Talk:HuffPost

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

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.

Turlington

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

Mideast conflict

Perhaps content should be added on the Huffington Post's coverage of the Mideast conflict, since it is one of the big ideological divides in major news media. ADM (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog sources for CAM criticisms

Please explain how the blogs you cite, which contain screeds of vitriolic and uninformative ad hominems, will pass the provisions of this restriction? ► RATEL ◄ 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please note that the sources are intended to support the statement that "The Huffington Post has been criticized..." and that statement is neutral in regards to whether the critique is justified. The sources are not intended to support any statement on HuffPosts stance regarding CAM.

Secondly, these are not just any random blogs. The texts are posted on Pharyngula (blog) and Bad Astronomy, a science blog associated with Discover (magazine). Both authors are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. This means that the criticism has been made in well-known media for news and opinion, in this case blogs.

Thirdly, yes, the texts can be described as "vitriolic", but what has that to do with their use to support the statement that criticism has been made?

Fourthly, these are just the tip of the iceberg of reactions to Huffington Posts on science blogs. In fact the current home page of ScienceBlogs is filled with the headlines of blog posts about Huffington Post. They are, however, mostly anonymous and so probably not RS. This Post by Janet D. Stemwedel might be a source more to your liking.Sjö (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The requirements for blog citations are specific. The person must be a recognised expert in the field. Are the blog writers you want to use medical experts in the field of vaccination or the other issues raised? If yes, then use them. If no, do not. Merely being a scientist is not enough. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to consider the statement that the sources are supposed to support. Their expertise in the field is not relevant in this case, but their position as notable blogs. I'm sure that e.g. an opinion piece in The Washington Post or a statement by a prominent politician would be considered a RS, even if the authors were outside their field of expertise. That's because this is not about verifying that the Huffington Post publishes incorrect information, but it's about verifying that it has been criticized for doing that.

Besides, you do know that you are referring to an essay and not a guideline? I feel quite comfortable ignoring the rules set in any essay.Sjö (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the whole paragraph unless you can show that this criticism comes from notable sources in the fields concerned. Some of the sources you've given are just rants. ► RATEL ◄ 10:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have told you why I consider those sources relevant. Please respond to my arguments.Sjö (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments do not hold water in the face of the prohibitions on self-published sources. It's just a matter of time before blog-sourced rants are removed from the page, either by me or someone else. ► RATEL ◄ 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is no general prohibition on using blogs as sources, but they should be used with discretion. Please see WP:BLOGS and the documents that page refers to. In this case, since the claim that is supported is that the Huffington Post is being criticized it doesn't take much expertise to see if that is true. (In fact, I think that a notable blogger like PZ Myers can count as an expert on blog relations, but that's neither here nor there.) I propose instead this link [1] from the Daily Kos and this link [2] from RedState as better alternatives than the ones I psoted earlier. Not only are the authors more level-headed, at least the Daily Kos is better known. What do you say?Sjö (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Kos one is the best you've come up with. Use that. ► RATEL ◄ 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Does no one else find it ironic that Discover, which is a much more reliable source has a blog that is not considered a reliable source because it is a blog, yet Hufpo is also a blog which is used as a reliable source even though it's reliability is questionable at best. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Even more ironic is that the Discover blog source is written by a person that has blogged at Hufpo under which his blog would be considered a RS, but now at Discover it is not? I agree with Sjo. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel: OK, I'm glad that we can agree on that. I added the Daily Kos link and rewrote the sentence to make it show that the CAM criticism is made mainly on science blogs.Sjö (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

