ConWebBlog: The Weblog of ConWebWatch

your New Media watchdog

ConWebWatch: home | archive/search | about | primer | shop

Monday, April 2, 2018
Fake-News WND Whines That Stormy Daniels Scandal Is 'Fake News'
Topic: WorldNetDaily

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah spends an entire March 25 "WND Exclusive Analysis" whining that the media is paying attention to Stormy Daniels' claim of an affair with Donald Trump:

Meet the new “60 Minutes,” which officially joined the salacious “fake news” media March 25, 2018 after a glorious on-air run of 50 years that began September 24, 1968, with a show that, among other things, covered the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.

It’s worth noting that the show defined itself that night in a conversation between Mike Wallace and Harry Reasoner as one that sought to “reflect reality.”

Is Stormy a reflection of reality?

Given that Farah doesn't disprove anything Daniels says despite dismissing her as "fake news," yes, she is. And Farah calling others "fake news" for reporting unflattering but true news is rather rich given WND's own lengthy history of publishing actual fake news that almost put WND out of business.

Since he can't prove Daniels wrong, Farah goes the slut-shaming route, recounting her other porn-star names and and that she has been "married to three other porn stars."

Then, rather desperately, Farah tries to paint Trump as a victim:

Maybe you’re asking yourself: So what? In the big scheme of things, why is this important to America? Have not former presidents had affairs – even while in office? Have those affairs been of interest to the media at the time? Was this one of interest at the time it took place – in 2006? Would it have made news then? Have other presidents lied – even under oath – about affairs? Haven’t the media dismissed other affairs by presidents as being merely part of their “private lives”? Worse yet, haven’t the media dismissed credible allegations of sexual harassment and rape by them on the same grounds?

What’s the difference now?

Let me suggest to you that the difference is the media’s hatred of Donald Trump and the fact that he won the 2016 presidential election – ironically defeating a woman who helped cover up serious charges by other women victimized by her husband, some of which took place while he was president.

Forgive me for weighing in here with personal analysis. But, without interjecting facts not in evidence in the “60 Minutes” program, or in Anderson Cooper’s earlier interviews with Stormy Daniels, you might think this “story” has some substance beyond gossip and sexual sensationalism. It does not. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it both ways and remain credible as a news organization. You can’t dismiss old rape charges and sexual harassment charges against one president and set a completely different standard for another about a matter where no illegality is even suggested.

Once again, Farah forgets his own history. If having a consensual affair before being president is  off limits, why did WND publish so many stories referencing Gennifer Flowers, whose affair with Bill Clinton well before he became president everyone seems to agree was consensual -- including one story where Flowers is given free rein to speculate that Clinton had people murdered?

Farah is being utterly hypocritical here. He should be answering why WND refuses to cover Daniels the way it covered Flowers. After all, you can't obsess about all sexual rumors about one candidate and dismiss the same behavior about another as normal.

Nevertheless, Farah continues to whine:

Is Stormy Daniels credible?

Three times over a period of months she signed sworn statements denying she ever participated in an affair with Trump. She signed a non-disclosure agreement with Trump attorney Michael Cohen to the same effect and collected $130,000 for it. But now we’re asked to believe she has no reason to lie any more.

That’s indeed what she said to Cooper on “60 Minutes.”

“I have no reason to lie,” she said. “I’m not getting paid.”

Of course, she did admit that the job offers are coming in by the score because of her new-found fame.

There’s one other notable quote from the show that differentiates her from all of the other women mentioned in this article – and even more not mentioned:

“I am not a victim,” she said. “I have never been a victim.”

So tell me why I should care. Tell me why America should care.

Again, Farah is being a hypocrite. WND never questioned the credibility of Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed Clinton sexually assaulted her despite her signing a sworn affidavit stating that he didn't. And now Farah demands that Daniels' credibility be questioned?

Farah is just mad that WND's own sensationalist raporting style is being used against a candidate he likes. He has not earned the right to complain about it. That is, not until he apologizes and repent for the way he has run WND the past two decades -- something you'd think a funding shortage so bad he had to beg for money from readers might have elicited by now, despite it playing a big role in said funding shortage.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:10 AM EDT

Newer | Latest | Older

Bookmark and Share

Get the WorldNetDaily Lies sticker!

Find more neat stuff at the ConWebWatch store!

Buy through this Amazon link and support ConWebWatch!

Support This Site

« April 2018 »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

Bloggers' Rights at EFF
Support Bloggers' Rights!

News Media Blog Network

Add to Google