Is World Net Daily reliable?

[Bluestar]

They have published this article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18808

It talks about Hillary Clinton and someone named Walter Cronkite calling for world government, with the UN at the head.

Also, am I wrong or the article is dated.

[Tensor]

... someone named Walter Cronkite...

Sigh. :-?

[Gullible Jones]

WND seems a bit sensationalist, but not totally whacked... Like a less diluted version of USA Today.

As for calling for world government... Well, there's a good and a bad side to world government. The good is that it could end conflicts between nations; the bad is that it would almost certainly become massively corrupt... :roll:

[Bluestar]

If the article is from 1999, then I guess their call for americans to vote for a government that opposes this meant the 2000 election.

[01101001]

Bliestar, what you cited is commentary, not news. I doubt they choose their commentary columnists for their accuracy and reliability. I'd say that of any newspaper.

[Van Rijn]

It talks about Hillary Clinton and someone named Walter Cronkite calling for world government, with the UN at the head.


That's a joke, right? Please tell me that was a joke! :o

The whole thing is a joke, of course, but I mean really ...

[Archer17]

It talks about Hillary Clinton and someone named Walter Cronkite calling for world government, with the UN at the head.


That's a joke, right? Please tell me that was a joke! :o

The whole thing is a joke, of course, but I mean really ...I don't think the BA has an emoticon than could properly put this into perspective. It's a joke Van Rijn, not everyone got the punch line though.

[Maksutov]

Re the Subject of this thread:

No.

[Melusine]

Ditto Maksutov. If it was on paper, it would not even be lining the litter box for fear my cat would read it. Their articles are often just so warped and biased, and what is OK, they cull from other papers, so who needs them? Net nonsense.

[Bluestar]

Could I have some examples of its unreliability? Like, is it true that in 1986, the WFA filed suit against the United States over U.S. foreign policy, arguing that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution made the U.N. Charter as well as other U.N. treaties, the "supreme law of the land?

[R.A.F.]

Could I have some examples of its unreliability?

How about this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44348) nonsense about the "bible code".

after studying the subject himself, (Edwin) Sherman, founder of the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society, is now convinced the Hebrew Bible contains coded messages that are evidence of God's authorship of the Bible.

The Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society????...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

...and why are "they" always ex-skeptics?? Do they really think that it "adds" some sort of respectability to their idea??

[Gullible Jones]

Hmm... I must have missed that one. Yep, I'd definitely say that WND has zero reliability index, now that th Bible Code thing's been pointed out...

[collegeguy]

Sorry to bump this thread but I saw this being discussed in other forums and I wanted to post it here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

According to this, we are doomed :o good old reliable WND.

[Kesh]

Could I have some examples of its unreliability? Like, is it true that in 1986, the WFA filed suit against the United States over U.S. foreign policy, arguing that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution made the U.N. Charter as well as other U.N. treaties, the "supreme law of the land?

First, we'd have to know who the "WFA" is. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some silly group filed a suit of that nature. People have been arguing that angle for decades, and it's still ridiculous.

[hewhocaves]

Could I have some examples of its unreliability? Like, is it true that in 1986, the WFA filed suit against the United States over U.S. foreign policy, arguing that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution made the U.N. Charter as well as other U.N. treaties, the "supreme law of the land?

First, we'd have to know who the "WFA" is. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some silly group filed a suit of that nature. People have been arguing that angle for decades, and it's still ridiculous.

god, i think these people wrote a book on it and i had it for awhile. I dated this girl briefly in the early nineties who was all into the milita and isolationism (remember when beared people from Montana were the scariest thing around??) and how the UN was secretly taking over the world.

Amusingly, she married a trekkie. But that's another story

John

[Taks]

like any ideological news site, they have their good and their bad. in general, WND tends to be religious to a point of annoyance. however, some of their stuff is quite accurate, just offered from a conservative viewpoint. their news analysts range from conservative (pat buchannan) to libertarian (vox day) and they even include a liberal commentary (it varies) in their "out of left field" column...

kinda like saying do you think moveon.org or national review online gives a balanced opinion on political matters? nope, but they all contain truth to some extent. it's not really hard to pick out what is and isn't spin...

taks

[publiusr]

... someone named Walter Cronkite...

