SOME OF YOU REGULAR READERS MAY HAVE BEEN UNABLE FROM TIME TO TIME TODAY to access The Exaggerator because, as it turns out, traffic to recent postings of this blog has wound up overloading the servers @ BlogDrive, who hosts this weblog.

For that, I apologise.

And with that in mind, I would like to issue an appeal to you readers:

In the interest of accomodating heavier traffic loads without triggering problems in the bandwidth department, I have decided to upgrade my account so that more bandwidth (and, hence, more traffic) can be accomodated for month by month.

But then again, bloggers can't live on traffic alone.

Which explains why I have to include online shopping and the Virtual Tip Jar here--i.e., to cover the costs of blogging beyond what I'm able to afford with my disability benefit and my being otherwise unable to find honest work. That, and a distrust on my part of "work-from-home" scams only exploiting my sort and their lot.

So, I would welcome and appreciate it if you would please contribute to the cause, as it were, every time you visit. How much you choose to contribute doesn't matter, so long as it helps this blog.

Be it as a donation to the Virtual Tip Jar, as in online shopping (for which I can get commission on your purchases) or in joining affiliate programmes (again, I get commission on the sales you generate on your weblog), such support would go a long way.  

And would be greatly appreciated.

(However, I should caution that any contributions you make through the Virtual Tip Jar are NOT tax-deductible.)

=============

AND ONE THING MORE: If you're able to see this posting, readers, please let me know--either by e-mail or in the comments section. I want to know if this upgrade is actually working. 

YOUR CORRESPONDENT, WHEN HE LAUNCHED THE BLOG YOU ARE NOW READING TOWARDS THE NEW YEAR, made what could best be called an unconscious decision to not post any items on Sunday, or otherwise backdate them for Sunday issue.

The item from last week announcing the start of the one-year countdown for the Digital Transition of FreeVee transmissions is, for all purposes and intents, a rare exception to the case.

But then again, a few interesting items in the news requires Your Correspondent to post today, notwithstanding his not being the kind to observe the Christian Sabbath goodthoughtfully (in Orwellian Newspeak, being orthodox in its observance). I trust you'll understand.

*************

THE RELIGIOPOLITICAL RIGHT'S GOING TO HAVE AN EVEN TOUGHER TIME HARRASSING THE FCC, let alone encouraging "harrassment by proxy" (as it were) so targeting, when it comes to real or suspected instances of obscenity or indecency on TV and radio henceforth:

The FCC announced in passing that new and tighter standards will be in place to handle complaints (and assess any ensuing penalties) against broadcasters suspected of broadcasting obscene or indecent material on the "morally superior" American airwaves (technically the property in trust of Die Amerikanischer Volk, notwithstanding the implied and subtle claims of the Broadcasting Trust); the better to discourage what amounts to prepared, "cookie-cutter" form complaints generated en bloc by special-interest groups with connexions weird and unwholesome as may tend to the insincere (especially where it turns out that the complainants didn't exactly watch or listen to the offending programme, further worsening the risk of insincerity as certainly wastes the FCC's time and resources to the point of diverting attention from More Pressing Matters).

Put another way, any penalties assessed in future will be applied only against broadcasters in such markets where valid and sincere complaints were generated, placing the onus upon the complainant to show that s/he watched or heard the offending content in question; prepared form e-mails sent via "action alerts" will no longer receive priority attention.

I say "in passing" inasmuch as the news was, shall we say, buried in a larger item announcing that the FCC had revised an earlier action against what are now 13 Fox network affiliates as screened an episode of Married by America in 2005 containing explicit anatomical details; each such was fined $7,500, and the Fox network announced that it would appeal in the courts, claiming that the standards the FCC used in rendering the decision are "constitutionally vague and suspect."

=============

NO WONDER KEITH RUPERT MURDOCH, THE PONTIFEX MAXIMUS OF THE FOX NETWORK (AS IT WERE), isn't nicknamed "the Dirty Digger" for nothing: His mass-market tabloids in his native Australia have a nasty little reputation for featuring soft-porn cheesecake pinups known as "page three" (for the location of same in a typical issue).

