FARAH: From a journalistic perspective, there's nothing to report about the charges about Herman Cain. And that's the thing I think that everybody's missing.
HANNITY: I said that from day one. I agree with you.
FARAH: Look, there are people out there right now who make far more substantive charges, worse charges about Barack Obama, who claimed to have done all kinds of things with -- you wouldn't report that, Sean, I wouldn't report that, nobody in the media would report it. Why is it that we report this conjecture, this -- these unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charges? I think the real scandal here is a media scandal.
Really? This is Farah's "journalistic perspective"? What a joke.
Farah's sudden spasm of journalistic ethics when it comes to Cain runs counter to WND's normal way of doing business. WND publishes unsubstantiated and uncorroborated stories all the time, as indicated by the sheer number of anonymous sources that appear in WND articles.
And Farah's contention that the sexual harassment accusations against Cain are "nothing to report" is laughable considering WND's own warped and demented news judgement. (Defending stalkers, anyone?) It was just a few weeks ago WND determined that an ad buy by Cain on Rush Limbaugh's radio show merited a bylined "news" article.
Oh, and Farah wouldn't know a "journalistic perspective" if it gave him a Masonic handshake. Farah declared he wasn't a journalist anymore, remember?
So, to sum up: Farah takes two weeks to comment on the Cain scandal, and when he finally does, he not only doesn't do it at his own website but says things that make one wonder about his honesty and basic competence.
It might have been better for Farah if he hadn't said anything at all, but mouthing off is sort of his job.