Well, the writer was not a female named Shelly Garland but a guy named Marius Roodt, who succeeded in outing the HuffPo’s political bias. I certainly was outraged at the proposal, but thought that sort of asininity is almost in keeping with the HuffPo daily fare.
As it turns out,
The CEO of Media24, which operates HuffPost in South Africa, issued a statement calling the article’s publication “hugely damaging” to their reputation.
Back at the farm they call that “closing the barn door after the horse ran away,” especially since it took some doing from an outside ombudsman:
South African press ombudsman Johan Retief found that the controversial blog post was both discriminatory and constituted hate speech.
Verashni Pillay, the editor who first approved the article, resigned but (oh yes, but) in a post where she bemoaned “our lack of racial healing,” she declared,
Despite the pressure for me to recant my thoughts in my initial response I cannot, authentically, do that.
I still believe that despite the gains for equality and universal human rights in the last century, the fact is that white men still enjoy disproportionate power. And yes, I believe that a loss of oppressive power is necessary to create a truly level playing field.
This will come about through
more honest, inclusive conversations, fewer accusations and growing suspicion of each other and eventual, authentic healing.
Because nothing leads to “honest, inclusive conversations” that reduce suspicion which bring about “authentic healing” like denying men of any race their unalienable rights to vote, to own property, to legal representation and to anything that Marxists don’t agree with.
In other words, standard feminist theory’s idea of “authentic healing.”
$5 says Ms Pillay lands a better-paying job at a liberal entity before the month is over.
Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.
I got into the Supershuttle to the airport which was running a tad early and found that Cynthia was taking the same shuttle sitting next to me. In the front seat was a blogger/reporter from NYC named Traci Belmonte (@politidiva) who had also covered CPAC and she consented to an interview
Once at the airport I noticed Charles Krauthammer checking in near me, he declined an interview so I headed to the gate, got through security at my normal slow pace and then proceeded to my gate when I saw a young man with a socialism sucks T-shirt and told him an ironic joke about it. That led to my final interview of CPAC 2017
His Huffington post story was my last bit of News from CPAC. If you want to know the Socialism Sucks riddle/joke, I’m afraid you’ll have to watch the video.
DaTechGuy at CPAC 2017 (all Youtube videos are here). While this was my last cpac interview post I have two more posts to go on the event, one a photo post with assorted images and the other my final evaluation of the data I collected concerning President Trump and conservative activists at CPAC
There is plenty more from CPAC coming over the next couple of weeks, but what is also going to be coming are a lot of hospital bills and debt from work that both my wife and I are going to be missing because of the complications from her “routine” surgery.
If you are able and inclined to help mitigate them I’d ask you to consider hitting DaTipJar
Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to cover major events in person all over the country.
Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
If you are not in the position to hit DaTipJar We will be very happy to accept your prayers
Her Majesty cackles maniacally all the way to the coronation;
And others are concerned that he is depressing other better candidates.
For the record while I’ve been writing a lot about him & love that he’s forcing issues that the MSM has ignored Mr. Trump doesn’t crack my top 5 GOP candidates. I’m going to need some clarification of his stands on both Abortion & Gay Marriage to be sure he’s not pulling a Mitt
After watching and listening to Donald Trump since he announced his candidacy for president, we have decided we won’t report on Trump’s campaign as part of The Huffington Post’s political coverage. Instead, we will cover his campaign as part of our Entertainment section. Our reason is simple: Trump’s campaign is a sideshow. We won’t take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you’ll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.
In other words: Despite the fact that Donald Trump is currently in first place. Trump is raising issues that we don’t want reported as news, that we wish to immediately discount so we are going to act in such a way as to legitimize his message.
This doesn’t say a lot about Trump’s message which might even get a larger audience by this move, but it certainly tells you about the elitist arrogance of the Huffington Post and frankly makes its entire news coverage suspect
The obvious exit question for the Huffpo’s editors is this: What other news stories have you demoted or even chosen not to cover because, in your mind, you are being “baited”.
Why anyone would trust any Huffington Post news coverage at this point is beyond me.