The which would be adapted in England when Keith Rupert purchased the tabloid daily The Sun in 1969, two years after entering Fleet Street when he acquired the long-established Sunday gazetta News of the World (perhaps the most inapproriate name for a newspaper anywhere, methinks, what with its traditional emphasis on highly-sensationalised coverage of crime, sex scandals, Naughty Scoutmasters and sport as was well-established even before "the Dirty Digger" came along ... and a close rival in these sweepstakes would have to be the Montréal daily Le Devoir--whose name translates as "The Duty"--itself rather infamous in its day for blatant anti-Semitism and excusing such as one with the need for Québecois nationalism).

Before long, "page three" would become a household word between Land's End and John O'Groats, quickly making The Sun top seller in Fleet Street among the British Lower Classes who, heretofore, usually relied on the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror for their dose of prolefeed.

And would inspire numerous imitators, but not without controversy:

• When the Daily Star was launched in 1977 to compete with The Sun (right down to the page three cheesecake, which they called "the Starbird"), women's groups protested what they saw was nothing less than cheap sexual gratification and titillation, even displaying picket signs with slogans like NEWS, NOT NUDES and A STAR IS PORN (a play on the launch slogan).
• In more recent years, the Daily Sport (and its Sunday edition, the Sunday Sport) has attracted notoriety for featuring in their version of page three bare breasts on occasion, howbeit stopping short of outright full-frontal nudity. But then again, the Daily Sport has this nasty little repute for being tastelessly lurid while concurrently expressing moral outrage.

Now you know what motivates such distractionary excesses on a rather distractionary example of FreeVee....

*************

IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE CHEAP DESPERATION TACTICS ON THE GOP'S PART TO ENSURE CERTAIN VICTORY in Indecision 2008, Wall Street's Own Worst Nightmare (otherwise known as Ralph Nader) has announced another Presidential bid on the Green Party ticket.

Which begs the question of whether the Green Party is really a cheap front for the GOP to further divide and conquer the electorate towards further maintenance of the Greater Conservative Agenda as may really be the ruin of American soverignty and soverign identity "antient and pecuilar" all the more.

(There does happen to be precedent in American political history for one political party setting up a "front" party for deceptive purposes: The Communist Party set up the Progressive Party to run former Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace as the latter's Presidential candidate in the 1948 elections; Wallace, for his part, was unaware all along that he was really a "patsy" for the Communists.)

*************

GOP PRESIDENTIAL MAVERICK MIKE HUCKABEE, FOR HIS PART, parodied himself on Saturday Night Live last evening, acknowledging that he intends to "fight the good fight," in the words of an old hymn, until John McCain wins the requisite number of delegates for formal nomination in the Twin Cities this fall.

But then again, how do we know that Camp Huckabee, with the help of his dear and trusted droogs on the Pseudoreligiopolitical Right, isn't really seeking to disrupt the GOP's convention for to bring such into not so much disarray as its own Presidential chances for Indecision 2008 being discredited?

(After all, there's plenty of juicy material galore for to swiftboat the GOP with. Do a Google.)     

23 February 2008
10.01 hours

Governor Tim Pawlenty
State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155-0001

Dear Governor Pawlenty:

IN YOUR RECENT VETO OF BADLY-NEEDED LEGISLATION to revamp the transportation network in Minnesota, you claim such was necessary to "protect the good taxpayers" of Minnesota--even with a deteriorating infrastructure of roads, bridges and transportation which was made all the more evident when the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River near St. Anthony Falls in Minneapolis collapsed on 1 August.

As if that weren't enough, your very Department of Transportation has found serious deficencies in a number of bridges across Minnesota, the most blatant example being the US 61 bridge over the Mississippi @ Hastings--the busiest two-lane bridge in Minnesota, know--which has a deteriorating superstructure that's so bad, a 40-ton limit will likely be imposed on same. Until it collapses.

Once that happens, Governor Pawlenty--what will be your next patsy?

After all, you have this nasty little reputation for being a Zealot and True Believer (hard-wired, even) in the discredited socioeconomic theorem known as "supply-side" or "trickle-down," which suggests that, by keeping taxes all the lower, companies would be compelled solely from the goodness of their hearts to create REAL jobs for REAL people paying REAL money which, in turn, would be repayable as REAL taxes.

