Should Huffington Post be seriously reconsidered as your source? (apologies)

I ask this not for the reasons (conservatives) might expect. There have been some long-standing concerns over the "over-aggregation" techniques of the Huffington Post "junior editors" who are essentially tasked with rewriting potentially popular news stories with keyword-rich phrases and headlines -- and then providing a minimal link, and no real credit to the source.

Advertising Age: Thanks for the Apology, Huffington Post. Now Please Apologize to the Writer You Suspended

I imagine that, like me, you've been reading the reactions that have been rippling across the media blogosphere, and you're finding that there's general unanimity that HuffPo is singling out -- indeed, scapegoating -- a young writer for engaging in a style of aggregration long practiced, condoned and encouraged by Huffington Post editorial management. If you haven't already seen it, Ryan Tate's Gawker post titled "HuffPo Suspends Writer for Doing 'What We Were Taught and Told to Do'" is definitely worth reading, as is Choire Sicha's brief but delightfully over-the-top post at The Awl, in which he writes that HuffPo's suspension decision is "along the lines of arresting hookers instead of johns, or drug users instead of drug importers, or something" (not that Choire has firsthand experience with any of those things).

I highly urge ATS members to review the article and especially the links. This policy of exceptionally poor ethics has been going on at "HuffPo" for a long time, but seems to have been turned up a bit since the "merger" with AOL.

While I'm not sure we should outright ban the source (though I'd like to for the rewriting/ethics reasons noted above), I strongly urge our members to search for the point of origin of HuffPo articles, and use that instead of their inferior rewrite.

Thanks.





Edit to add...


The question posed in the thread subject line was purposely sensationalist to highlight the manner in which the Huffington Post repackages and rewrites news that originates from other sources, often with a twist in a desire direction, with the intent of keeping their readers from click-through to the original source. The intent is to spark debate and discussion so that those contributing to ATS may (hopefully) become even more aware of the inherent issues in some news sources, when selecting news to contribute to ATS.

The Huff Post goes a bit too far, but I personally think it should be left as is. I mean, we are free to judge it on its merits and make our own minds up. As raggish as it is, just seems unnecessary to go and weed it out.

Just my thoughts,

MM

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I would have to agree with you for once, and say it should be considered.


I'm interested in seeing what the rest of the ATS'er community thinks on this issue as well.

After all it is their credibility at risk not ours, of course those who use them as well, but that is clearly obvious.

HuffPo is a prime example of bad journalism true, but there are a great number of questionable (and in some cases) actual tabloid rags used as sources here, as well. It would be difficult to ban them all and not sure that is ultimately a wise course. I am 100% for thoroughly researching and cross-checking references (thread starters should be doing this with out reminder IMHO) and I think whatever the outcome of this decision, ATS members should continue to strive to avoid tabloid sources for "shock and awe" purposes.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

While I'm not sure we should outright ban the source (though I'd like to), I strongly urge our members to search for the point of origin of HuffPo articles, and use that instead of their inferior rewrite.

Thanks.

Yep.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I strongly urge our members to search for the point of origin of HuffPo articles, and use that instead of their inferior rewrite.

This should be employed for all news sources, not just the Huffington.

Unfortunately for some a blog is reliable enough as a source.

So no, don't ban their articles, just try to encourage more due diligence.

Any poster is judged by the quality of his/her OP and the sources used to define the story.
If the story can stand on it's own merit, then HuffPo or a Limbaugh site could be used. Opinion pieces that emphasize one side over another should be avoided, just to give all of us readers an oppourtunity to form our own opinion based on the facts rather than interpretation.

My 2 cents.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Though it may be true that HP is not the cleanest towel on the shelf,

it would make sense to keep them around as an example.

most normal people should be able to by now at least, easily dispell anything that seems out of place,

or proven otherwise somewhere else.

we can't keep banning everything that disagrees with some opinions just to make it easy to prove one point.

sometimes however, finding a "credible" source may not be as easy as it looks !

