If Patrol actually had thumbs, she (yes, the site is a female) would be raising them firmly to the sky. In the type of move that might cause that place down below to get just a tad colder, The Next Right is calling for conservatives to stand against insanity and boycott the far, far Right's Wal-Mart of Fear, WorldNetDaily.

In response to WND's latest reporting that Obama may be creating Nazi-like detention camps for emergencies, The Next Right writes, 

"In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet.  The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration…No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles.  Those who do are not respectable."

The monolithic bastion of bad font types and retina-scarring headlines has insisted on mining birther anger, latent racism and death camps rumors to the point of becoming a self-mocking parody, and Patrol agrees that it's time, to rip a cinematic-standard from Glen Beck's cold clammy fingers, and say "we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

There is a place for a "Free Press for a Free People," as WND so proudly declares, but Adams declared that, "The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue," and Franklin noted that, "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, (I can go on all day).  What seems strangely forgotten, in WND's obsession with our founding fathers and terror for America's future, is that one of the chief virtues in Christianity, and in America's early days, was that of truth-telling.

It is impossible to look at WND, on a post by post basis, and objectively say that what happens there actually follows under a pursuit of truth. Page by page is filled with sensational headlines, crackpot political ramblings and product marketing to take advantage of conservative paranoia. If all the people at WND can look in the mirror and say that they truly are actually pursuing truth, then someone should check the water filters and the batteries on the carbon monoxide detectors, just to make sure that brain cells aren't being unknowingly poisoned.

I'm not someone who likes to call out or attack an organization like this, but I'm sick and tired of having conservatism co-opted by this type of insanity. It undercuts the good of true conservatism and hurts causes and ideas I firmly believe in. This site is irresponsible journalism, it breeds dissension and hate, and exemplifies the far right's contribution to everything that is wrong with modern day political discourse.

Stop hurting America, WND. Please.

Organizing Against WorldNetDaily [The Next Right]

About The Author

Nathan Martin

0 Responses to Conservatives Organize Against WorldNetDaily

  1. Whitney says:

    Thank you, Nathan. Right on.

    Does David still have a crush on Coulter? 😉

  2. Shut up, Whitney. Right now.

  3. Naomi says:

    I wonder about David and Ann occassionally… 😉

    As a former WND intern, I have to agree that what happens there is not truth-telling. On several occasions, I had to fight my editors when they changed something in my story to be factually untrue. Other times, they added whole paragraphs of reactionary perspectives that I had never written.

    When facts did not line up with their opinions, they had no qualms about changing those facts, and I’m embarrassed that my name is attached to the articles they altered. It’s shoddy journalism, and they don’t even care.

  4. Daniel says:

    Didn’t I confiscate an Ann Coulter poster when I was your RA? Or are you going to blame that one on Bauhoff?

  5. Daniel says:

    Also, while I scarcely if ever read their content, I do remember when my former company tried to negotiate a syndication deal for their content. Our biz dev team complained about them as much as any potential content partner I can recall – and that was purely because of the business relationship. They wouldn’t even discuss the content itself.

  6. Rob says:

    Poorly written: 80-yard penalty.

  7. Scott says:

    Nathan, your three points appear to be: A.) WND uses sensational, baseless titles, B.) writes articles with poorly supported assertions, inflammatory rhetoric, and C.) is only tolerated by a sympathetic reader base.

    A.) Your title is “CHILLING BRIMSTONE: WND Heralding Death Panels, Death Camps.” I almost never read WND, but I did today – the article in question never uses the term “Death Camp” or “Death Panel.” It talks about a bill which is creating “detention / emergency centers.” See, we call what you just did – “sensational, baseless titling.”

    B.) Agreeing with Rob here, your article lacks any of the stylistic and evidential rigor which ought to accompany a political article. Your sole credible quote (Buckley) is only tangentially related – and not even a tangent you thought of on your own (credit going to The Next Right for this highly creative comparison) – which makes me wonder if you’ve ever actually read William F. Buckley for yourself. Aside from the clearly-editor-added picture in your article, this work is devoid of anything resembling a factual citation. Instead, you spend a lot of time talking about WND’s poor font types, making vague connections between Franklins virtue quotes and (I can only assume) WND’s right to free speech. Generally, if you plan to use the labels “sensational,” “crackpot,” and “paranoia,” it’s a good idea to provide some basis for your notions – instead of relying on a sympathetic reader base (see point ‘C’). Best of all, you end with the hilariously outrageous line, “Stop hurting America!” …which I sincerely hope is meant as a satirical reference to the Colbert Report and not your actual sentiments… as that would otherwise be considered “inflammatory rhetoric.”