Not to mention the interrelated belief, perhaps based on the same flawed exponential maths used by those promoting the so-called "five reports" chain letters a few years back, which suggests that low taxes=jobs=socioeconomic stability--articles of faith held dear by the likes of pro-business groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and (all the more so) the so-called "Club For Growth," among others on K Street.

Of particular concern is the likelihood of your agenda and policies being influenced--perhaps even manipulated--by the Club For Growth, perhaps the most blatant advocate of such platitudes you hold dear. Come to think of it: 

• How do we know that your agenda, and those influencing same through the old whispering-in-the-ear game, isn't really being influenced by the Club For Growth or advisors working in their behalf (perhaps even in the guise of the "Taxpayers' League of Minnesota")?
• How do we know that your "real" agenda for repairing the transportation infrastructure based on keeping taxes all the lower isn't really based on "public-private partnerships" awarded more than likely to major campaign contributors expecting reward for Good and Loyal Service? Isn't this what they used to call "the spoils system"? What would be your preferred defence therefor?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the clear and present danger such a mindset based on equally-defective and even discredited socioeconomic thought could pose upon the good name and repute of Our Beloved Minnesota, as manifested in the likes of:
• corruption;
• fraud and waste;
• inefficency;
• increased bureauracy;
• risk of mismanagement;
• discouraging transparency and oversight; and
• potential moral harm among all involved?
• What kind of influence, "talking points," "guidance," etc., are you receiving from the Club For Growth when it comes to such policies you hold dear as articles of faith?
• How do we know you're not resorting to, or likely to resort to, misadventures tending to moral debauchery or perversion (including use of sexual favours, heterosexual and/or homosexual) as an agency of coercion or co-optation? What lengths will you resort to to avoid attracting scandal as could cause moral harm to Our Beloved Minnesota as much as yourself as a byproduct of said misadventures?
• Is your real desire in keeping the fuel tax, etc., all the lower "to protect the good taxpayers" really nothing short of code to encourage wasteful and inefficent driving and commuting practices translating into more frequent fill-ups @ gas stations (the argument here, so to speak, being that more frequent gas sales will translate into increased tax volume while maintaining current tax rates)?

=============

AND ANOTHER THING OR TWO:

What would be your reaction if it just so happens that the major credit-rating agencies of Moody's, Standard & Poor's, Dun & Bradstreet and Duff & Phelps place all State of Minnesota debt securities and equities On Credit Watch because of your misguided Zealotry and True Belief in "supply-side" socioeconomic thought--with a subtle warning that they could reduce your state's bond rating dangerously close to "junk" status in the end?

And what will it take to convince you to consciously recognise that, sometimes, tax increases, no matter how severe you may deem them, may be all the more necessary to finance reconstructive efforts on the transportaion network--another high-traffic bridge collapse with substantial casualties? A significant and measurable traffic jam (with substantial tailbacking) on one of the Twin Cities' major freeways, with substantial waste of fuel, ensuing air pollution and frayed nerves?

And what prevents your acknowledging the involvement (howbeit subtle) of potentially weird, unwholesome and/or dangerous elements in excusing your discredited low taxes=jobs=socioeconomic stability argument and agenda, unaware all the while of the possible consequences far-reaching for Minnesota's good name, repute, honour and credit rating--consequences which can easily be exploited by Very Dangerous Persons and Elements of Society for potentially dangerous ends?

How do we know that you're not insane or otherwise mentally unstable?

How do we know that you're not an alcoholic, drug addict or sexual fiend?

How do we know that you're not suffering from such conditions as could affect your capacity to capably discharge the powers and duties of your office, as defined in the Minnesota Constitution?

Have you forgotten that the Legislature could have you removed from office for not just "treason, felony or other high crimes and misdemeanors," but also for incapacity to discharge the powers and duties entrusted you? Likewise with the voters, through the agency of a recall election?

Remember the old saying: "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." (If truth be known, it was more than likely that the Emperor Nero played the lyre while the Eternal City was going down in flame.)

  sincerely,
ILUDIUM PHOSDEX
(die egte artikel--aanvaar geen plaasvervangers)

*************

MEMO TO READERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE RESIDENT IN MINNESOTA: You are strongly urged to share this with not only Governor Pawlenty's office, but also with members of the Minnesota Legislature. Make sure they "get the message" that "we're as mad as h***, and we're not going to take it anymore," and then some.

