5/2/09: HuffPost Users: "Hey, Someone Should Murder Bush!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

.
Well, this one is a two-fer. Here we have a raging leftist, "postman606," whom HuffPost has facilitated and protected since September 2008. Keep in mind that HuffPost's FAQ: Comments & Moderation and Comment Policy prohibit threats, racial slurs, etc. Also keep in mind that HuffPost's Terms of Service & User Agreement, Part 3, clause (iii) states that by accepting these TOS, the user agrees that he/she will not:

"...submit material that is unlawful... threatening... hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense... violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate"

With all the above in mind, and the fact that HuffPost vigilantly monitors its top news thread, where all the following transpired, consider:

In the past 24 hours alone, while up to 25 other comments were awaiting its review, HuffPost reviewed, approved and published "comments" from this user on its top news threads that:

(a) Urge the murder of former President Bush (see 18 U.S.C. 871)

(b) Use anti-black racial epithets

In both cases, HuffPost then approved his "friends" to cheer him on, while ignoring/removing the complaints of other users.

And in the last 8 months, as shown below, HuffPost has approved him to post over 6,000 comments.


So clearly, this user is no "troll"*, as Ms. Huffington and her associates like to use as scapegoats when the site's practices, and the rantings of its raging leftist users, are publicly exposed.

(*The term "troll" refers to users whom HuffPost accuses of creating hit-and-run screen names, to try to make HuffPost look bad; see a detailed chronology of this ongoing excuse, here. See other instances of outrageous yet "approved" behavior, including explicit threats, by long-term HuffPost users, here, here and here).

First, re "postman606's" (and his "friends'") urging for Bush to be murdered:

On Saturday, May 2 at 12:15pm, HuffPost reviewed and published the following "comment" by "postman606" on its top news thread (here) --- while 25 other comments were awaiting its review (stuck in "pending"):

postman606 See Profile I'm a Fan of postman606 permalink
Bush should be placed in his flight suit, put up against a wall and s.hot.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 05/02/2009

To which HuffPost approved some of his fellow raging leftists to reply with their affirmations:

YouRnotWrong See Profile I'm a Fan of YouRnotWrong permalink
That should have been done in March 2003..............4000 lives too late.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 05/02/2009

RepublicansRejected See Profile I'm a Fan of RepublicansRejected permalink
Cosign!
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 05/02/2009

Max-OneTruePatriot See Profile I'm a Fan of Max-OneTruePatriot permalink
totally agree.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 PM on 05/02/2009

The screen captures below validate these posts:


Below is the screen capture showing that 25 comments were "pending" HuffPost approval at the same time that it approved and published the above "comments"re Bush:


Keep in mind that the phenomenon of HuffPost approving, facilitating and protecting raging leftists who urge or threaten violence against former President Bush, or other Secret Service protectees, is nothing new --- as will be documented on HuffBusters, soon.


Now, pertaining to "postman606's" (and his "friends'") racism...

HuffPost approved the following "comment" to be published merely 1 day ago, on May 1, to remain "published" on that day's top news thread (here) --- and even removed criticism of it:

postman606 See Profile I'm a Fan of postman606 permalink
Clarence Thomas is The original Watermelon Man.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 05/01/2009

As you can see below, another user, "TiredOfLiars3," complained to HuffPost, "flagged" this post as abusive (see link at bottom of each user's comment), meaning that he/she reported it to HuffPost to review. Not only did HuffPost do nothing, it approved another user, "rampage," to attack "TOL3," while keeping the original, racist "comment" published.

TiredOfLiars3 See Profile I'm a Fan of TiredOfLiars3 permalink
flagged/reported...blatant rac ism!
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 05/01/2009

(reply to above)
rampage See Profile I'm a Fan of rampage permalink
You oughta know.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 05/01/2009

(reply to above)
TiredOfLiars3 See Profile I'm a Fan of TiredOfLiars3 permalink
I'm no rac ist, stawker puppy.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 05/01/2009

(reply to above)
rampage See Profile I'm a Fan of rampage permalink
yes you are. you're not fooling anybody
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 05/01/2009

Furthermore, when another (non-leftist) user, "OrbitOne," voiced an objection to this racism, HuffPost (a) removed "OrbitOne's" complaint, but (b) left "postman606's" intact.
(Sorry, no screen captures on this --- HuffPost removed OrbitOne's comment within seconds of its appearance).