    C.) I completely agree that WND is pretty out there. I agree that the only reason their site exists is because they are tolerated by a sympathetic reader base. But as a member of your sympathetic reader base, I’d be a huge hypocrite if I let this article pass by with a smile and an “oh, well, he’s got the right idea anyway.” Learn to fight irrationality with sound logic and evidence – otherwise stick to your music reviews (which I love): that’s the best median for right-brain analysis.

  8. nathan says:

    “You won’t believe who Muslims promote as ‘Antichrist’ “

    “New ‘Survival Seed Bank’ plants full-acre crisis garden!”

    U.S. ‘honor killings,’ terror training exposed


    “Is new Russian triumvirate a threat? “

    “Farah: Just how disgustingly sick was Ted Kennedy?”

    it’s jon stewart, not colbert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

    david wrote the front page jump, i originally had, “you stay classy conservatism”

    i need to finish real work.


  9. David Carver says:

    The kind of newswriting appropriate for a thinking audience over 21 is not represented by WND. Nor, unfortunately, by this article.

  10. Nick says:

    it’s a blog post

  11. I would briefly note, as the editor responsible for approving this post, that The Scanner, unlike WND, has never purported to be journalism. As most of you should know by know, we are all about the occasional humorous sensationalism when appropriate.

    Nathan wrote in his usual style and in this style of this blog: breezy first-person observation. However, I made sure that every statement, every joke in his post was based in fact. The article in question does in fact compare Obama’s planned emergency centers to Nazi concentration camps, and WND proudly profits (they’ll tell you so) from the birther and death panel scares. It also does great damage to valid information and political discourse in our country, as it is populated with gratuitous exaggeration meant to be read as fact, shrill opposition to reasonable debate, and militant Zionist leanings.

    Those are serious charges, but each can be clearly laid out with specific passages and headlines. And as an opinion blogger at Patrol, Nathan is free to riff on the implications of those excesses as much as he likes.

  12. Ethan says:

    Scott, I agree in both a good and bad way – this is a beautifully Nathan Martin article: sweeping, amusing, possibly orgasmic, and deliciously vacuous… like a drunken cheerleader who really wants to get into your pants.

    Nathan, I promise to call after.

  13. Rob says:

    In other words, David (Sessions), your defense of this “article” is, in essence: “we are not actually writing journalism,” by which I assume you mean that you are not actually making a point that is either legitimate or meant to be taken seriously. Yet you seem to want this post to be taken as a legitimate and serious critique, though it meets none of the standards of thoughtful journalism. To that I can only proverbially remind you that you cannot have it both ways. I agree that WND is guilty of shoddy journalism, having seen a few headlines myself, but this post fails to convince me of anything new, not least because it provides not a shred of evidence to support its claims.

    By doing what you are doing, you’re making our case for us quite nicely: if you’re going to heap salacious scorn upon WND (which they no doubt deserve, though I can’t claim to be even a sporadic reader), you need proof and you must, in fact, meet certain journalistic standards, or you are only, as above, posting inflammatory, baseless rhetoric meant to be devoured by a sympathetic and uncritical audience.

    In other words, you’re doing exactly what WND does.

  14. David Carver says:

    David, I should not have used the word “newswriting,” but I did at first think that that was what this section intended. I apologize.

    I agree about blogging: Nathan can opine however much he wants. I also agree with his sentiments in this piece. The fact, however, that these were expressed sloppily and not (apparently) edited means I’m less concerned with his offense against journalism and more against his disregard for the English language.

  15. Scott says:

    Nathan, sorry about the page jump – it does undermine somewhat. Sounds like you and Naomi have something in common there. Again, I agree w/ you about WND. It’s just easy to stoop to the level of the entity you’re criticizing. Keep up the good work, stay away from “real work” brush offs (ouch?), and know I remain (musically) your biggest fan.

