Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 22 WorldNetDaily article on a presidential "report card" issued by the right-wing Campaign for Children and Families engages in dishonesty by not only refusing to put an accurate "right-wing" or even "conservative" label on the group -- it instead uses the conservative-correctness term "pro-family" -- but also repeats the laughable claim that the group "isn't taking a position on the political candidates." Yeah, right -- given the slanted, inaccurate language that CCF uses (and WND repeats), it's clear at least who CCF doesn't want as president.
WND quotes CCF president Randy Thomasson as calling the report card "carefully researched," which is true only if one defines the term as making liberal use of slanted language and cherry-picked quotes and even ignoring the findings of said research. For instance, in support of its claim that "Barack Obama has pledged to increase taxes and to eliminate existing tax cuts," the CCF report card lists a statement by Obama in which he says, "I will institute a middle-class tax cut. So, if you're making $75,000, if you're making $50,000 a year, you will see an extra $1,000 a year
offsetting on your payroll tax." It also lists a statement that Obama will "eliminate the Bush tax cuts" without noting that he has also said he would eliminate them only for the richest Americans.
The "report card" lists as one category "Require Schoolchildren to Think Favorably About Homosexuality" with Obama listed as a "Yes." But as support, it lists only a quote from Obama saying, "the fact is my nine year old and my six year olds, I think, are already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have already talked about it." There's no mention of discussing same-sex couples "favorably," or even that he would "require" anyone else to do so. CCF appears to be invoking the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy, in which there is no such thing as as neutral depiction of homosexuality and that any non-negative depiction must be positive.
WND uncritically repeated CCF's claims without pointing out the flaws in its "research" or interviewing anyone else with a differing view.