Soon thereafter, HuffPost approved its raging leftists' racism to continue:

TiffanyHusseinBanned See Profile I'm a Fan of TiffanyHusseinBanned permalink
Clarence Thomas = Watermelon Man? Now that's funny, postman.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 05/01/2009

rampage See Profile I'm a Fan of rampage permalink
watermelonporn?
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 05/01/2009

postman606 See Profile I'm a Fan of postman606 permalink
During his confirmation hearings he woke up to his African-American nightmare moment. Before that he thought it was all because he was good.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 05/01/2009

TiffanyHusseinBanned See Profile I'm a Fan of TiffanyHusseinBanned permalink
The Affirmative Action SCOTUS, who hates Affirmative Action. How ironic. Wait, didn't Bush Sr. and his staff call him Clarence? Clarence hates his black skin. Me too.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 05/01/2009

Close HuffPost observers know well that were either of these two activities directed towards President Obama, its raging leftists would have gone apoplectic, and HuffPost would have removed the comments and banned the violator within a matter of seconds --- or minutes, at most. (Proof of past incidents available upon request.)

But because this was directed at former President Bush, and Justice Clarence Thomas, well...

... the HuffPost beat goes on.

.

HuffPost Policies & Statements On Standards Of Conduct

.

The only way to objectively assess whether or not HuffPost is enforcing its standards of conduct is to understand specifically what those standards are, then compare them to (a) what is observable on the site, and (b) the facts that are documented here at HuffBusters.

This compilation documents some of HuffPost's articulated policies and statements regarding blogger and user conduct --- specifically:

1. HuffPost's Terms of Service & User Agreement
   
   
2. HuffPost's Comment & Moderation Policies
   
   
3. Articles about, and interviews with HuffPost re its standards of conduct

Items (1) and (2) are located at the bottom of all HuffPost pages, as shown below, and via other links (e.g. signup and user preference screens, etc. --- so they are clearly identified and easily accessible).


In summary, as you will see, the basic "rules of conduct" articulated in all three of these document categories are:

• Keep your comments on-topic (pertaining to the topic of the thread).
  
  
• Don't harass other users, or attack them on a personal (ad hominem) basis, or with vulgarity, defamation, slanders, etc.
  
  
• Don't engage in hate speech, or use slurs relating to race, sexual orientation or gender, ethnicity, etc., or celebrate anyone's sickness or death.
  
  
• Don't threaten anyone.
  
  
• Don't break any laws, and don't encourage anyone else to do so.

In short, act like a civilized, law-abiding human being while using HuffPost.

=============================

(1) HUFFPOST TERMS OF SERVICE & USER AGREEMENT

=============================

The link to this document is here. This is the legal agreement between HuffPost and its users (as the defendant discovered in the federal MySpace indictment). It defines the terms under which users are authorized to access and use HuffPost --- terms that, if intentionally broken by the user, constitute unauthorized access, a basic factor in the MySpace indictment.

The salient portions of this agreement, as applied to the topics covered at HuffBusters, are:

"Please read this User Agreement before using this Service. By continuing to use TheHuffingtonPost.com (THP), you agree to abide by the conditions of this User Agreement.

HUFFINGTONPOST.COM SERVICE USER AGREEMENT

1. Your use of this Service constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions and policies.

3. In furtherance of the foregoing, you agree that you will not:

(i) submit material that is copyrighted (...) unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant THP all of the rights granted herein;

(ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage THP or any third party;

(iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate.

=============================

(2) HUFFPOST'S COMMENT AND MODERATION POLICIES

=============================

HuffPost has two links that lead to two slightly different versions of these policies: its Comment Policy and its FAQ: Comments & Moderation.