So Trump goes in entertainment and Trumpmania goes in politics. That’s … awkward, but as a gimmick designed to tickle a lefty readership that loathes Trump to the core (after all he’s done for them), it’s not half bad.
Say what you will about Trump. He’s a nut, he’s a loud-mouthed braggadocio billionaire who has never been elected to public office and is currently mucking up the political waters on the right. While all of this is true, he’s also a declared GOP candidate campaigning to be president of the United States. And, like it or not, Trump now leads the Republican pack
They might end up rethinking this. Putting The Donald on the entertainment pages will give him greater access to the low-information voters who never consider looking at the political pages. Its those low-info voters who got us our current version of “leadership”.
The will go for the Kardashians and stay for The Donald.
One might conclude that Huffington Post’s announcement amounts to the same Trump-style grandstanding they claim to condemn. On a larger level, they seem to miss the point that all politics is theater. Countless statements have tumbled forth from the mouth of candidates — top-tier and third-tier — that were made precisely to rile up the base, bait an opponent, get free play in the media, etc. The Huffington Post politics team has covered these stories, and will almost surely continue to do so — even when they come from candidates who have a less of a shot at their party’s nomination than Trump.
Hard to say if this any kind of real blow to Trump since I would imagine more people read HuffPost’s entertainment section than its political coverage. The decision is also a bit hard to justify if you take a long look at some other GOP presidential campaigns which are no less bizarre or more relevant to the ultimate outcome. It will undoubtedly be publicly criticized by Republicans as representing free-speech-suppressing liberal political correctness blah blah, and privately greeted by some of the same people as a model for the rest of medialand.
That defense, of course, is complete and utter BS. It is a political decision by HuffPo to impose on readers its view of Trump in the most pernicious way — not as part of an explicit and open editorial process but by corrupting HuffPo’s own news process.
In what universe, other than the liberal media bias, is a candidate currently leading national polls and all but guaranteed to be included in the first debate not a political issue?
You can hate Trump’s campaign, but it’s still politics.
In pushing Trump from “news” to “entertainment”, HuffPo is making a value-judgment about his candidacy, yes, but more importantly (and more troubling) a judgement about the people who support that candidacy.
This has been a bad year for my blog’s profitability to the point where I’d had to take contract work during the day to make ends meet while writing what I can weekends, evening and in whatever spare time I can find.
Last year was completely different. In 2013 I was paying my writers & the mortgage every month out of DaTipJar, this year I’m managing to pay my writers and maybe the electric bill if I’m lucky.
Heading into the new year, The Huffington Post is planning to stop using Associated Press stories while increasing its reporter headcount, gearing up for a relaunch and rolling out more international editions.
That’s nice but if you’re paying $300+ Million for a website one would think it would not need another “relaunch” a few years later:
The announcements come as The Huffington Post continues its slog toward profitability a little less than four years after it was acquired for $315 million by AOL, which made heavy investments in talent, global expansion and a streaming video network called HuffPost Live.
“Slogging toward profitability” is another way of saying “still not profitable and never has been.”
At the end of 2013, AOL chief executive Tim Armstrong told Reuters he expected the site to be profitable in 2014. But during an interview earlier this month at Business Insider’s Ignition conference, Armstrong said the ongoing international rollout, which includes about a dozen foreign editions from Brazil to France to Maghreb, had prevented HuffPost from breaking into the black. Annual revenues are in the hundreds of millions, Armstrong said, declining to provide a specific dollar figure.
Revenues are nice, but if they don’t cover expenses it doesn’t mean a thing. All you are doing is paying people and vendors to lose money for your shareholders. If revenues had kept up here we would have added a second batch of seven writers but this is a conservative site so we aren’t going to commit to spending money we don’t have.
Now that isn’t a problem for Arianna, she has pocketed her 300 mil and is still drawing funds from the suckers investors but if you are a stockholder in AOL it’s not so go. You might have been better off checking if you could buy shares in DaTechGuyblog.
