Over the past few years, the patriot movement has been inundated with a plethora of information that has either been hoaxed, faked, sensationalized, implausible, or outright lied about. Below is a partial list of these stories:

• Tom Flocco’s Bush/Cheney Indicted – Lie
• Tom Flocco’s Barbara Olson Arrested – Hoax
• Mike Ruppert’s Delmar Vreeland episodes – Fake
• Karl Schwarz’s WTC Galvonic Corrosion – Implausible
• Greg Szymanski’s bogus Morgan Reynolds Interview – Fake
• Daryl Smith Saying Kaminski Rec’d $3,000-5,000/month – Lie
• Tom Flocco’s Chicago MI-5 Subway Shootout – Hoax
• Prison Planet’s Daniel Ellsburg Coverage – Sensationalized
• Fintan Dunne’s insane COINTELPRO lists – Lies
• No planes at the WTC – Hoax
• Eric Hufschmid blaming 9-11 Scholars for killing student – Lie
• Christopher Bollyn’s Sam Danner Pentagon story – Hoax
• George Noory’s promotion of UFO scam artist Prophet Yahweh – Hoax
• Jeff Rense’s ludicrous Bigfoot stories - Hoax
• Captain May’s Texas City, Texas Imminent Nuclear Blast – Sensationalism

These examples are right off the top of my head; believe me, there are more. With this list in mind, ask yourself a question: shouldn’t we as researchers and truth-seekers want to check every single fact and every single source before we run with an article so that we aren’t made to look foolish again (and again)? And yes, every single instance cited above was disseminated around the Internet at lightning speed with hardly anybody checking to see if the information was factual and correct.

What do all these glaringly erroneous stories say about the alternative media as a whole? Shouldn’t our standards be higher than what is currently represented above? On top of that, isn’t it any wonder that the mainstream media doesn’t take us seriously – look at how many goose eggs have been laid. It's embarassing.

What’s even more amazing is that WING TV gets criticized for checking multiple sources to try and get a complete picture of breaking news. I mean, when CBS, CNN, or the New York Times only present one-side of a story, everyone screams bloody murder. But when we present another side (or multiple sides) of a story, people react like it’s the end of the world. What does such a stance tell us? Are we supposed to present only one side of every story like the mainstream media does, and therefore walk in lockstep with the “accepted” party line? If so, then we’re no different than our adversaries – because that's what they do. From our perspective, we should accept nothing at face value and instead explore every avenue to get information from a variety of sources – even if … God forbid … one of those sources is the police.

It all boils down to this: if you expect WING TV to be cardboard cutout Company Men that adhere to group think and a mob mentality by continually toeing the party line, then you're going to be disappointed because we most certainly follow our own path, and we're not afraid to voice opinions that go contrary to the majority (whether its mainstream or alternative).

We also try to be fair, but that doesn’t mean we bow down to anyone’s altar and operate on blind faith. Lastly, and most importantly, we think it’s vital to ask questions (even HARD questions), and seek answers from multiple sources. And do you know what that’s a sign of? Damn good journalism, because that's what reporters are supposed to do. We need to be watchdogs, not lap dogs.