Thursday, December 31, 2009

Lessons Never Learned...

In the latest of a years-long Wikipedia campaign of hurling smears at WND's founder, Joseph Farah was characterized as a "Zionist Twit and Jew Loving Pig" on the site that claims to be an online encyclopedia.

Farah said the anti-Semitic attack is just the most recent in a long series of libelous and defamatory statements about him and his company that have been published by Wikipedia over the last five years.

  • On Dec. 29, 2009, Farah's profile began with: "Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily (WND). He is a known [expletive] sucker."
  • A Dec. 12, 2009, Wikipedia entry read, "WorldNetDaily is an [sic] far-right American online web site that publishes editorials from a Christian conservative and pro-white point of view."
  • On Nov. 16, 2009, Farah's Wikipedia profile stated: "It is a widely known rumour [sic] that Mr. Farah is a closet homosexual and has been repeatedly criticized for his hypocrisy."
  • On Oct. 10, 2009, WND was dubbed "an American independent article and editorial based online tabloid that publishes from a radical right wing point of view."
  • On Sept. 6, 2009, Wikipedia described WND as this: "WorldNetDaily is a terrorist news- and editorial-based publishing news and opinion from a Republican or conservative point of view. Founded in May 1997 with the unstated intentions of devoting 70% coverage to portraying Islam as Anti-Christ to fulfil [sic] the armaagedon [sic] and rapture fantasies that most of its founders carry, and with the stated intentions of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power."


Wikipedia's profile page for Farah has dubbed him "homophobic," a "conspiracy theorist," "white supremacist," a "proud member of the Ku Klux Klan," a "religious nutcase" and "a pioneer in the political uses of psychedelics."

"He also enjoys chowing down on babies once in a while," stated one Aug. 7, 2008, entry.

"He is also an Arab self-hating, Zionist-supported d-----bag whose slanderous drivel isn't worth considering," said an April 2, 2007, edit to Farah's biography. "Down with WorldNetDaily."

-source

How many people will read the above, shake their heads in disgust at such bizarre slander, then pick up a history book or news-magazine article and read its content as though it were gospel?

I mean, if a publicly recognized and accepted source can get away with false characterizations of people, institutions and events today, what then does that say about commonly accepted characterizations of say, David Duke or Adolph Hitler or the South or the KKK, or Rome, The Founding Fathers, the Cold War, so on and so forth ?

If such sources can falsely slander Farah, what then of the KKK, which Farah chafes at being compared with?

Media, like history, is not written by dispassionate, unbiased, robots.

The expectation of truth from "reputable sources" is the garden from which general ignorance is nourished.

...