True this year you might have gotten little or no return but from what I can see your odds are better off here than over at the Huffpo:
Mind you the Washington post isn’t citing an unnamed source that has talked to them, they are reporting that someone else (Harry Reid) claims that an unnamed source said something.
I don’t claim to have been in this business all that many years, but I know enough that I can’t report hearsay.
A simple example two years ago at CPAC when I brought up the name of a person who said something nice about me the person who I was talking to snorted and told me something about said person that raised an eyebrow.
The person who told me this was someone I liked, someone I normally would trust and said story would have been a hell of a story to break, but there was no proof provided, no details, just this is what he had been told.
I never followed up on the story, (still don’t plan to) it’s stuck in the back of my mind with a lot of rumors etc that I’ve heard since I’ve gotten in this business.
I don’t have an editor, I don’t have a handler, yet I know enough not to go with this. If the Washington Post doesn’t it tells me two things
1. They are dishonorable hacks.
2. They are in full panic mode concerning November
I may be just a blogger and radio host trying to make it on my own, Things may be so tight that I can’t afford a car these days, and I don’t pretend not to be biased in the upcoming election, but I hope and pray I never reach the point where I am willing to sell my integrity for the sake of a jab against Obama.
Instead of doing some, y’know, reporting on this remarkable claim, the WaPo’s Ed O’Keefe lets it go with this bland acknowledgement:
Neither Reid nor his aides would identify the alleged investor, HuffPo reported.
Grant that Reid’s wild accusation — “financial McCarthyism,” you might call it — is newsworthy even if it is absolutely false. And it almost certainly is false, Dan Primack of Fortune says. But is it now an accepted practice at the Washington Post just to repeat whatever politicians say (in interviews with reporters for other publications) without bothering to do any independent reporting at all?
It may appear that Reid’s claim that Romney paid no taxes for ten years is extreme and poorly sourced — however, if Mitt thinks his comment is unfair, all he has to do to make Reid appear a liar and a fool is to release his own tax returns, which is totally within his power.
While not having paid ANY taxes for TEN years is a sufficient cause for Mitt to not release them, it is not a necessary cause. There could be many other things he wishes to hide, from offshore tax shelters, to very low tax rates, to connections to Bain Capital actions he wishes to hide from. There is only one thing certain about Romney’s tax returns: HE KNOWS that there is SOMETHING in them which is disqualifying, that there is something that dare not face the light of day.
That’s the narrative. All you have to do is to track people into thinking like that, and Harry Reid knows it.
Read her whole post and her others on the subject. Her opinion is worth hearing and understanding. After all once can’t be secure in one’s own opinion and beliefs and be unwilling or unable to hear the other side without rancor.
Although all of us are conservatives, we vary in several ways, Miss Attila is more on the libertarian side, Nice Deb like me is very Catholic and Cynthia as the name of her blog indicates is not only a lesbian, but strongly in favor of Gay Marriage.
Nobody is farther apart that me and Cynthia on this issue. I have described it as narcissism, she considers it a civil rights issue and is in the process of writing a book The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage I will certainly have her on my show to argue about the book (and promote it) when she is ready.
Why as a stalwart Roman Catholic, a 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus and a staunch conservative would I be hanging out with Cynthia Yockey, promoting her blog and linking to her diametrically opposed opinion on Gay Marriage?
1. First of all, if your argument is good you aren’t afraid of the argument against.
2. Second of all Cynthia is my friend and that will always trump a political disagreement.
3. Finally we both understand that neither my support of Marriage nor her support of gay marriage makes the other a bigot.
This however doesn’t appear to be the case with some of our friends on the left.
For months I’ve noticed that on Memeorandum any person who opposes gay marriage is automatically labeled with the pejorative: “anti-gay” or as a supporter of “anti-gay bigotry”. And this is not just coming from those who support the insane anti-first amendment positions of the mayors of Boston, Chicago, DC or Philly. Consider this piece at the Huff-Po by James Peron:
Recently, political has-been Rick Santorum was having a hissy fit on CNBC about the Chick-fil-A controversy. Many people have called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A, myself included, due to the company’s funding of extreme fundamentalist organizations and its anti-gay public positions.
