LogoPhere Home
LogoPhere Blog - WordPress version

 

In a free state every man can think what he wants and say what he thinks. Spinoza

~ November 20, 2015 ~

From the 
Corporate Media Sucks Dept.

Five more reasons why Huffington Post 
ain't worth the paper it's written on. 
    

My inventory of reasons why HuffPo ain't worth the paper it's written has more than doubled since my last how-I-love-thee-let-me-count-the-ways anti-HuffPo rant.  Here is  the latest list of problems I see with the world's most popular Blog for Bimbos.    

Reason #4. A day late and a dollar short

HuffPo is not a real news organization.  It is 70% monkey-opinion, 10% porn, 10% Hillary placement ads, and 10% refried news taken from actual news organizations.  And so it is never going to be presenting "breaking news," in spite of it's puffery.  But at the very least it should be able to present an up-to-date account of what real news sources are reporting on breaking news. Take the latest Paris Massacre, for instance. 

At about 7:30pm, Nov17 (all times given here are PST) the French began an attack on reputed ISIS creeps holed up at 8 Rue du Corbillion St. in Saint-Denis, which is a suburb to the N. of Paris. According to reports, the cops were specifically looking for the cretin "master-mind" Abdelhamid Abaaoud.

Ten hours later, at 09:14am, Nov18, Kelly Chin ("Front Page Editor") and Willa Frej ("Reporter") posted an article under the following headline and photo:

At the end of their article Chin and Frej said: "This is a developing story.  Check back for updates.  The Associated Press contributed to this report."  Of course, the AP contributed.  It looks like the AP and NYT "contributed" virtually all of the content, which Chin/Frej packaged as original HuffPo work.  Unfortunately the promised updates never came.

About 8 hours after the Chin/Frej piece (5:37pm, Nov18) Souad Mekhennet, Anthony Faiola, Missy Ryan of the Washington Post reported that Abaaoud was killed in the raid, citing "senior European officials."  But 10 hours later (3:30am, Nov19) the Chin/Frej story had still not been updated -- the headline and article still claimed Abaaoud was unaccounted for.  Even if there had been doubt that Abaaoud was dead, WaPo reporting that he was dead was an important story in and of itself.   HuffPo completely ignored the WaPo story even when virtually all of the other corporate media outlets in the world were reporting WaPo's story.  For instance,  Jon Henley of The Guardian quickly followed the WaPo report with a major, well-written piece about Abaaoud's death and the problems ID'ing him.  All the while HuffPo's Chin/Frej sat there with their collective thumb up their collective butt.  

Finally  -- 11 hours after the WaPo story -- HuffPo published an AP article by Angela Charlton and Raf Casert  datelined 4:42 Nov19 saying that the French prosecutor announced that  Abaaoud was killed in the raid. It is interesting that the HuffPo editors (Chin?) removed the names of the AP reporters from the AP article -- see  wwlp.com, same article with the names in place. 

But get this: for hours and hours after the AP article appeared on HuffPo, Chin, the Front Page Editor, continued to run her own headline/article about Abaaoud being unaccounted for on the front page, alongside the AP story about Abaaoud being positively dead.  Conflicting, goofy, editing like that is otherwise known as "journalistic incompetence."  

Reason #5.  Headlines by bimbos, for bimbos

On Nov05|15 HuffPo ran the following headline:

Apparently, given the average IQ of their readers, HuffPo just wanted to be sure they knew that the rat-bag cop embezzled  the money before he died, not after.  Thank you for that.  Unfortunately, the "He" in "He had been" refers back to the closest antecedent noun or noun phrase, which is "local official." So, technically, HuffPo is accusing the local official of embezzling money before the cop's death.  Who knows what they are talking about??

Reason #6.  Monkeys prioritizing news

No, the Paris massacre, Sinai plane bomb, and the rise of ISIS have not been the top stories for HuffPo so far in 2015. Rachel Dolezal is the story HuffPo bimbo editors/writers fell all over themselves for. I take you back to Jun16|2015.  The HuffPo Front Page headlined seven articles on Dolezal -- that's right, seven.  As in one less than eight.  Man [sic], Brucie Jenner just have been pissed.  Let's count 'em (some of these links might be dead by now):

1.    Lilly Workneh: Rachel Dolezal Addresses Controversy Around Her Ethnicity On 'Today': 'I Identify As Black' [Huge type, lead story]

2.     Ed Mazza: Jon Stewart Tears Apart Fox News For Overblown Rachel Dolezal Coverage [Enuf' hypocrisy here to choke a bigot.]

3.     Rebecca Carroll: I Am Black. Rachel Dolezal Is Not. [After generations of hair straightening and skin lightening, now blacks are doing the "get-off-my-race" boogie.]

4.     Jelani Cobb: Black Like Her [New Yorker article] 

5.     Athul Acharya: Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn [aka Bruce] Jenner, and the Limits of Social Justice

6.     Tyler Kingkade, Alexandra Svokos: Rachel Dolezal Appears To Have Sued Howard University For Race Discrimination [Appears?? What, you can't obtain the filing documents?  Pfffft, HuffPo "reporters."]

7.     Torraine Walker : #AskRachel: How a Twitter Hashtag Became Black America's Family Reunion. [This easily offended black dude starts off: "There isn't much that I can say about the Rachel Dolezal situation that hasn't already been said." and then he launches into what turns out to be a lot to say. "It's been wonderful to see that the resourcefulness of our aunts and uncles, and our mothers and grandmothers is larger than just one family in one individual household." Notably missing is any mention of black fathers and grandfathers, which is testimony to the occult American apartheid that needs to be addressed by Americans of every race.]

Reason #7.  Dishonestly click-baiting their readers into ambush-ads 

The HuffPo business model is at least partly based on dishonesty.  Here is one example: click-baiting their readers into hidden ads. 

On Oct26|2015 Michael McLaughlin and Nick Visser put up an article on the violent take-down of a black high school girl by a white bad-ass-cop, Ben Fields, in South Carolina.  Right at the top of the article there is what is presented as a video of the take-down.  But when you click "play", what you get is a 30-second ambush-ad.  The video itself is only 15 seconds and is found on YouTube, which is to say it is free content to HuffPo.  The ambush-ads, depending on when you click the bait, are for anything from Stanley Steamer to Marco Rubio.  And, as many of you know by now, these ambush ads can't be turned off once they start to run.  

It really burns my goat when ass-hole blog-meisters, like HuffPo editors, take free content off the Internet and then monitize it for themselves. And it is particularly annoying when they put a 30-second ad in front of 10 or 15 seconds worth of content. 

Reason #8.  Ashley Reich

Ashley Reich is HuffPo "Executive Editor, Weddings and Divorce" -- just let the idea of a weddings and divorce editor sink in for a moment before going on.  

OK, got it?   Well, if you do, you ain't gonna' be surprised by this line from Ashley, which was taken from a hard-hitting, Pulitzer-level HuffPo article she wrote on Tiger Woods and Lindsay Vonn: 

Should you happen to run into Ashley at, say, a brain rehab center, ask her how one shoe-horns "several years" in between 2010 and 2012.  And, for the record, let me correct Ashley.  In the Vogue article Ashley links to, Vonn did not say that she met Woods in 2012 several years after 2010.  That brain-ded babble is owned entirely by Ashley.  What the Vogue article actually said was: "They had met at a charity event in 2012."  The string "2010" doesn't even appear in the Vogue article. 

And while you're chatting with Ashley at that brain rehab center, ask her about what sort of and how much experience/education it takes to be a Weddings and Divorce Executive Editor for HuffPo.  Or for anyone.  Would love to know. 

 
 

 

Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.