HUFFPO vs DRUDGE

They may be compared in the media sometimes, but this is an article about HuffPo, not Drudge. It certainly is appropriate to include it with the description as to why the site exists (as it was a founding reason) and once within the statistics (as it is a major competitor), but to constantly make the comparison seems redundant and unnecessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are compared constantly in the media, and with good reason, each being the flagship in their class for the 2 sides of US politics. As an inclusionist, I think keeping the info adds to the knowledge imparted. ► RATEL ◄ 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say on the subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google News search on "Huffington Drudge traffic" gives some idea of what I'm referring to. 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's a biased search because you include both "Drudge" and "Huffington", so, naturally, you're going to find every instance of it. Like I said before, let's see if anyone else weighs in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does seem biased, now you mention it. You could also try a search for just "drudge traffic" and you'll see what I mean. I only mention this because I have set up a news alert on drudge, and huffpo is almost always mentioned when traffic stats come up. ► RATEL ◄ 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are noticeably different in function, huffingtonpost publishes opinion columns by their various contributors. Drudge does not. Huffingtonpost functions as a news archive, meaning you can find all of their past stories. Drudge does not, only current events can be found on drudge. Additionally Huffingtonpost operates as a social networking site, meaning that users can comment on the news and opinion pieces on the site, again drudge does not97.91.175.129 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

anti-Semitism on Huffington Post

there have been commentators who have accused Huffington Post of anti-semitism including http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=101131 and others. This should be reflected on the page. There are TONS of anti-semitic comments on that sight, and the face that there are almost no pro-Israel blog posts and tons of anti-Israel blog posts has come under criticism.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC) People have also said the exact opposite as documented in this instance: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/12/31/the-spineless-huffington-post-gives-equal-time/ I don't think you could find any huffington post blogger who approve of attacks on Israel, yet there are many who argue in favor of Israel attacking Gaza and Iran. Here is a recent example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-joseph/memo-to-bibi_b_301025.html97.91.175.129 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue instead that while it might feature a good deal of anti-Zionism, i.e. criticising Israel's various policies, this doesn't necessarily translate into formal antisemitsm. For instance, many of its contributors have no problem with discussing their personal Jewish identity.[3][4][5] ADM (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Obviously they aren't an anti-semitic website. Not even close. After all they publish people like zuckerman, dershowitz and david harris all the time. None of the criticism claiming that they are anti-semintic is even actually directed at the Huffpost editorial staff, it is instead directed at the anonymous commenters on the site of which you could obviously find pro-israeli comments as well. And actually if you judge criticism by goggle search, which I find to be a good gauge of english language opinion, you will see that "Huffington zionist" gets 560,000 hits whereas "Huffington anti-Semitic" only gets 100,000 hits. That's more than a 5 to 1 ratio 97.91.173.58 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

rewrite part of the introduction

Removing the following line from the introduction. Apart from the obvious spelling error, it sounds (negatively)biased and may be rewritten based on proper facts instead of personal viewpoints:

"Extrmely biased website. Very effective at spinning the news to inaccurately support the statist agenda: big government, less freedom, shredding of the Constitution."

intro

Would it be contentious to describe the site as "liberal" in the lead? Drudge Report has conservative in the lead. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Traffic statistics

For the record, I have made some minor edits to this section. Firstly, I removed the references to the places of Huffington and Drudge on the political spectrum: they are not relevant here. Their inclusion makes the entire section look like a "my side is winning" partisan bunfight. As a reader I want to know how much traffic Huffington Post gets relative to similar sites. The relative political positions of Huffington and Drudge are well-established elsewhere; an analysis of internet traffic vs. political leanings belongs in another article altogether (and good luck with NOR and NPOV there). Secondly, the comparison with 'middle-grounded political news sources' is not just similarly misdirected, but utterly unsupported: it is gone. Thirdly, I tried to neutralize the second-para citations a bit by making their sources explicit: I admit, though, I fail to understand either one. There is no link provided to published Google Analytics figures, and by my admittedly-superficial understanding of Technorati, I don't believe it says what this section claims it says. I leave it to a braver editor to make them better. • Lainagier • talk • 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop making bland assumptions.

I've already fixed the introduction to be as neutral as possible and some dimwit decided to place into words his assumption that the huffington post is a "liberal slanted" site in contentions with the "conservative" drudge report. Revert your changes.