Talk:HuffPost

Bloggers

Huffinton Post has taken now to tossing off people randomly who do not fit their idea of a "blogger". The end line when you attempt to share is "You have been banned". Thanks HuffPO for nadaLjsfolly (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I think the table misses the point-- all their bloggers are celebs to some degree.

And I do't like how it looks. --robotwisdom 20:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly argue that it looks like crap right now, and your point about the celebrity of the bloggers is too relative to matter. If that's the problem, then I would suggest changing the header instead of destroying it. If not the tables, then you find some way to make this page look presentable.--TheGrza 20:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks better without the tables, and makes more sense without them too. I don't think it's so easy to make a divide between 'celebrity' and 'non-celebrity'. Are most of the "non-celebrities" actually likely to have articles about them anytime soon? I would suggest we don't need to list them at all, it would be simpler to put "There are also many less well known personalities contributing to the Huffington Post" (or something better worded). I think it's more important to have an article saying more about what it is, and what sort of stance it takes, it's noteriety etc than having a list of names. -- Joolz 23:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I do think most of the 'red-link' names will have articles soon, but I haven't heard of most of them.. Nor do I really have a feel for the website as a whole, yet.--robotwisdom 23:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Move

If you're not going to put the list of bloggers on another page, maybe we could move it to the bottom? -- (Sander9860 (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

AHEM!

Was this written by Huffington herself??!! I'm a big fan but it's WAY too biased, especially the references to the Drudge report and other left wing blogs:

"...the HuffPost regularly publishes scoops of current news stories, otherwise providing links to selected prominent news stories, providing a left-of-center counterpoint to the link-heavy style of The Drudge Report. Compared to other left-wing blogs such as the expertise-heavy Znet or the long-established Daily Kos, the HuffPost draws a balance between hard news commentary and coverage..."

-This is ridiculous and displays the major drawback of Wikipedia... --ALEXXXTH 1150GMT 1st March 2007

Self-Reference

Could you please remove the Wikipedia self-reference from the end of the second paragraph. I would have done it myself but didn't know how to word it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added small notations about both people at the bottom of the other pages. I hope to actually write their biographies soon, but it's taken care of now.--TheGrza 00:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Snarky comment

So...where's the article?

All I'm seeing is a list of loosely associated persons. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We're waiting for you to write it?

My excuse for the long lists is that it's the easiest way to check who already has articles. I suspect the Wiki-correct way to list these names would be to create a category, but that wouldn't help for the names without articles. --robotwisdom 22:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cyrius, therefore I've removed all the non-notables (ie, those without articles) from this page, I've also tried to divide the notables into more managable sections. I don't think that merely contributing to this blog is reason enough for people to have their own articles either. -- Joolz 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand-- first, it's a celebrities-only blog, so the red-color-link semi-celebs will all deserve entries sooner or later. Second, as new people post, if I'm going to keep the list updated I still have to check whether they have articles already-- this will be a lot more convenient if the 'red' list is still in the main article. --robotwisdom 23:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be just a list of names, it's not particularly useful to have such a list, these celebrities which thus far haven't got articles aren't really worth listing on here. I don't think that a red-link list should be maintained to make it easier on editors either. -- Joolz 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I think the current subject-sort is fine (although it needs an 'activists' category), but when I get the energy I plan to re-add the 'red' names under their appropriate subjects. --robotwisdom 13:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Critics

So what exactly is "the point of a blog"? That comment seems rather POV. →Vik Reykja 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

I've removed the critics section altogether for having no substance. No criticism about the views expressed therein, just complaints that it doesn't act like Joe Schmoe's blog. I'm surprised they're not complaining about the font used. →Vik Reykja 30 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Deleted the reference to Huffingtontoast for varity of reasons. The website itself doesnt even exist anymore. The paragraph was unnecessary as well; claims that the parody site "accurately parodies HuffingtonPost" and "humourous" are clearly the writer's POV. Such snark does not work well here.

Clooney

Claiming George Clooney as one of the site's celebrity bloggers warrants a big caveat. Really he should be handled separately in the body of the article, as his "blog" led to bit of a dust-up over the practices involved. --Michael Snow 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is outragous a whole mention of the Huffington Report and no mention of the George Clooney scandal? Talk about big brother. Huffingto actually took quotations of past Clooney interview spliced them together and made into a blog. Clearly unethical. And even after being caught she has the brazen gall to state there is nothing wrong with it? Disgusting. What is the point of wikipedia if it is going to be so brazenly biased. Firmitas 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He's still listed as one of the bloggers for the site, and no mention of the scandal. Not only that, Huffington Post is described as a "news website". That is not accurate! It really does seem like some pro-HP person wrote this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Parodies and satires

Can we finally decide whether the parody and satire links need to stay or go?