    Nick, really? Ok, I amend my comment to: “your article lacks any of the stylistic and evidential rigor which ought to accompany a political blog post.” Or was your point just that writing is completely exempt from critique when it’s preceded by the word “blog?”

    Rob/David, The editor’s role in this article (as an opinion piece) should be spelling and grammar. As such, the content should not reflect on David/Patrol. That is, unless David/Patrol steps in to defend the piece’s content… [trails into awkward silence] I love you guys, please don’t make me choose who to go home with tonight.

  16. David Carver says:

    Haha! And in so saying, I disregarded it myself. Kindly substitute “with” for that last “against.” 🙂

  17. Rob, you’re doing the classic, annoying routine of telling journalists what is and isn’t journalism. Nathan and I are both students and practitioners of the stuff. We know the rules. And we know when we are writing to let off steam or entertain. That sort of writing – be it punditry, comedy, blogging, whatever – can be more or less based in fact and even embellished for humor and irony without meeting the standards of serious journalism. If you aren’t a fan of the style, you are certainly not the only one, and you have no obligation to read it. But what you’re doing is essentially the same as complaining loudly on Wonkette that they aren’t holding themselves to New York Times standards.

    WND is a misguided enterprise against which serious, copiously footnoted criticisms can easily be leveled. But that’s not what Nathan set out to do here.

  18. Nick says:

    My remark was intended to serve as a simple reminder that blog posts and news articles serve different purposes and, consequently, are held to different standards. If you want to play the grammar/content police for blog posts, help yourself. But why not go a step further and take your grammar sensibilities to Twitter, or Facebook, or (better yet) YouTube comments?

    You’ll be a busy, busy man.

    That being said, and content aside, Nathan’s writing style in this post is great. Wolfe and Thompson were panned when they tested the boundaries of prose. Set the limitations on yourself, but don’t impose them on the imaginations of others.

    WND “is the far, far right’s Wal-Mart of fear.”

    That, my friends, is greatness.

  19. Ben Butterfield says:

    Yeah seriously Scott. Get a life. lol.

  20. Sidenote: As a rather passionate devotee of the humanities myself, I hope it’s not devoted study that leads one into this kind of humorless tightness of the ass.

  21. Scott says:

    Nick, Set me straight man: is or is not this blog post worth commenting on? If it is, you have no right to demean my comment to the level of “Youtube/Twitter/Facebook police.” It’s an opinion blog – they’re designed to be dialogued with/on: otherwise, why read them? I had an intelligent, thought-out remark to make on the blog of an up-and-coming web periodical. If you can think of a response other than “it’s not real journalism,” let me know. I think Nathan was wrong in his approach, if you think he was right, tell me why – that’s what blog discussions are about.

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand that blogs are held to a different standard than journalistic articles. But just because they don’t sign a waiver claiming to be Bible-level fact, doesn’t mean they can’t be absurd, hypocritical, or inaccurate… or important enough to merit one’s time discussing.

    And if it’s really not a blog worth posting on, if it really is on the level of Youtube, etc. Why the heck are you still here, commenting? More to the point, why have you called in your big brother to level his ever-insightful thoughts on the matter? Please, prove your point by not responding to this. 🙂

    I love you guys, and I too thought Nathan’s article was hilariously worded. But I’d appreciate it if you’d stop trying to fence his post with insignificance while labeling it as “greatness.”

  22. Nick says:

    *Naomi, could you give some examples? Your comments are pretty bold. Didn’t see those until just now.

  23. Whitney says:

    Yes, Naomi, we can’t believe you unless you provide perfectly documented proof that your experience is actually legit.

    We, of course, will determine what is legit and what isn’t. You, the one with the actual experience, just get to sit back and take the judgment. I think Rob gets to be in charge of that, don’t you?

  24. Rob says:

    I don’t recall addressing Naomi’s argument at all, Whitney. But I can if you want: it’s a nice little anecdote that supplies far more evidence than Nathan did and displays a better command of the English language than Nathan apparently has. Good enough?

  25. Mark P says:

    Okay, I’ve mostly stopped reading this site, but I have to say… the inability of people commenting here to distinguish between articles, editorials, opinions pieces, and blogs is disappointing but also not surprising. I’m always amused when people start shouting that blogs/editorials/opinions pieces aren’t following the rules of journalism.

Leave a Reply

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.