A July 26 WorldNetDaily article marks the first time in 3 1/2 years that WND has written a news article about the lawsuit filed against it by Tennessee businessman Clark Jones over an 18-part series of Al Gore-bashing articles. Based on the links at the bottom of the article, this is the first news article that WND has published on the case since December 2002. A lot has happened in those 3 1/2 years that WND hasn't told us about. For instance, the December 2002 article describes WND as being represented by the U.S. Justice Foundation in the case; WND's current attorney, according to the new article, is Larry Parrish. (WND, to our knowledge, has never publicly explained why the change was made.) We are presuming him to be the Memphis-based attorney by that name who is currently seeking appointment as Tennessee attorney general. A WBIR-TV news article describes Parrish as "an anti-obscenity advocate" who "in the 1970s prosecuted the stars and producers of the adult film "Deep Throat" in Memphis." While the WND article describes him as a "media lawyer," his FindLaw profile doesn't list media law as one of his specialties. A July 17 Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial endorsing candidates for local judicial candidates chose the incumbent, D'Army Bailey, for a circuit court seat in which Parrish was a challenger: "Parrish questions Bailey's judicial performance and ethics. However, we have to seriously question the ethics of a challenger who uses a case he has before Bailey as a campaign vehicle to attack the judge."
The article is also heavy on pro-WND spin, as you might imagine. The headine calls it a "free-press lawsuit," and the only people apparently contacted in connection with the article are Parrish and WND editor Joseph Farah. Ironically, Farah is uoted as saying that "WorldNetDaily has made every effort to ensure that its reporting in this series –- and in everything it has covered – was fair, honest, truthful, balanced and accurate."
Such a one-sided story that WND has a vested interest in spinning to its benefit -- not to mention begging for money at the end of it -- is, by definition, neither fair nor balanced, a contrast to Farah's alleged mandate. How can WND possibly approach such balance? By posting all legal documents in the case on its website, as we've previously challenged WND to do. Needless to say, we've never gotten an answer.
Posting those documents might help to explain why WND has been virtually silent about this lawsuit for the past 3 1/2 years. Unless there's something in there that it doesn't want made public...