I say delete--Gdo01 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the person(s) who keeps deleting that section has a non-NPOV agenda of some kind. Note that other pages have similar sections: /Drudge_Report#Parody_sites, /Instapundit#Blogs_inspired_by_Instapundit, etc. etc. etc.

Parody web sites offer nothing. These are totally unnecessary.

Will you be deleting all of the "Parodies and Satires" and similar sections from all of the other entries that have them, including those I listed above? Perhaps we should remove The Colbert Report from the O'Reilly page. Or, perhaps we should realize that this is supposed to be NPOV and thus mention both the supporters and the detractors.

Delete. A parody is an "imitation for comic effect or ridicule". Seems to me this, by definition, violates a neutral point of view. And yes, I would support removing parody references from other articles. If a parody is notable enough, it should have it's own article. Finally, NPOV is not about lining up an equal number of "good" and "bad" statements about a subject--if that's what you've got, all you've done is violated NPOV from different perspectives. Glendoremus 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not have parody in it but it can have sections on it. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information....it looks like this article is approaching this quickly. The list of all the contributors is getting pretty long. Perhaps it should be made into another article or List of contributors to the Huffington Post. Afterall, you wouldn't list all the contributors to the NY Times in the NY Times article. --MonkBirdDuke 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more substantive content in this article. I'm not against the list of contributors per se. Having notable contributors is one of the key, unique elements of the website. I think we could thin out the list by removing those who don't warrant a major wikipedia article. The analogy with the NY Times is not quite apt. The NY Times is not primarily about its contributors. Anyway - I really think there should be some more detail about the site itself. Davidpatrick 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

They've posted a lot of crazy stuff on the Huffington Post. I'm suprised that there isn't any controversy over these things. Like 911 Conspiracy crap, Deepak Chopra nonsense, etc. If there's a controversy over these kinds of articles, we have to mention it in the article. --Havermayer 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about adding a section called "comments controversies". A news article on the bomb assasination on the base in Afghanistan where the VP Cheney stayed and one on his poor health had comment sections with loads of death wishes and vile rants. These have been debated not just on the blogosphere but also mainstream media. Recently, comments feature on several Cheney-related articles have been disabled.And another thing - the current article is quite dull and list-like. We need to list ALL columnists and bloggers of HuffPo? Medico80 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversies are not just in the comments. The pseudoscience, the anti-vaccination and anti-evolution rants etc. are pretty well known amongst scientific bloggers. Warrants a mention, surely?

To see a double-standard, check out the lack of controversy/criticism on the Huffington Post page, then compare it to the excessively nit-picking criticisms on John Gibson's page. C'mon...are we letting Huffington Post and Media Matters dictate Wikipedia standards now?

Either strike the nit-picking from Gibson's page, or allow such nit-picking on this page (and Olbermann's page, and Matthew's, and Media Matters, etc)... Ynot4tony (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be an understatement to refer to the comments targeted at Nancy Reagan simply as "negative." That is quite vague, and could refer to anything from disagreeing with her husband's political beliefs to, well, the extremely hateful comments made about wishing her to "croak in the tub," etc. Either some of the comments should be quoted, or their tone should be described more accurately.

It might also be a bad idea for one of the main sources for criticism of the Huffington Post to be the Post itself. We should let Huffington rebut the claim herself, but only after presenting the case of criticism first, from the critical source (O'Reilly) himself.JosCol (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Turlington

Hello? Why isn't Christy Turlington's name listed as one of the bloggers?!

How to blog?

I don't see anything here about how one becomes a Huffington Post blogger. Is it strictly by invitation only? Is there an application/audition process? Who gets invited and why? ChrisStansfield 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to list

Just wanted to explain my revision here- I changed the categories from "what people are" to different industries, since a lot of the people there do more than one thing and since, by definition, they're all writers by virtue of being on the HuffPo. I thought it was more important to show the variety of professional backgrounds the bloggers come from. Some of the people and the categories they belong to are arguable since several people could arguably fit in one or more groups to a certain degree. Ultimately, I went with what the person is best known for- people might dispute putting Cronkite in the "Broadcasting" section rather than journalism, for example, but since his actual reporting/print media career is so small compared to his anchoring career (remember, he came from the days when newsreaders did less of their own investigation) I thought it apropo that he be recognized for his contributions to television rather than journalism. Likewise, Tavis Smileyhas certainly authored books, but the average man on the street knows him from his talk show more than anything. So there he went. I also edited some links that were pointing to the wrong people, and perhaps most controversially, deleted quite a few of the red-linked names. Anyone who was redlinked who was not mentioned in any other WP articles got deleted, as were anyone whose greatest notability comes from HuffPo blogging (which makes the concept of "notable contributors" pretty circular.ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of date