Remember: "There is strength in numbers." 

WITH THE RELIGIOPOLITICAL RIGHT'S ARTICLES OF FAITH FOREVER SEEING HOMOSEXUALITY AS A MENTAL AND MORAL ABERRATION of the Highest Order Requiring the Utmost Vigilance and Attention of All Right-Thinking (read: poor, undereducated or homeschooled and easily-influenced) Americans, you could just imagine their response to what the New York-based tabloid Brevities ("America's First National Tabloid Weekly") reported on its front page in the issue of October 10, 1932:

MINERS' HOT HOLES

Coal Holes Hot as Gals Dig Deep
Underground Love True to Form

Sweat and Sex Mingle Freely as
Working-Men Demand Diversion in Love

The story thus headlined suggested that employers were secretly hiring prostitutes to prevent their blue-collar employees from becoming "girlie men" or otherwise developing "tendencies" (to use the preferred term of choice back then for those suspected of homosexuality), explaining thus:

But the horny-handed sons of toil that roll up the shekels for the big boys must have their women. This is especially true of the coal miners, steel mill workers and other labor hogs who do the nation's dirty work. Gals give this class of citizen his only kick. And gals this bozo must have if he is going to keep on whooping up production while his wages and chances of getting ahead go to the devil.

But then again, Brevities was never really credible to begin with, considering its highly-sensationalised and @ once salacious tone of reporting attracting the attention of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, as frequently took Brevities to task for Publishing Obscene Material--oft followed by Vice Squad seizures of copies from newsagents.

Equally interesting is the fact that Brevities was, more or less, the continuation of Broadway Brevities and Society Gossip, a gossip weekly as ran from 1916 until 1925, when editor Stephen G. Clow was found guilty of using same for blackmailing purposes--but not before publishing a series of no less than thirteen articles under the collective title "A Night in Fairyland" as sought to depict New York's nascent homosexual community in crude and unsparingly offensive terms rivalled by the Religiopolitical Right's dark Satanic propaganda mills in our "more enlightened" times.

In other words, using overzealous sensationalism in service to a warped and twisted vision of Morals and Decency, with little or no regard for Truth--but then again, conservatives don't want the Great Unwashed to handle the truth, instead expecting them to accept prolefeed cheap and cheerful.

Not to mention pornographic, as need be, if only to pacify them.

YOUR CORRESONDENT UNDERSTANDS THAT IN SOME GERMAN SPA TOWN WHOSE NAME HAS SLIPPED HIS MIND, one of the many novellas of the American West as were penned by the legendary Karl May (1842-1912) is dramatised on an outdoor stage every summer, roughly from the Whitsun weekend (i.e., seven weeks after Easter) until the Reunification Day holiday on 3 October.

And a new such is so dramatised every summer.

(German readers of this weblog would kindly assist me in this respect.)

In that vein, Your Correspondent hath it that New Glarus, Wisconsin has an annual reenactment of the Wilhelm Tell legend associated with its ancestral homeland of Switzerland on the Labour Day weekend, with performances in English and German.

Which has Your Correspondent imagining where someone in Wisconsin Dells might want to stage (and outdoors, mind you) adaptations of the several episodes of the long-running radio thriller series Suspense, "Radio's Outstanding Theater of Thrills" in the spirit of these adaptations of Karl May I alluded to earlier.

With proper timing, the original half-hour radio dramas could be nicely adapted so that two such could be staged in an evening:

• A rotating episode from a selection as could change annually; and
• The fan favourite "Sorry, Wrong Number," which was repeated no less than seven times on Suspense "by popular request" during its 1942-62 run on CBS radio.

Preceded by the original "seven chimes" and haunting music as preceded every episode, along with a short preface explaining the history and legacy of the mystery/thriller anthology series, recalling many of the legendary film and radio stars who appeared over its 20-year broadcast run and the many writers whose stories were so adapted ... and now its adaptation to the outdoor stage for a new generation as may not recall old-time radio.

