Five more reasons why Huffington Post
ain't worth the paper
it's written on.
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
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,
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
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.
-- 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.
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."
#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??
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
Workneh: Rachel Dolezal Addresses Controversy Around
Her Ethnicity On 'Today': 'I Identify As Black' [Huge
type, lead story]
Mazza: Jon Stewart Tears Apart Fox News For Overblown
Rachel Dolezal Coverage [Enuf' hypocrisy here to choke
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.]
Cobb: Black Like Her [New Yorker article]
Acharya: Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn [aka Bruce] Jenner,
and the Limits of Social Justice
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
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.]
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
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
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
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.
#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
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:
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.
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.