such criticism as "brilliant literary critiques." Amazon reviewers who wax rhapsodic over the book, meanwhile, "sound a very different theme – in fact, it's hard to believe they're writing about the same book."
One thing you will not see from Kupelian is any response to his critics, since it's much easier to dismiss the most extreme critics and portray them as representative of all your critics and, therefore, not worth responding to.
Last December, ConWebWatch posted a critique of Kupelian's "media matrix" theory, which is the basis of a chapter of "The Marketing of Evil," which pointed out that WND creates the very same matrixes. Is it brilliant? I'd like to think so. It raises legitimate questions about WND's news operation and its reporting techniques, and it doesn't resort to the type of language you see in the typical Amazon review. To date, neither Kupelian nor anyone else at WND has responded to the article. Then again, Joseph Farah has never admitted, let alone apologized, for his blatant plagiarism, so such refusal to ackowledge even the existence of legitimate criticism of WND is not new.
Why doesn't Kupelian or Farah or anyone else at WND want to defend their website? Y'all know where to find me.