The Weekly Standard’s Lack Of Editorial Ethics
What is wrong with this post on the Weekly Standard?
It's shameful. An ad by the World Wildlife Fund that tries to turn 9/11 into...something that has to do with animals -- and not the animals who flew those planes into the World Trade Center. The text on the ad reads, "The tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. The planet is brutally powerful. Respect it. Preserve it." So not only do they make a mockery of 9/11, but they make a mockery of those who died in the tsunami -- as if the victims of that natural disaster had not showed sufficient respect for Mother Earth and were drowned as punishment. If we don't "respect" the earth, we may end up with the occasional river catching fire, I've yet to hear anything about a scientific consensus proving that my V8 is causing tsunamis.
The problem is that this isn’t an ad for the WWF. It was prepared by an advertising company in Brazil and the WWF immediately rejected the ad. The company ended up submitting the ad for some competition with the WWF logo still in tact. This action is provoking the WWF to take legal action.
You think a mainstream publication like the Weekly Standard would have enough editorial standards to correct their posting, but it doesn’t have as much bite if you do that.