=============

SOME OF YOU CULTURALLY-CONSERVATIVE READERS OF THIS WEBLOG would, having read thus far, wonder why such a stage adaptation shouldn't be more approriate for Branson, Missouri.

I will explain the best I can:

Branson, for its part, is getting a bit hackneyed by the idealised delusion of the cultural conservative element seeing in Branson the One True Acme and Perfection of Amerikanischer Realkultur, one expected to convey a subtle propaganda message (think Taylor Caldwell's novellas as conduits for Extreme Right propaganda) along with the entertainment; the better to appeal to such who have no ideas anyway.

And which could be its own worst joke.

Hence, Wisconsin Dells, with its own brand of natural weirdness inherent, might be a better venue for Suspense adapted to the outdoor stage--so long as it doesn't meet the same star-crossed fates as a number of Hollywood films where the occult, the Forbidden Arts and horror figured prominently (especially so The Exorcist and the Poltergeist series).

CONWEBWATCH, A WEBSITE AS MONITORS THE LIKES OF SO-CALLED "ONLINE NEWS PORTALS" WITH INHERENT CONSERVATIVE BIAS AND "SPIN," has a sterling reputation for exposing the excesses of journalistic travesty and perversion by the likes of CNSNews, NewsMax and WorldNetDaily.

It is on that last one that ConWebWatch makes note of the recent out-of-court legal settlement that may have actually discredited WorldNetDaily enough to the point of their becoming their own worst joke:

WorldNetDaily has long used a $165 million libel and defamation lawsuit filed against it by Clark Jones, Tennessee car dealer and fund-raiser for former Vice President Al Gore, for self-aggrandizement purposes.

A September 2000 article by Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays -- part of a several-part series published by WND attacking Gore prior to the 2000 presidential election--described Jones as a "suspected drug dealer," "described as such on state law enforcement computerized files," who had interfered with a criminal investigation. Thompson and Hays also suggested that Jones played a role in the arson of one of his auto dealerships.

WND regularly bashed Jones as a "Gore crony" and depicted itself as a defender of the truth and the freedom of the press. Thompson insisted, "We did a proper, ethical investigation.... And the spurious claims of Clark Jones can't and won't win." WND editor Joseph Farah has insisted (without citing any evidence to back it up): "Understand that this lawsuit would be dropped in a flat second if Al Gore wanted it to be dropped," going on to claim, "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." WND has regularly boasted the articles caused Gore to lose Tennessee in the 2000 presidential election and, thus, the presidency, since a Tennessee win would have sealed an Electoral College victory and made the post-election turmoil in Florida moot.

As recently as Feb. 5, a WND article by Bob Unruh portrayed the lawsuit as a harbinger for "the future of investigative journalism in the United States," quoting WND's lawyer in the case, Larry Parrish, as saying, "If what WorldNetDaily did is subject to being the basis for a libel judgment, investigative reporting will just come to a complete halt." It also quoted Farah as complaining that "the largest defamation case in the history of the United States has not been reported anywhere outside of the news agency involved."

Farah probably doesn't want to complain about that anymore.

Eight days after this article appeared, a Feb. 13 article stated that WND has settled the lawsuit, which had been scheduled to go to trial next month, out of court--in part by retracting the statements it made about Jones.

The terms of the settlement are confidential, according to the article, though it would be logical to assume that WND paid some amount of money to Jones for the grief it caused him. It also provided "the text of the settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit. Both sides agreed to limit comment on the lawsuit to this statement":

"A lawsuit for libel, defamation, false light and conspiracy was filed by Clark Jones of Savannah, Tennessee against WorldNetDaily.com, Tony Hays and Charles H. Thompson II arising out of a press release issued by WorldNetDaily.com on September 18, 2000, and articles dated September 20, October 8, November 24 and December 5, 2000, written by Tony Hays and Charles H. Thompson, II, posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website.

"The original news release by WorldNetDaily.com of September 18, 2000, and the article by Hays and Thompson of September 20, 2000, contained statements attributed to named sources, which statements cast Clark Jones in a light which, if untrue, defamed him by asserting that the named persons said that he had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a 'subject' of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a 'dope dealer,' and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. These statements were repeated in the subsequently written articles and funds solicitations posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website. Clark Jones emphatically denied the truth of these statements, denied any criminal activity and called upon the publisher and authors to retract them.

"Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true.

"Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context.

"WorldNetDaily.com and its editors never intended any harm to Clark Jones and regret whatever harm occurred. WorldNetDaily.com has no verified information by which to question Mr. Jones' honesty and integrity, and having met him, has no claim or reason to question his honesty and integrity. WorldNetDaily.com wishes him well."

(This statement has been appended to the original 2000 article, as well as Unruh's Feb. 5 article, which repeated the original article's accusations against Jones without bothering to note that Jones had denied them, and other articles repeating the claim.)

The note that "all parties in the lawsuit" signed off on the agreement presumably also covers the other defendants in the case: Thompson, Hays, the Center for Public Integrity (which underwrote Thompson and Hays' reporting), then-WND director of communications (and now vice president for communications and marketing at the conservative Heritage Foundation) Rebecca Hagelin, and various Tennessee-based news outlets.

WND's admission that "no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated" and that "the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context" is a huge mea culpa. And it begs the question: Shouldn't the time to have figured this out have been before the article was published, instead of waiting until seven years after the fact to verify the claims?

Related article on ConWebWatch: WorldNetDaily on Trial Selected legal documents filed in Jones/WND lawsuit: Clark Jones' lawsuit against WorldNetDaily, et al. (second amended) WorldNetDaily affidavit, July 2004 "Request of WorldNetDaily.com/ Hagelin for Jones to admit," August 2004 Jeff South's analysis Dwight Teeter's analysis

As ConWebWatch detailed, the Center for Public Integrity, which backed out of the Thopmson-Hays project after deciding that, according to CPI senior fellow Knut Royce, "we didn't have a story that the Center would be the adequate forum for." The authors found a willing publisher in WND, which admitted in court papers that it never fact-checked the articles before publishing them and didn't even know the identities of the anonymous sources Thompson and Hays hid behind in making their false accusations against Jones.

The statement also appears to comport with claims by expert witnesses for Jones, who stated that the articles "grossly violated the basic standards of care advocated by professional journalism organizations and practice in reputable newsrooms" and that they included "publication of statements about wrongdoings attributed to Clark Jones which were attached to unnamed sources and allowed free floating use of the weasel word 'alleged' with no evidence presented that any official charges or allegations had been brought against Mr. Jones."

So much for Farah's claim that "WorldNetDaily has made every effort to ensure that its reporting in this series ... was fair, honest, truthful, balanced and accurate."

One more thing has not been discussed by WND: the unavoidable conclusion that the rest of Thompson and Hays' reporting may very well be similarly "misquoted," "misconstrued, or "taken out of context."

Since WND has often boasted that the series, in Unruh's words in the Feb. 5 article, "was responsible for Gore losing the state--and thus the presidential election," should it not also apologize to Gore as well for disseminating lies that cost him the election?

After all, there is a definitely likelihood that the rest of Thompson and Hays' series is a factually shaky as their claims about Jones--which, among other things, peddled guilt-by-association ties between Gore to the Russian mafia and claimed he protected "corrupt officials" in Tennessee.

Will WND go back and fact-check the rest of Thompson and Hays' reporting as well, or will it wait for someone else to sue before being spurred into action? The former would be the prudent solution, at least if WND has any proactive interest in rebuilding public confidence in its reporting.

Will WND take action against Thompson and Hays to recover damages for their faulty reporting? It certainly as a case to do so; if it wanted to publicly demonstrate a commitment to good journalism, it could easily make a big show of doing so, decrying the reporters for besmirching WND's good name (such as it is).

