Like the Media Research Center, WorldNetDaily is trying to make misinformation a subjective, partisan concept. In an Aug. 3 article, Bob Unruh redefined clear lies and misinformation as merely something others "disagree" with, while trying to pump up Donald Trump's obvious lies about the 2020 presidential election:
Twitter has announced it wants to crack down on information with which it disagrees, so it's enlisting the legacy news outlets of the Associated Press and Reuters to help.
A company executive handling "curation" of content, Joanna Geary, said, "I'm excited to announce a new collaboration with @AP and @Reuters to expand how we highlight credible content on Twitter."
However, both media organizations have taken one side in political arguments, with AP arguing in May that "Trump's 'Big Lie' imperils Republicans who don't embrace it," suggesting that Trump's concerns about vote fraud are a "lie."
The wire organization alleged, "Trump's discredited allegations about a stolen election did nothing to save his presidency when courtrooms high and low, state governments and ultimately Congress … affirmed the legitimacy of his defeat and the honesty of the process that let to it."
However, audits continue in several states where results raised concerns about the potential of fraud. And it is indisputable that leftist Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook donated some $350 million to leftists in various offices to help them "run" the election. Also, various state officials arbitrarily changed state laws to accommodate COVID even though the Constitution allows only state legislatures to do that.
The fact that no judge ever reviewed the evidence of fraud also undermines the claim that it didn't exist, as fact-checkers, often run by media groups, have claimed over and over.
Reuters, too, in May, claimed that President Trump was "poisoning" democracy with his "Big Lie," again without acknowledging the legitimate questions that have yet to be answered.
Unruh is lying when he claimed that only "leftists" received money from Zuckberberg's Center for Tech and Civic Life; the money was available to any election official who wanted it, and it helped the election go smoothly in a year when the pandemic disrupted things.
Unruh is also wrong about there being "legitimate questions" remaining about the election. No credible evidence has surfaced of substantial fraud that would change the outcome of the presidential election, though WND has continued to promote questions even though they have long been discredited.
Unruh expanded his whining to other subjects as well:
Legacy media and social media outlets repeatedly have censored discussion about information they don't like, even if it has proven later to be valuable, such as treatment for COVID with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, and well as information that they've later flip-flopped on, such as discussion of the Wuhan lab in China as the source of COVID. That discussion was banned for months, only to suddenly become accepted for discussion.
Many of the banned discussions have, in fact, been censored based on the fact that President Trump made statements on those issues, such as COVID treatments, election fraud, the false Russia collusion narrative promoted for years by Democrats and the media, and more.
In fact, those media operations successfully suppressed a New York Post story about scandals involving Joe Biden's son, Hunter, just before the 2020 election and a Media Research Center poll later revealed that had more people known about the allegations of misbehavior, enough would have avoided voting for Joe Biden to have changed the result of the election.
Unruh didn't mention that MRC poll was conducted by Trump's own pollster, raising questions about its bias. The HunterBiden laptop story has been promoted by two of the more biased and least credible outlets, the New York Post and the Daily Mail, and it has yet to be definitively proven the laptop was his. Meanwhile, treatment of COVID with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine has not been proven "valuable," given the dearth of credible medical evidence to back it up (no matter how much WND wants you to believe otherwise).And it is not "false" to claim there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Unruh is just parroting WND's biased editorial narrative. If he had any integrity at all -- he was once a reporter for the Associated Press, so he did have some at one time -- he would take responsibility for spouting lies and misinformation.