"the wisdom of Nixon…" <shudder> »« Call for an end to the National Day of Prayer

But everyone should know that the HuffPo sucks!

I got a bit of snippy email and twitter comments yesterday, after I made some disparaging comment about the HuffPo and its readership—I wonder if Garry Trudeau will get a lot of “how dare you say rude things about the Huffington Post!!?!?!” after this.

Comments

  1. sugarfrosted says

    To be fair to the people who criticized you for criticizing HuffPo, I never really noticed how bad and clickbaity HuffPo was until I actually visited their homepage. (Most of the people who linked me to it, didn’t link to clickbait and I tend to ignore related articles.)

  2. imthegenieicandoanything says

    Huffpo is NFGBS. The Telegraph is, theoretically, something a desperate person might consider wiping their ass with, in an emergency.

  3. says

    Huffington Post has a whole big section dedicated to “sideboob”. It’s a subcategory of “news”. Enough said.

  4. ludicrous says

    I don’t do Huffpo anymore but they have socially redeeming value. I think they still offer a lot of liberal/progressive news that their more or less mainstream audience would not otherwise encounter.

  5. Andrew B. says

    Yes! It’s basically a tabloid rag masquerading as a newsite. Half of the articles are “16 things every 30 year old should know,” “8 ways everyone but you is having hotter sex” “13 things better, handsomer, more successful people than you do differently,” and “8 things you’re doing RIGHT NOW that WILL kill you!”

    It seems like the whole purpose of the website is to make people feel terrified about the world and insufficient about themselves. It’s garbage.

  6. mikeyb says

    As bad as HuffPo is in appealing to the entertainment culture and scientific woo, there still are no progressive sites with anywhere near the traffic size (unless you count Washington Post/NY Times, but these aren’t progressive sites, but sometimes do actual journalism). Try to get progressive points of view from the major non-Fox news, they are conservative light. Just watch any of the major Sunday talk news show and you’ll notice how white and how much these cave to conservative ideas, and with few exceptions (Paul Krugman) are completely filled with talking head morons. I know there are tons of better progressive sites (mediamatters, dailykos, motherjones, thenation, talkingpointmemo, rightwingwatch, democraticundergrouind, etc etc etc) but until and unless they grow, the HuffPo is still necessary to get progressive ideas out.

  7. brucegee1962 says

    The comic should have also mentioned that both of the two comments had nothing whatsoever to do with the article, but were part of a continuing flame war between commenters about whether Obama is awsum or sux.

  8. says

    Huffington has a new book out, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder.* Tells you all you need to know, really.
     
    *B&N has is plastered all over their front page, so I’ve seen it a lot.

  9. microraptor says

    I’ve been refusing to read HuffPo ever since hearing that they expect their writers to work for free from Professor Ceiling Cat over on WEIT while raking in the money from the advertising they sell.

  10. Trebuchet says

    Huffington Post has a whole big section dedicated to “sideboob”. It’s a subcategory of “news”. Enough said.

    Darn you, PZ. Just darn you to heck. You made me go and look. Causing me to see the following headline:

    Deepak Chopra On How To Modify Your Own Genes

    And that sideboob page. Ugh.

  11. Alex says

    [i]”Fleecing: My New Attempt to Boosting Book Sales With Empty PoMo Solgans and Ignoring that Words mean anything in the English language”[/i]

  12. says

    Only 17 comments?

    You should have titled the post “But everyone should know that the HuffPo sucks epic sideboob!”

    (Now going to Urban Dictionary to look up “sideboob.”)

  13. says

    Greg Laden @ 18:

    (Now going to Urban Dictionary to look up “sideboob.”)

    I would have thought sideboob was rather obvious. *cough*

  14. coffeehound says

    @ 10,

    I know there are tons of better progressive sites (mediamatters, dailykos, motherjones, thenation, talkingpointmemo, rightwingwatch, democraticundergrouind, etc etc etc) but until and unless they grow, the HuffPo is still necessary to get progressive ideas out.