The following are the salient portions of these policies (emphasis added):

"Huffington Post pre-moderates comments on our blog posts and post-moderates comments on news stories.*
(*NOTE: We already know this is not true; see here and here)

We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view.
(NOTE: This is untrue, as close HuffPost observers know, and will be abundantly documented here at HuffBusters in the future)

We only delete those comments that include the following transgressions:

• are abusive, off-topic, use excessive foul language
  
  
• include ad hominem attacks including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise
  
  
• contain racist, sexist, homophobic and other slurs
  
  
• are posted with the explicit intention of provoking other commenters or the staff at Huffington Post

Q: I posted a comment. Why can't I see it on the site?

A: There are two scenarios for which your comment may not appear:

1. It may be pending approval (...)

2. Your comment violated the policy above. We pride ourselves in providing a medium for engaging and thought-provoking stories and encourage our users to speak their minds freely, provided comments fall within our commenting policy. We must respect our writers and protect them from vicious and inflammatory comments. They too are entitled to free speech- the right to share their opinions without being subject to scathing and mean-spirited remarks.

Q: Why am I blocked from commenting on Huff Post?

A: There are a few scenarios in which a comment might be blocked:

1. A comment is extremely abusive, off-topic, uses excessive foul language, or includes an ad hominem attack

2. If a commenter has previously posted comments that are abusive, off-topic, used excessive foul language, or include ad hominem attacks, a Huff Post moderator may decide to ban the commenter's IP address. This means the abusive commenter is banned from commenting on the site in the future, even if the later comments are not abusive. We ban IPs because the sheer volume of comments makes it too time consuming to individually delete comments written by someone with a pattern of abuse.

Q: There is a comment that I find insulting and in violation of your policy. What can I do?

A: You can flag the comment as abusive by pressing the Flag As Abusive link below the comment. This alerts our moderators and delete the comments that don't comply with our policy."

=============================

(3) ARTICLES ABOUT, AND INTERVIEWS WITH HUFFPOST RE ITS
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

=============================

New Kid On The Block
Newsweek, May 6, 2005

Excerpt:

(Arianna Huffington) writes in the site's inaugural May 9 (2005) post [...]: "If you're looking for the usual flame-throwing, name-calling, and simplistic attack dog rhetoric ... don't bother coming to the Huffington Post." [...]

(Huffington): "What we're doing is two things. We do news. I don't believe news is left wing or right wing. And then we do the group blog, which is going to be a dialogue from all viewpoints."

Setting the Record Straight: On Trolls, Moles, and Dis-Invited Bloggers
Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post, June 22, 2006

Excerpt:

(H)is (Dr. Rost’s) penchant for airing personal grudges on HuffPost continued, becoming problematic when he devoted another long post to a personal attack on one of the commenters to his posts… (H)e responded (to HP’s gestures) by doing the exact opposite of what we had asked -- posting a follow up to his earlier post that included more personal attacks. At this point, it was clear that Peter Rost had ceased acting as a member of our online community [...]

“Arianna Huffington Defies Skeptics, Conquers The Web”
Fortune, October 29, 2007

Excerpt:

[Arianna Huffington]: "(O)ur desire (is to) not to have the Huffington Post become a forum for unending personal battles and potentially libelous charges."

“Bill O'Reilly Needs to Enroll in ‘Understanding the Internet 101’”
Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post, March 20, 2008

Excerpt:

We have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to abusive or hateful language or comments – such comments are taken down as quickly as they come to the attention of our moderators. And we are constantly working to develop new technologies -- and backing them up with more and more 24/7 moderators -- which will allow us to more effectively filter out objectionable comments. But no system is perfect and offensive comments occasionally slip through.

4/28/09: Suicidal User: "We Must 'Wipe Out' Republicans To Survive!!!" (HuffPost: "Approved!!!")

.
INTRODUCTION: Here we go again. Although this is not an instance in which HuffPost approved one or more of its raging leftists to explicitly threaten to murder/urge violence against others (as in cases here and here), the implication is abundantly clear.