Tagged as out of date. The logo is old, there's a reference to 2006 as present-day, etc. I'm sure the contributors list has changed considerably, too. 68.165.76.80 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberals

No comment on how incredibly liberal the Huffington Post is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.180.251 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to brand the Huffington Post as "liberal" you must place this label in context of other blogs and news sources. "Liberal" and "conservative" are loaded terms and POV, and should be used only if the news source describes itself this way or there is hard research to support using that label. Bapgar (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bapgar, identifying the HP as liberal is helpful to the reader, not to mention completely true. If you think you need "hard research" to make that determination, then, in my opinion, you have never looked to the HP online. If you think liberal is loaded, and maybe it is, the some other term should describe (Democrat, left-leaning, leftist).--Lindsay (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Party because the liberal-conservative dichotomy is so ridiculously nondescript, Identifying the HP as "liberal" is only helpful -- as Bapgar suggested -- to the extent it is done in the context of the greater blogosphere. Easily, the HP is left of, say, the Drudge Report, but it is markedly right of Znet, for example. The HP invites commentary from contributors across the political spectrum, and assessing any lib-con identification now may be premature, anyway: While the HP has been quite critical of the current Republican administration, it hasn't yet existed under a Democratic White House -- and its founder was a notable, even celebrated, critic of Clinton-era policies in her own editorials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.68.201 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The author was a critic of the Clinton-era policies for being centrist. She has on repeated accounts claimed the only way to win the White House (for Sen. Obama) was to make a turn towards the left. --Ram Astra (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph describes the organization as 'liberal' but it's not clear what this means. Is this 'liberal' in the normal European sense or in the strange use of the word in the USA? To me liberal is the opposite of restrictive media like you can find in countries with authoritarian governments. All media organizations outside of the USA would seek to call themselves liberal. The vast majority of US media when compared to that in Europe, Australasia and other parts of the world is incredibly politically biased and is almost always full of commercial influences and very little public (i.e. not commercially owned and run on an independent basis like the BBC). American politics is so strange - a country where 'liberal' is thought of as a bad thing and a country where 'blue' represents left'wing and red represents 'right-wing'. And of course a country where so many people lack the intelligence to vote for someone without being influenced by media or their churches - such a depressing situation from a country which claims to be leading the world. I hope Americans make the right decision this time at the polls because the world is sick of having to tolerate a regime which stole an election, brought conflict to many parts around the world and have fucked up the world financial systems in its pursuit of "free" capitalism.

If you followed the liberal link, you would've gotten the impression that sentence was trying to make...also the citation offered was from the Guardian (A British newspaper if I'm not mistaken). Wikipedia isn't the place to put up personal rants like these. Go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post for that matter. Btw, I'm still waiting for a liberal to explain why the free markets are such a bad idea (that said I will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama this year) Ram Astra (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm interested in seeing this article being tagged with a liberal label is because I don't want people to think the Huffington Post is a place that tolerates Centrist or Conservative viewpoints Ram Astra (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberal here means in the American political left sense. Also, critizing both a Democrat and a republican don't make you neutral. THe Huffington has existed under a Democratic congress, and in the same world as liberals. The question is what have they criticized people for. If they said the government does too little, than they are liberal, if too much, the conservative. Of course that doesn't always apply, but I think the point is made. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

the The Drudge Report

The word "the" appears twice in a row in this article where the article says "the The Drudge Report." I am not 100% sure this is a mistake, since I don't know what "The Drudge Report" is. If this is a mistake, then please correct it for me and remove this section from this talk page (I am not watching this talk page, so if you leave a response here, I will not get it). If this is not a mistake, then please make a note of it here so that future editors will know to leave it the way it is.

Thanks! VegKilla (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Some of the references are linked back to the huffington post website itself. The context of the tag seems to suggest it is being used as an example to what the text is referring. Perhaps I am mistaken in my understanding of the WP policy of sourcing. In thatthey need to be independent of the articles subject. --K3vin (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizen Journalists

I have heard Huffinton Post's member's called citizen journalists, and that one broke the "god and guns" comment. the Post seems like a legitimate news source, at least I thought so, till I saw a link to a photoshopped pic of Palin, in KKK garb. What is the editorial process at the Post, is it a real online news paper?