    Meh. Call me an old fart, but I’m resisting the concept that worthwhile progressive ideas have to be attached to pseudoscience and (often) outright bullshit in order to find a larger audience.I’m finding over the last 6-7 years HuffPo has been adding progressively(no pun intended) more noise and less signal, and if CNN has become Fox light, I don’t think adding a progressive light side is adding all that much value to the discussion. Diluting the message with more filler and additives is kind of their thing( by which I mean Fox and HuffPo).

  15. says

    Sassafras @ 23:

    declared war on uppity trans women

    Jesus Fuck. Doucheweasels all. I haven’t gone anywhere near HuffPo for years, and I have yet another reason to stay away.

  16. coffeehound says

    Maybe an idea would be a central site that is bright and friendly, attractive (but not bullshit laden) that serves as a link to all of the great sites already mentioned by mikeyb @ 10.The newly awakened might appreciate a central site could quickly point them to an alternative to the Fox coma. A little off topic, sorry.

  17. knowknot says

    From the link @11 by Atheist, just in case anyone doesn’t know and didn’t check it, or hadn’t actually considered her CV…
     

    . “The greatest tragedy of the modern welfare state is that we have allowed it to deprive us of a fundamental opportunity to practice virtue, responsibility, generosity and compassion.”

    —From Huffington’s “The Fourth Instinct: The Call of the Soul”
     

    “Women’s Lib claims that the achievement of total liberation would transform the lives of all women for the better, the truth is that it would transform only the lives of women with strong lesbian tendencies. . . . The frenetic extremism of Women’s Lib seeks not to emancipate women, but to destroy society.”

    —From Huffington’s “The Female Woman: An Argument Against Women’s Liberation for Female Emancipation”
     

    “Once democracy is established as a fundamentally economic concept, as it unambiguously has been in Sweden and is increasingly becoming so elsewhere in the West, then it functions solely for economic egalitarianism and it can be made to embrace any degree of tyranny provided more prosperity, more security and more social welfare are guaranteed.”

    — From Huffinton’s “After Reason”
     
    If those quotes alone aren’t enough, add Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Deepak Chopra and John-Roger, and season with the world’s most disgustingly effective and amoral clickbait model to make a truly fascinating stew.

  18. knowknot says

    @26 coffeehound

    Maybe an idea would be a central site that is bright and friendly, attractive (but not bullshit laden) that serves as a link to all of the great sites already mentioned by mikeyb @ 10.The newly awakened might appreciate a central site could quickly point them to an alternative to the Fox coma. A little off topic, sorry.

     
    It is a good idea. Admitted with shame: I kept trying to mine the links on HuffPo for meaningful stuff and understanding of current idiocy for far too long, because aggregation WOULD be a wonderful thing if done well. Unfortunately, “done well” would mean “conducive to thought,” which also means “not conducive to click baiting” and “useless for advertising profits.”
     
    But maybe, just maybe, there’s still some shining hope for a truly inclusive, truly international, truly feminist-friendly, truly progressive and clickbait-free All-Sideboob-All-The-Time site, that features only those sideboobs relevant to meaningful political discourse, solid science, and valid humanitarian concerns.
     
    Just saying, it’s clear that I understand what’s really important, and so the purity of my intentions in this great hope are clear.

  19. says

    The “moderators” at HuffPoo are VERY DELICATE CREATURES…any “cuss word,” disparagement of the author of an article, the site, or the person the article is about is liable to get you banned. I’ve been banned for over 4 months because I made the mistake of observing how butt-ugly many of the tea party candidates are. I think Arriana has national aspirations and the moderators are told to delete or ban any comment that might reflect badly on her or her site. They also have the most misleading headlines of any site on the progblogs…meant to steer traffic in and get hits.

  20. says

    Carlos Muecke @ 29:

    I’ve been banned for over 4 months because I made the mistake of observing how butt-ugly many of the tea party candidates are.