Sigh. :-?

Good guy. I remember his many Apollo broadcasts. He quits, Holliman dies--but we still have Miles O'Brien for now--and Jay Barbree at MSNBC

[Bluestar]

What do you think of this article:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

Are AQ members paying Spetznaz to know about hidden nukes in the US? Are the members of AQ paying Pakistan and Russia to keep their arsenals and build them some weapons? Have terrorist smuggled warheads in? :o

This doesn't seem reliable. I think suitcase nukes could be smuggled but this site is clearly exxagerating IMO. I would hope this would be 100% false as I don't want something like that for fear of the victims and the backlash it would probably bring on innocent muslims.

[Taks]

This doesn't seem reliable. I think suitcase nukes could be smuggled but this site is clearly exxagerating IMO. I would hope this would be 100% false as I don't want something like that for fear of the victims and the backlash it would probably bring on innocent muslims.
and here you are using opinion to cite unreliability in a news report. your argument is as tenuous as WND's argument. :)

taks

[publiusr]

What do you think of this article:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

Are AQ members paying Spetznaz to know about hidden nukes in the US? Are the members of AQ paying Pakistan and Russia to keep their arsenals and build them some weapons? Have terrorist smuggled warheads in? :o

This doesn't seem reliable. I think suitcase nukes could be smuggled but this site is clearly exxagerating IMO. I would hope this would be 100% false as I don't want something like that for fear of the victims and the backlash it would probably bring on innocent muslims.

There would certainly be a "Samson option"--but suitcase nukes are real--and Popular Mechanics did have something about hidden bombs here in the US. I don't know how far to take that article--but know this:

If I were to attack America--it is exactly how I would proceed.

[Taks]

unfortunately, we don't have access to the sources, and as a result, we don't have any true measure to the accuracy of such claims. it is further complicated by the possibility that if the government actually found such nukes in the US, they would not tell us for fear of creating panic (note i said possibility as they have already stated that not all "incidents" are made public). reliability is hard to test in this case unless we really do hear about it... almost like proving a negative.

taks

[hewhocaves]

The two big AQ attacks thus far have been carried out with crude explosives and boxcutters. There's more than a big step between that and assembling your own nuclear materials.

Consider: if it were that easy, Iraq and Iran would already be touting their nuclear capability.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible. Lots of things are possible. It's just not probable or likely. AQ will most likely continue the way they have so far - high profile attacks carried out through low tech means.

John

[Bluestar]

Some of the things in the article could certainly be true. The threat of suitcase nukes is real. AQ said they had in an interview if I recall. But claims that Spetznaz is being paid to reveal the hidden nukes and AQ paying Russia and Pakistan to keep their arsenals need more reliable sources to be proved. I just wondser why the site didn't mention the sources. It could really add up to its credibility.

[Taks]

true to both of you, and that is probably really the heart of calling a news source "reliable." concepts that require extraordinary imagination should also include extraordinary substantiation.

i think the same can be said for ATM theories... they are (often) so far outside the "accepted" realm of scientific belief that they really do need proof above and beyond what would normally be a slam dunk.

taks

[Bluestar]

It is the first time I was complimented on a conclusion in this site. I feel so proud. :D

[Taks]

hehe, from me?... now you have to wonder about MY reliabilty! :)

for the record, in the past i have been a regular reader of WND simply because it offers a vastly different viewpoint than other news sites. however, i can only take it for so long as it is "ultra-conservative" in its reporting. i like to balance my news out, and they are a hard act to balance.

taks

[Bluestar]

There are reports today that Tom Tancredo, a politician is going to request info in the "American Hiroshima" plan of AQ. It seems now that the Worldnetdaily article was reliable after all. 8-[

[Archer17]

