Terror Watch: I Never cease to be amazed

What is WorldNetDaily? Is it a credible journalistic agency? Visiting their website rather suggests a group with an ax to grind, and that may mean a distortion of the facts in the case.

If, however, the story is true, it certainly appears that somebody was over-reaching in order to appease the complaints of "racial profiling". Did anyone see CNN this past Monday, with its focus on "Target: USA"? Throughout the day there were features on American vulnerabilities and how little, in some cases, has been done to protect us. I kept the program on much of the day because my son-in-law was one of the "terror experts" interviewed ... he pointed out how difficult it is to protect buses, trains, ferry boats, and the like against intrustion in a massive commuter setting like New York. All that does suggest that there is no reason to take anybody, Muslim or not, into settings where security procedures could be compromised.

Unless, of course, all they saw was on-the-surface eye candy, meaning nothing in terms of real information.

 

There is a reason its nickname is "WorldNutDaily".

Everything on it must be taken with more than a grain of salt . . . more like the whole shaker!

 

Any specifics?

 

Actually carpro, they are probably right up your alley! :laugh:

Serously though, many of their stories are without corroboration with any other source, they often don't name any credible source of information, and a quick glance at both their website and a reading of samples of articles, and it is apparent they are not an reliable nor unbiased news organization. IMO, these guys are such lunatics that they make Fox News Channel look like a bastion of leftist propaganda.

And BTW, I got their nickname wrong. It is WingNutDaily. Sorry for the error.

 

I see.

All of which means you have no illustrations for when they wrongly or falsely reported a story.

It is just as apparent the MSM sources such as the LA Times are just as biased and sometimes publish outright falsehoods, often under the guise of "anonymous sources".

Is there any real difference between not naming a source and citing "anonymous sources"?

I am not a fan of WND, but your condemnation of them is specious, at best.l