    Rightly so, too. People can’t help their appearance, “ugly” is also a subjective matter, in case you were unaware. Only an ass would make such an…observation, and only an idiot would find that worthy of remarking on, when there are so many valid observations and remarks to be made about their ideas.

  21. zenlike says

    Sooo… right-wing hack trying to compete in an already saturated market place and seeing the opportunity to replicate the same business model in a new market? At least that’s what I got from the founder’s CV.

  22. microraptor says

    I’ve been banned for over 4 months because I made the mistake of observing how butt-ugly many of the tea party candidates are.

    Rightly so, too. People can’t help their appearance, “ugly” is also a subjective matter, in case you were unaware. Only an ass would make such an…observation, and only an idiot would find that worthy of remarking on, when there are so many valid observations and remarks to be made about their ideas.

    And it takes a truly dense individual to pat themselves on the back about being banned for such statements.

  23. says

    microraptor @ 32:

    And it takes a truly dense individual to pat themselves on the back about being banned for such statements.

    Word.

  24. thinksanddrinks says

    If any of you doubt PZ, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sideboob/

    He might not want a l;ink here, but I wanted to see the truth. He spoke the truth. That isn’t a news source any more than the tabloids in Britain.

    I like good porn, but:
    1) this isn’t good porn
    2) this isn’t a news source if this is what they present

  25. thinksanddrinks says

    Calling people “ugly” might not mean physical appearance. I have seen many ugly people that have great appearances; they are ugly in the soul. It is a multiple-axis word.

  26. anteprepro says

    thinksanddrinks:

    Calling people “ugly” might not mean physical appearance.

    It is used ridiculously more often as a comment on appearance. So I wouldn’t buy that as a defense.

    Even when is not used in this fashion, it is usually as a metaphor using that conception of “ugly” and applying to something that doesn’t have to do with appearances. A metaphor meaning “your personality is as poor as an ugly person’s appearance!”. It is using a judgmental term that is rooted in obsession with physical appearances in order to make a comment on someone else’s character. It cements a just-world, “ugly is bad”, “beauty is good” narrative and it causes splash damage while hiding behind the plausible deniability of “oh, I didn’t mean UGLY ugly”. It is a questionable tactic to say the least.

  27. Koshka says

    thinksanddrinks #35,
    If you can read comment #29 and think ugly is not used with regards to appearances then you are very generous.
    If they did not mean to use ugly to denigrate appearance then they have made a poor effort to communicate their point. They should learn some new words. There are lots of them around.

  28. says

    thinksanddrinks:

    Calling people “ugly” might not mean physical appearance.

    That’s true, however, when that happens, people generally write in such a manner that it’s clear. I’ve written “you’re walking around with two fistfuls of ugly” before, which was used in the sense you mean. However, when someone comments “wow, those people are butt ugly”, they are talking about appearance.

  29. Alex says

    And it takes a truly dense individual to pat themselves on the back about being banned for such statements.

    What, you mean it’s not ok to do it to the enemy? You do realize that those people are them, and not us, right!??

  30. gussnarp says

    I do occasionally read things on HuffPo when I can’t find the original source they cribbed it from and it seems like it’s something truly worth reading, but I avoid the site as much as I can and have for a long time for a lot of reasons. First I think it was the wanting people to work for free and the fact that so many of the articles are published in identical form elsewhere first (I’ve no idea how much of that is under agreement or whether it’s just outright plagiarism, but it’s certainly not adding original content). Then it was the woo peddling. There’s also the fact that a lot of the stuff I read there that was ideologically up my alley was so poorly sourced that it makes them the Fox News, nay the Breitbart, of the left (well, the slightly less right, they’re not truly “left”).

    But really, it’s the sideboob that marks them as unworthy of a single click. You are a pathetic excuse for a media organization if every story has a prominent sidebar link to someone’s sideboob. Maybe it should be minor compared to the other issues, but I think the inherent sexism in it means it’s not nearly as minor as it seems. It makes me want to scream a giant “fuck you” to anyone associated with the site.