There are reports today that Tom Tancredo, a politician is going to request info in the "American Hiroshima" plan of AQ. It seems now that the Worldnetdaily article was reliable after all. 8-[Think so? I don't. While suitcase nukes are a threat (always were), the gossip I read on this rag is just that. I've been hearing about suitecase nuke "plots" since 9/11. The only way to gage the reliability of an "American Hiroshma" is for it to actually happen or to hear that we busted a major suitecase nuke plot. It's prudent for even rumors to be checked out, but WorldNetDaily takes it a step further. This snippet for instance:Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. Really? What are they waiting for, a symbolic date? I do agree our borders have to be tightened, but I felt that way a long time before WorldnetDaily spun this tale. I'm not saying everything WorldNetDaily publishes is total hogwash (even the National Enquirer gets some things right) but unless you take some of salt along when you read this rag you'll end up feeling like you were taken for a ride at times.

[Kemal]

No, even if I agree with their editorial slant sometimes they are sensationalist and tabloid. They are not a good news source.

[Bluestar]

Tom tancredo was discussing in a radio show on Friday about the WorldNetdaily article that says that AQ has brought and has nukes to attack several US cities. He suggested to take out their holy sites including Mecca if they do something like that. Why would he take the WND article so seriously if it is not reliable? I am concerned about this 8-[ . Here's a link with a transcript of the interview in the radio show:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2869419?rss

How could people support someone like him to run for president in 2008?

[hewhocaves]

Tom tancredo was discussing in a radio show on Friday about the WorldNetdaily article that says that AQ has brought and has nukes to attack several US cities. He suggested to take out their holy sites including Mecca if they do something like that. Why would he take the WND article so seriously if it is not reliable? I am concerned about this 8-[ . Here's a link with a transcript of the interview in the radio show:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2869419?rss

How could people support someone like him to run for president in 2008?

just because it's written in the newspaper does not guarantee it's true. look at the horoscope page.

in a vaguely related thread, woodward and bernstein were guests on the Daily Show last night. They joined the chorus of recent guests who have said that the news media needs to get serious about doing their job. Poorly researched articles, extreme bias, making up stories outright - that's the hallmark of the 24 hour news world we live in. It reminds me more and more of the Yellow Journalism of the early 1900s.

Fortunately there is no Maine to blow up this time.

John

[Gillianren]

How could people support someone like him to run for president in 2008?

people support looney tunes for President all the time. for example, the first woman to run for President ran on a campaign of legalizing prostitution and free love. what's so crazy about that? it was in 1872--the height of Victorianism. I could give current examples, but that would be political. let me just advise learning a bit about Lyndon LaRouche.

[hewhocaves]

people support looney tunes for President all the time. for example, the first woman to run for President ran on a campaign of legalizing prostitution and free love. what's so crazy about that? it was in 1872--the height of Victorianism. I could give current examples, but that would be political. let me just advise learning a bit about Lyndon LaRouche.

I'd vote for her.

(ducks)

please don't hit me. :oops:

John

[Bluestar]

I just hope that WND article is 100% wrong. I find hard to believe the claims of AQ paying former spetznaz to locate nukes hidden in the US since the "cold war" time and the claims that AQ has nuclear mines and even missile warheads. But the suitcase nukes may be real 8-[ . I hope something like that doesn't happen. It could open a pandora's box with horrible consequences.
And bombing Mecca would bring a terrible reaction from the middle east against us. It would be a very stupid strategy.

[hewhocaves]

And bombing Mecca would bring a terrible reaction from the middle east against us. It would be a very stupid strategy.

yes it would. sometimes it seems like this administration is trying to form a monopoly on stupid, though. (with hotels on boardwalk). however, bombing Mecca (or it's version of Park Place, Medina) is stupid on several orders of magnitude. It'd be like nuking Jerusalem or Rome. It would be really really hard to gauge the backlash from it, but I suspect that what we've been through would seem like a walk in the park by comparison. (or, to put it another way, they would run out of bombs long before they ran out of suicide bombers).

lastly, not attacking their religious holy sites becasue they are their religious holy sites is IMHO one of the few moral high points we have left. Taking that away and it really starts to become difficult to tell the sides apart without a scorecard.