The problem is, however, that the Jones lawsuit is just one manifestation of WND's abysmal reporting standards:

• In February 2004, WND ran several articles repeating never-proven, anonymously sourced rumors that then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was having an affair.
• WND retracted a December 2004 article by Aaron Klein that falsely claimed the group Islamic Relief is linked to terrorism and fraudulently raising money to benefit fictitious orphans.
• In April 2005, it treated an April fool's blog post on a gossip site claiming that the husband of Terri Schiavo had sold the rights to his story for a TV movie as the real thing, and had to retract it a few days later.
• WND's G2 Bulletin falsely claimed "Teresa Heinz Kerry was behind the funding of radical causes including Act-Up, Islamist jihadists, anarchists who disrupted the Seattle World Trade Organization meeting and communist front groups" when not only there is no evidence that Heinz money has gone directly to those groups, the documented evidence is that Heinz money given to the Tides Center has been specifically earmarked for environmental projects in Pennsylvania. Farah has referred to "Teresa Heinz Kerry's nonprofit Tides Center," even though she is not on its board of directors.
• According to mythbuster website Snopes.com, a November 2001 WND column by Ellen Makkai attacking the Harry Potter book series cited "High Priest Egan of the First Church of Satan" calling Potter "an absolute godsend ... we've had more applicants than we can handle lately"--a quote lifted from the satirical website The Onion. (The quote has since been expunged from Makkai's column.)

And that's just the obviously false stuff. That doesn't include the distorted and biased "reporting" promulgated by WND writers such as Aaron Klein, Bob Unruh, and Art Moore.

These are all significant breaches of sound journalistic practice, as well as blows to whatever credibility WND has--but Farah has never publicly addressed them with his readers, explaining how they occurred, how (or if) those responsible were punished, or what measures WND has taken to ensure they don't happen again.

So what does this all mean? Mainly, that Joseph Farah is much more interested in promoting a right-wing, anti-liberal agenda than responsible journalism. In the case of the Thompson-Hays articles, he clearly allowed his hatred of the Clinton administration to trump the time-honored concept of journalistic diligence.

That's one thing that can be said for much of WND's reporting--it really doesn't care if what it reports is actually true, as long as its political enemies are appropriately smeared.

(In court papers in the Jones lawsuit, WND made the laughable claim that "WND expressed no corporate editorial opinion with respect to whether Albert Gore, Jr. or George W. Bush was the more suitable candidate to hold the office of President" in 2000, even though Farah--who, as WND's founder and editor, is arguably WND's "corporate editorial opinion"--had asserted before the 2000 election that "There are at least a thousand good reasons not to vote for Al Gore for president," stated that Gore is "unfit for the presidency" and that "he will turn the presidency into a kind of neo-paganistic ayatollah-like system of oppression from which this country will never recover.")

As if to demonstrate that it hasn't learned anything from having to pay a no-doubt-significant sum to settle a libel lawsuit and after admitting that it published falsehoods--and following its tradition of running unverified claims against Democratic presidential candidates--WND gets back behind the smear machine with a Feb. 17 article (unbylined this time) unquestioningly repeating a claim by a man named Larry Sinclair who said he did drugs and had sex with Barack Obama. WND made no apparent effort in that article or another one the next day to verify anything the man said--indeed, WND offers no independently corroborated evidence whatsoever to support the man's claim--what including his claim to live in Duluth, Minnesota, or his claim that he is "a registered Democrat but has never voted for any candidate."

Regarding those last two claims: One blogger is reporting that the man is, in fact, from Texas and a supporter of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

WND appears to be making the same mistake it made in publishing Thompson and Hays' work: Shouldn't WND have made an effort to verify Sinclair's claims before it published them? You know, how real journalists do it? Or does WND believe that the mere fact that someone is spouting smears against a Democrat is evidence of its truth?

It's looking like WorldNetDaily is supplying yet another aggrieved party with material for another libel lawsuit--and that WND is giving readers yet another reason not to take it seriously as a source of news.

Farah's willingness to use WorldNetDaily to recklessly spread falsehoods about his political enemies may--and perhaps should--eventually kill his website. WND's crushing admission in the Jones lawsuit that it spread lies after years of boasting it did nothing wrong, plus its eagerness to spread unproven claims about Obama, are signs that Farah cares nothing about the consequences of his actions, only about using his website as a vendetta machine.

(Perhaps something the courts ought to consider is the likelihood of charges against WorldNetDaily as being an agency of blackmail and extortion in the guise of "investigative journalism" with obvious conservative biases. Does Joseph Farah recall the likes of Broadway Brevities, a mid-1920's tabloid eventually shut down for its being a blackmailing front?)