This is also a case study in how:

• HuffPost's misleading headlines foment this kind of rage, which apparently drove one of its long-term raging leftists, "BlueStateMan," to a complete meltdown (a short drive)
  
  
• HuffPost ignores its own comment moderation policies when it comes to facilitating its resident raging leftists, no matter what they do --- whereas non-leftists meet swift bannings for far lesser "offenses"
  
  
• Even a casual review of this user's (suicidal*) profile and comment archive would indicate that this is a deeply disturbed individual --- yet HuffPost has facilitated him for more than three years (*see end of thread)
  

As a reminder, HuffPost's FAQ: Comments & Moderation and Comment Policy claim that the site prohibits comments that "...are abusive... include ad hominem attacks..." And we've already established that HuffPost pre-screens comments on its news threads, meaning that only those comments that it explicitly approves are "published." Also, HuffPost's Terms of Service & User Agreement, Part 3, clause (iii) states that by accepting these TOS, the user agrees that he/she will not:

"...submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate"

And yet, HuffPost not only approved the following implicitly-threatening rant, at the time of this writing --- 24 hours later --- it is still published (check here to see if it's still up when you read this).

CONTEXT: On April 28, HuffPost had a splash headline on its front page, which implied that Republicans were "blocking" Obama's appointment of Gov. Sebelius to HHS (sorry, no screen capture available).

The fact is that Republicans can't block anything; all they can do is threaten to filibuster, which is merely a delaying tactic. The Democrats have a large majority in the Senate (and an even larger one in the House), and as such, they can do and pass whatever they want.

The headline link led to this story thread: Top 15 Health Jobs Remain Open As Untested Pandemic Response Plan Implemented.

And it was on this top thread that HuffPost allowed "BlueStateMan" to engage in what was apparently his latest* meltdown (*more below):

BlueStateMan See Profile I'm a Fan of BlueStateMan I'm a fan of this user permalink photo

The republicans NEVER gave a goodgoddamn about human life & they never WILL.

LOOK how they were willing to sacrifice HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of lives in Iraq... just for MONEY.

LOOK how they are willing to let MILLIONS starve in THIS country & abroad.. just for MONEY.

LOOK how they were willing to TORTURE & throw away our nations HONOR... just for MONEY.

LOOK how they are willing to let to allow a disease run rampant.. just to satisfy their PETULANT desire to hobble President Obama.

These "people" ARE the disease... & we need to wipe them OUT to survive.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 AM on 04/28/2009

As noted earlier, the Democrats already have big majorities in both houses of Congress. The Republicans cannot do anything substantive to stop Democrats at this point. And as an obsessive HuffPost user, "BlueStateMan" is well aware of this fact.

So what could he mean by the need to "wipe out" Republicans, whom he defines as "a disease"?

Viewed in isolation, and without having seen the prevalent, explicit threats that HuffPost permits his fellow raging leftists to "publish" on its site (here and here, and lots of other examples coming in the near future), this would not seem so serious. But it's important to keep in mind that this is far from an isolated incident.

In fact, HuffPost has facilitated "BlueStateMan" under the same screen name for more than three years, to the tune of more than 22,000 comments, as is shown on his comment archive, below:


So what other thoughtful, policy-compliant contributions has HuffPost approved "BlueStateMan" to make to its "environment" in the recent past?

Take a look at the following, directly from his comment archive --- all of which HuffPost reviewed, approved and published over the past 24 hours alone:

You ARE nothing. You HAVE nothing. I'm THROUGH beatting the schidt out of you. You BORE me, little one. Prattle on... I've better things to do than ABUSE you further.
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 10:48:14

EATSHIT.
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:11

It appears that GaianRetribution has scurried away... corkscrew tail between it's legs... LexMosher is acting the diehard kamikase but he KNOWS that he's been BEATEN...AGAIIN.. BOTH of them... cowards... HEY GUYS!!!! Lemme guess... you have a little helmets that you wear when on the computer..little armbands too... ones that your mommies made for you. You still sleep in the same beds you did when you went to grade school... wallpaper in your rooms with Cowboys & Indians on it... tattered pennants from the colleges that you HOPED you had been able to go to but never even got close... trophies for 5th place in some intramural sports event from 20 years ago (one that they give EVERY kid so as not to feel left out).. a "Certificate of Achievement" for passing the 6th grade in the lower 2% of your classes. Milk & cookies by your sides... & a dogeared copy of "Mein Kampf" on your nightstands... nestled on the souvenir handkerchiefs that you got when your daddies took you to visit Howard Johnsons. You earn a living by stuffing envelopes for direct-mail promoters... looking forward to the BONANZA season when you get to work for Publishers Clearinghouse. Your favorite food is mac & cheesewhiz with a side of tater-tots washed down with an entire 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew. Now.. BACK to your SANDBOXES. SCOOT!!!
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 10:37:22