Mind you this is the voice of a “reasonable” member of the left. A person who correctly recognizes the positions of the Mayor of Boston and others as violations of the 1st Amendment. Yet by his use of language he dubs all those who support marriage as it has been in every state of the US until 2003 are supporting “extreme fundamentalist organizations” and their positions are “anti-gay public positions” , their views are “anti-gay views”.
And he is not unique. On Saturday I called into Bob Hockinson’s show which precedes mine on Saturday 5-7 AM on WCRN, his caller on the line was a person known as Citizen “Q”. We know each other and both played in the Jimmy Fund benefit wiffleball game this year to raise money to help kids with Cancer. He bluntly stated on the air that any person who doesn’t support Gay Marriage is a bigot. No qualifications, no exceptions, you aren’t in favor of Gay Marriage; BIGOT!
Who knew that until 2003 every president and ever governor of every state had been a bigot? Who knew that we were run by a bunch of evil people all these years?
So long as Obama supported the traditional definition of marriage, Democratic politicians and support groups had to tread carefully in how far their rhetoric and actions went. Once Obama came out in support of gay marriage, Democrats were freed to accuse anyone and everyone who supports the traditional definition of marriage as bigoted and unworthy of a place in their jurisdictions.
Now the “bigot card” is on full display as a centerpiece of Democratic politics.
With the race card no longer working the Bigot card is on display daily at Think Progress and elsewhere and we will see a lot more of it too
And make no mistake, effectively banning the support of traditional marriage as “hate speech” is where the movement is heading. It is impossible to have a discussion of the issue without supporters of traditional marriage being called bigoted. “Bigot” is the new “racist” and the “bigot card” is the new “race card.”
Such an argument, however, is tantamount to an admission that persuasion as a political tactic has failed.
The problem with not answering this kind of thing directly allows the “bigot” motif to become established and once established it’s hard to remove. It took decades before the race card lost its sting. I’m not going to stand for this all over again so we’re are going to make some Jacksonian rules around here:
If you, like my friend Cynthia Yockey or Glenn Reynolds, both supporters of gay marriage, want to make the case give the arguments and make your points. Great, let’s have that debate. Happy to do it and link back to your points and counterpoints. I’ll even consider having you on my show. If you can win the battle of ideas, hey the people have the right to be wrong.
But if, you like Think Progress, or James Peron want to start calling people “anti-gay” or “bigots” then not only will I not link to you or entertain your arguments, I shall refer to you as “Anti-Christian” “Anti-Family” “Anti-Marriage” zealots. In fact since Islam also opposes gay marriage I guess I can call you “Islamophobes” as well.
(Mind you if you express a specific opposition to radical Islamics, I’ll give you slack. Those people want to slaughter you simply for being. That’s barbarism.)
I really don’t like playing this game. I think it is crass and crude but that’s the way it goes. When the radical left develops the confidence in their argument that a Glenn Reynolds or Cynthia Yockey holds. when they have the confidence to make their point without placing a blanket label of “bigot” on their foes, then I’ll be delighted to extend to you the same courtesy.
You want respect. Earn it.
Update: Glenn Reynolds quotes Mark Steyn:
In Mayor Menino’s Boston, if you take the same view of marriage as President Obama did from 2009 to 2012, he’ll run your homophobic ass out of town. But, if you want to toss those godless sodomites off the John Hancock Tower, he’ll officiate at your ribbon-cutting ceremony.
DaTechGuy’s fundraiser continues and as you can see by the thermometer your $10 & $20 is needed to keep things going. As a capitalist I’ll even accept money from people who call me names.
Via Jeff Quinton Technorati reports that AOL’s aqusition of Huff Po has paid off for Arianna but apparently nobody else:
Only 6 months after spending a great of its remaining cash on the purchase of Huffington Post, AOL is up for sale according to many insiders in the know. Sources in the industry claim that AOL has met privately with the mega-law firm Watchell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and investment bank Allen & Company about putting the former ISP up for sale to the highest bidder.
