Geesh -- the NY Times and the Washington Post have been involved in scandals of falsified stories, and apologized greatly for it. Their editorial staff tries to produce accurate reporting.
Any reporter is going to produce a slanted story -- it's inherent and incumbent in the choice of words selected to report the story, the relative emphasis given aspects of the story in the article, and so on. Liberal reporters will tend to produce stories with liberal slants, conservative reporters ones with conservative slants. Being generally liberal myself, I tend to notice the conservative slants in stories more; those of you with conservative views, the reverse will be true. (Hence the outcry from conservatives about "the liberal media" -- the stories that are slanted to agree with their perspectives are usually not noticed.)
What I object to about WND is that in my experience with them, they will often fail to validate supposed facts -- and often have accepted "garbage statistics" uncritically. Add this to an extremely conservative stance that makes O'Reilly look pink by comparison, and they become (1) unreliable, and (2) "proof" for people with strongly conservative opinions that their views are right.
I gather that, like Rush, they are trying to clean up their act and provide a bit more critical review on their material. Paula's post can, I think, testify to that. But they've lost my respect by uncritically circulating falsehoods from questionable sources in the past.
However, I don't think that CF should be in the business of censoring news sources -- except to the extent of the policy that says, "no links to anti-Christian sites." (Note: I remember that being a part of the rules when I joined, but a cursory review of them doesn't show it any more. Would a Moderator be willing to expound on policy here?)