Keep trying to evade the obvious. I asked you to PROVE it. You CAN'T... & you're not even MAN enough to admit it. Just like all the REST of you armchair warriors.. you're NOTHING but a PETRIFIED, snotnosed, little COEARD.
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 10:20:59

P.S. Nobody gives a goodgodamn what you think, throwback.
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 09:01:12

You never cease to reinforce your stupidity, Ayn.
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 08:59:20

Now.. let me get this straight.... "Obstructing HHS & allowing a void in the chain of command during a HEALTH CRISIS" ((check)) "Torture"... ((check)) "Depleted Uranium"... ((check)) "LYING us into a WAR".... ((check)) "4,275 Americans PERISHED" & still counting... ((check)) "46,132 Americans MAIMED" & still counting.. ((check)) "HUNDRED of THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi CIVILIANS perished".. & counting.... ((check)) "The subversion of our System of JUSTICE.. both CRIMINAL & CIVIL"... ((check)) "The subversion of the World Bank"... ((check)) "The subversion of our CONSTITUTION"... ((check)) "The R.A.P.E of our economy".... ((check)) "The R.A.P.E of our environment"... ((check)) "The R.A.P.E of our SOUL as a NATION". ((check)) Right, so.... let's see..... THESE are the guys we should be taking ADVICE from? THESE are the guys we should entrust our FUTURE to? THESE are the guys that need to SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, & thank GOD that they aren't in PRISON (yet).
posted Apr 28, 2009 at 08:17:56

What kind of individual says such things?

Well, had HuffPost ever ventured to take a quick peek at his user profile, it might have detected that perhaps it has a little problem on its hands...

Bio: "I wish I could just commit suicide already so I can get on with my life."

But far more important questions are:

• What kind of website would knowingly "publish" the rantings of such an individual, for more than three years?
  
  
• And... why? Is it really all just to increase its page-views (which is what HuffPost's ad revenue is based on?)

.

"The Jews!!!"

.

This thread will be an ongoing chronicle of documentation regarding HuffPost's persistent approval and publication of miscellaneous Jew- and Israel-bashing/mocking comments on its news threads, many/most of which have nothing to do with the topic of those threads.

According to HuffPost's FAQ: Comments & Moderation, Comment Policy and Terms of Service (Section 3[iii]), both of these offenses (ethnic slurs, off-topic commentary) are supposedly grounds for banning. But what is one to make of the fact that it is HuffPost itself that makes exceptions to these commenting policies, if the submitted comment targets Jews and/or Israel?

As noted elsewhere on HB, this is not a matter of free speech. HuffPost and its users are free to say whatever they want. The marketplace (and possibly law enforcement agencies; here, here), however, reserves the right to hold HuffPost and its users accountable for what the latter submits, and the former decides to approve for publishing on its site.

If you have an item that you think should be covered here, please email it to huffbuster1@aol.com.


===================================

APRIL 27: SWINE FLU THREAD; THE JEWS!!!

From April 26-27, HuffPost's splash front page headline was dominated by this story: Swine Flu: White House Says "It's Not A Time To Panic".


Yet if one visited the site at 6:15am on April 27, read the story and followed the page down to read comments, one would have found the following:

• 93 comments were pending its approval
  
  
• HuffPost was running nearly an hour behind in publishing approved comments (note time stamps at bottom of first comment, 5:21am, and the computer time at lower right of screen, 6:16am)

And what was the very first comment (above, enlarge) one would have encountered on this thread about the tragic spread of this frightening flu, throughout the world --- a comment that had been reviewed, approved and published by HuffPost?

