The Huffington Post is certainly doing a spectacular job of keeping their readers completely in the dark about the entire story of their caving to pressure from the group Color of Change and banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page. This story has been covered by Slate, Mediaite, the New Yorker and a host of conservative sites but there hasn’t been one single word mentioned about it in the Huffington Post, which has an entire section devoted to covering Media. (Paging Jason Linkins.) Not a peep. No stories, articles, statements of clarification.
As far as Arianna and her bosses at AOL are concerned THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Furthermore, they are now in full hush-up mode to the outside world, too. Huffington Post’s poor flack Mario Ruiz has gone from simply giving nonanswers when pressed to explain this new policy to completely ignoring his emails on the subject.
You think the Arianna Huffington and editor Roy Sekoff don’t know what the reaction of their readers would be if they told them that they both knew Andrew Breibart wasn’t a racist? Do you think they don’t know the reaction of the anyone fair minded if they made it clear that they had ALWAYS known this but still let HuffPo serve as the platform for attack after attack on him?
Read the rest here.
10 Responses to Huffington Post Silences Conservatives After Pressure from Van Jones
I could be generous and call this nooz, but that term implies a lightness of spirit to go with the lightness of content. This item is dicktwaddle.
What is dicktwaddle?
Dicktwaddle is the incredibly boring and irrelevant point-scoring that goes on between two opposing sides when they either have grown tired of on-topic clashes (rare) or have diverted the argument into irrelevant point scoring, because one side finds that it does better off topic than on topic.
The on-topic version of the battle is this: one side wants to destroy Planned Parenthood; and the other side wants to see Planned Parenthood continue its activities.
Imagine two groups in opposition regarding the proper role of Goldman Sachs in the US economy: one side believes that what’s good for GS is even better for the US, so we should all be grateful and provide them with thick steaks carved out of our own flesh; the other side believes that GS is a hive of goat rimmers that will sell our planet and its people to the first aliens willing to make an offer. Now, imagine those two groups arguing about the sandwich selection in the GS cafeteria. That, my friends, would be dicktwaddle.
I happen to agree. Left cd right debates do not deserve to be called news.
The dualism of the liberals always makes me laugh. If a conservative news org had banned a liberal writer or blogger, the hew and cry would reach the heavens. There would be no end to the “freedom of speech” speeches and the condemnation of the oppressive conservatism. Oh,……it would also be called racist because that’s the buzz word you know……
i love it
I agree with Fly here and would prefer less ‘political’ stories. While many on iBankcoin may have a particular ‘right’ bias, I think we should focus on finance and investment stories rather than political commentary. Articles like this just stir the pot of pointless discussion.
To clarify before I comment: i do not offer a point of agreement or disagreement, but…
I think the next several years will see the investment world shaped considerably by politics. Perhaps not on the timeframes typically utilized by true traders (which seems to be IBCs niche), but for longer timeframe folks. The budget debate alone could move markets 10’s of percent, depending on the outcome.
And don’t get me wrong, I hate politics and consider essentially all politicians miserable creatures. But I accept the probability that politics are going to, profoundly, affect markets in the coming years.
FWIW, this news item received more views than any other posted over a similar time frame.
i think comments lead to views. everybody wants to see what everybody is talking about.
I think that the executive summary in your posts, wood, add alot.
You should thank the author of the executive summary, then. Wood always provides a link to the source of his cut-and-paste.
You can credit Wood for his judgment in selecting the excerpt he posts here.
You can get views without stoking emotions