Any conservative worth his salt could see this coming but Arianna Huffington has a pleasing face, a nice shape, a glib tongue and is part of the “in” crowd so they fell for it hook line and sinker, again from Technorati
It is clear that their management, seen by many as top heavy salary wise, is not suited to run a content company that needs to focus on cost cutting. Where most content companies are run by sleek, cost-effective staff members who get paid mainly on production, AOL still has remnants of the TimeWarner era where people were paid for resumes, not results.
Sounds like Congressional democrats and the Obama administration doesn’t it?
My inbox had this charming email in it, from the HuffPo:
Today, the U.S. media will get its first glimpse of more than 24,000 emails sent and received by Sarah Palin during her tenure as governor of Alaska. These emails were originally requested by journalists, citizens and other groups in 2008, when Palin was Sen. John McCain’s running mate on the Republican presidential ticket. They are being released now after years of delays.
The Huffington Post expects to start receiving some of these emails this afternoon. We need your help going through this mass of documents to find notable passages and references to pass on to our reporters. This afternoon, we’ll post the documents online and provide a place for you to leave notes on the emails you see.
We’ll contact you as soon as we have the documents available for you to read. If you want to be among the first to read Sarah Palin’s emails and help The Huffington Post write great stories about them, please sign up by following the link below.
The Huffington Post’s decision to ban Andrew Breitbart from its front page for…
Andrew Brietbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched.
I trust you were not drinking when you read that, otherwise your computer would have shorted out from the water.
…as a writer, this latest move by The Huffington Post of banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page (because of comments he made to a different website) is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness that Arianna Huffington has purported to believe in.
He also comments on the strategy
One very loathsome aspect of this story is something that Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff told me in a long phone call about Andrew Breitbart several months ago. Roy knows and worked with Andrew and when the issue of Andrew Breitbart being a racist came up, Roy told me “No, of course Andrew isn’t a racist.”
Roy went on to say that while both he and Arianna Huffington knew that the charges of racism being hurled at Andrew weren’t true based on their years of personal dealings with him that they were in a ‘bad position’ to say anything about it.
…however it is a question of their base, evidence about Jones not withstanding they will not risk upsetting the liberals who follow them. As Stranahan has already found dissent from the liberal base carries costs.
He didn’t write or say any of that at HuffPo, a site he helped develop in 2005. Is the Huffington Post’s standard that contributors can be to some modified limited hang-out if they use ad hominems in other forums? Boy, good thing Breitbart doesn’t have an army of contributors who can comb HuffPo authors’ published and spoken work to see if they’ve done that.
He is exactly right. The number of examples of this kind of stuff that will be dug up this week will be interesting.
That’s 351 million not counting any revenue that the site has generated. If you paid the 4000 folks in question 10k each for the time they put in over 5 years that still leaves 311 million. Subtract the investor money of 36 mil and you have 250 mill subtract say half for taxes and you have 125 mil and say another 25 mil for expenses and Arianna still pockets 20 mil a year over five years plus the revenue generated.
Yet the 4,000 got not a cent. The 40 mil that would be necessary to give them a piece of the pie is not to be. So all of you on the left who provided free content so Arianna could cash out big time now get to do the same thing so AOL can cash out big time. Is that what you signed on for?
Hey its a free country if you guys want to put out all that work so Huffington can get richer that’s totally up to you, but this is one version of Money for nothing that hasn’t been banned.
Then again if you look at Hotair it’s not about the money, it’s about the re-election:
Arianna Huffington, who got $315 million in a sale of Huffington Post to AOL as well as complete control of AOL’s content. She has plans for that power, Sargent reports at the Washington Post. She hopes to turn AOL into a center of “citizen journalism” in advance of the 2012 elections:
Or to put it another way, not only did Arianna get a big payday, but by using it to re-elect The One™ she and her friends are counting on, if successful a great payback on the back of the American Taxpayer for every liberal cause out there. And that payout won’t be millions, it will be billions!
Update; Irony thy name is AOL via glenn AOL stock values falls $315 million since feb 1st