Seems even Fox News should be banned for not linking to sources. Glenn Beck never quoted Alex Jones. There news is full of opinon. And Facts? They just make them up as they go. They are involed in some ways to hacking through NOTW. ANd have been proven to be a propaganda news source from leaks from the Nixon White House.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


The Huffington post is one of the worst TABLOID sites posing as news I have ever seen. Conjecture, spin, and inability to refute the "so-called" article. On the boards, when you disagree and have a valid counter-point list or data related to the story, they refuse to post it (censors review every post before it goes on the board). I would have to resubmit at different times of the day to make it past their censors, most of the time, it didn't work.

I have complained about this many times on ATS and other boards, here are a few.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


That being said of course, instead of banning, maybe a script that puts a warning label on links going to questionable sites / sources. I mean we still have people posting Sorcha Faal as a source.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Nah.. I'd say let it fly. There are many more that should go before huffpo. Infowars should go before that. Also any news site that has ever posted Sorcha Faal.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I ask this not for the reasons (conservatives) might expect. There have been some long-standing concerns over the "over-aggregation" techniques of the Huffington Post "junior editors" who are essentially tasked with rewriting potentially popular news stories with keyword-rich phrases and headlines -- and then providing a minimal link, and no real credit to the source.

Fair enough, but you also have to ban world net daily then.

I think censorship of any kind is wrong. Even if the Huffington Post has their faults, let the people make up their own minds. Don't be a tool like the mass media.

I dunno bout banning HuffPo altogether for a few questionable "journalists".
Seems kind of like banning the Times for letting Sorcha Fal publish an article.

If anything, the two real candidates for banning ought to be www.beforeitsnews.com and www.bibliotecapleyades.net .
Nothing but utter bunk ever comes from those two sites. I'm talking ANW Michael Cohen quality here.

Originally posted by dethduck
I dunno bout banning HuffPo altogether for a few questionable "journalists".
Seems kind of like banning the Times for letting Sorcha Fal publish an article.

I agree with you. I wonder why Fox news was never considered for banning?

If anything, the two real candidates for banning ought to be www.beforeitsnews.com and www.bibliotecapleyades.net .
Nothing but utter bunk ever comes from those two sites. I'm talking ANW Michael Cohen quality here.

This makes sense.

Depends on the validity of their report tbh. If the information substantiates it's use then by all means it should be allowed.

are they all that dissimilar to the News of the world, if no, then the answer to your question is Yes.

I can certainly see where you are coming from S.O., but as others in the thread have stated, the ATS members should be able to judge the content and determine their opinion.

I've seen several other media outlets, some not nearly as big as HuffPo, getting ignored and lambasted by many ATS members because they can sniff out the sensationalism and agenda from a mile away. So in closing, no, I dont think we should ban HuffPo.

News Of The Whirled

I think it's best to leave it to the members to decide what to believe, and what sources to trust (my advice: trust none of them).

Based on what I've seen over the years, most "respectable" news organizations such as the New York Times would fail even a modest ethical standards test at some point or another.

There is no such thing as "objective reporting". Everybody has an agenda, and even with the best intentions and oversight possible, bias finds its way into every organization.

Especially given the dubious credibility of most "conspiracy" sources, I think we need to be extremely careful about excluding any source that hasn't proven itself to be flat out hoaxery (*cough* Sorcha Faal *cough*).

I advise against anything that might amount to a "Ministry of Truth" on ATS.

As for the "aggregation" issue, that opens up its own can of worms, because many sources used on ATS cite or copy articles from other sites. Indeed, even ATS could be accused of that in cases where we aren't diligent enough in minimizing "copypasta".

Bottom line:

Caveat membor, I say.

Should News International sources also be banned, a media organisation that has been using illegal and unethical methods to gain it's stories. Hacking and deleting messages of a dead girl, giving the parents hope the girl was still alive and checking her messages. Hacking the families of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, 9/11 and 7/7

Using Illegal methods to find out the medical records of the Prime Ministers son who had cystic fibrosis and then running with the story. Not to mention paying British police for information.

I'm not saying ban these sources, but maybe take a personal moral standpoint and dont use these sources.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by beezzer

edit on 13-7-2011 by beezzer because: wrong post, wrong thread

What about Al Jazerra? Some say they are impartial, others would believe they have an agenda?

T'is a sticky business, to be sure.