Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily judging the alleged neutrality of journalism of another news outlet breaks the irony meter -- neutrality being one of the many words that can't ever be used to describe WND's work. Yet that's what WND did in an anonymously written May 8 article:
It's likely few people still believe newspapers are neutral providers of "news," after the legacy media's agenda to suppress bad information about the Biden family's international business schemes and portray everything President Trump accomplished as bad over recent years.
The few who still held on to that ideal now likely are having their beliefs shattered, as the Denver Post has given up any pretense of neutrality with an article that promotes abortion, and directs readers where to donate money for the operations of the lucrative industry.
A report at Campfire Colorado pointed out, "The Denver Post has taken liberal activism in the press to a whole new level tonight – the newspaper is literally directing donors to an Act Blue page supporting 'Abortion Funds and Pro-Choice Groups.'"
That Act Blue organization is a donation platform for Democrats that lets donors "contribute online to Democratic campaigns, political action committees and outside groups…"
The report charged, "It’s time for everyone to acknowledge the Denver Post is a liberal activist organization."
WND didn't explain why informing its readers about such issues breaks "neutrality" principles. In fact, it arguably enhances them by proving such information and not forcing people to go elsewhere -- abortion is still a legal procedure after all, and it's simply providing information about a legal service.
WND, of course, would censor this information from its readers -- and it proudly declared its bias at the top of the article. A money beg proclaimed how WND is staffed by "Christian journalists" purportedly offering "uniquely truthful reporting." If one defines falsehoods, misinformation and conspiracy theories to be "uniquely truthful reporting," then sure. And the fact that it's criticizing another media outlet for providing factual information is more evidence of WND's heavliy slanted bias.
And if this article was so neutral and factual, why did the reporter refuse to put his or her byline on it? Where they afraid they were going to be criticized or mocked for writing such a ridiculous piece? That's a definite lack of transparency on WND's part, which makes readers not trust its brand of journalism even more. No wonder WND is continuing its slide toward oblivion.