WooWooZoo See Profile I'm a Fan of WooWooZoo I'm a fan of this user permalink

Frum"s confused defense of Jane Harman and AIPAC

David Frum wants to defend Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) from allegations that she sold her influence to get charges reduced or dropped in an espionage case, but he ignores the corruption in favor of making a confused defense of leaks. In "The Real Jane Harman Scandal," Frum instead accuses the accusers for attacking Harman and the AIPAC-connected ring while supposedly letting the New York Times off the hook for exposing national-security programs.

thats why they are called 'Masters of Deceit'

Of course watch BlueStateMan makes excuses and condone it and even try to say I am a ''hater'.

Obfuscation is the name of their game.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 AM on 04/27/2009

================================

.

FINALLY: HuffPost Admits That It Pre-Moderates Comments On News Threads

.

In this expose', HB (HuffBusters) provides a detailed, factual, contextual analysis of HuffPost's conflicting assertions regarding which user comments it moderates, and how. Specifically, it exposes the fact that despite HuffPost's repeated denials and obfuscations, it has been pre-moderating comments on its news threads --- to some extent since October 2007, and definitely since March 2008.

Now, HB's ongoing research uncovered Arianna Huffington's explicit admission that it pre-moderates comments on its news threads. From a July 2008 interview with PoynterOnline (the webzine for the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based journalism school):

(Q) What's been the Huffington Post's biggest mistake and what would you have done differently?

Huffington: From the beginning, I would have established a policy of pre-moderating all comments on the site. We started with pre-moderation only on blog posts, since we felt it was important to provide a civil environment for our bloggers (i.e., one where critical comments would of course be allowed but no ad hominem attacks or name calling). Our comments on the news site were originally post-moderated (i.e., objectionable comments were removed only after our moderators were alerted). We eventually decided that it was worth the substantial effort and expense to have human pre-moderation on both blogs and news.

And just in case anyone gets clever and throws this article down the memory hole... the screen capture is below:


Well, well, well.

Given this, it is now absolutely indisputable that every last sordid, hateful, threatening user comment that appear on HuffPost's news threads --- as documented in triplicate here at HB --- have been, and are explicitly approved by its management (which also claims copyright to them; see [3] here).

This is despite HuffPost's false claims to this day --- that it only post-moderates comments on its news threads --- as shown below (screen capture from its "FAQ: Comments & Moderation" page, taken April 26 at 11:10am; click to enlarge for verification)


For anyone who questioned the validity of, and the need for HuffBusters at this point, that gem of a quote should clear up any doubts.

Thanks, Ms. Huffington. You've just made HB's work a lot easier.

.

Supposed U.S. "Torture" Pictures

.
Here is a classic example of how HuffPost uses photos from unknown sources to impugn the U.S. military --- in this case, for two very different "news" accounts.

First, on February 10, 2009, HuffPost ran a story entitled Feingold Slams Obama For Extraordinary Rendition Decision. Screen and PDF captures are below, showing a nondescript individual with his hands and feet handcuffed through a cell door:

As noted in the Google search box at the upper right of the first JPG, HB conducted a search for the file name of this photo, using the tag found by right clicking on the picture: "s-TORTURE-large.jpg". This picture was not found --- meaning that there's no telling where it came from, if it was taken at a U.S. detention facility... or one run by Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez.

Before we go further, it is worth considering the context in which this picture was placed. The story is about "extraordinary rendition," in which terrorist detainees are shuttled off to foreign nations where the source government knows that they'll face "harsh interrogations" to glean useful intelligence.

Although HuffPost has made it a practice of lambasting President Bush for using extraordinary rendition on terrorist detainees after 9/11, the practice was used extensively by President Clinton, as well, long before 9/11 (yet few Americans are aware of this). How do we know this? Because the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit under Clinton admitted to it, here.

So, for all we know, the picture above is actually from one of the destination nations' prisons --- perhaps Egypt, or Syria, or...? It may not have anything to do with the U.S. military at all.

Then, on April 24, 2009, HuffPost ran another news story, sourced through the Washington Post, entitled Military Agency Called Harsh Methods 'Torture,' 'Unreliable'.

And guess which picture they chose to use for it? You got it --- the exact same, mysterious "s-TORTURE-large.jpg":


But what was the splash front page headline photo that HuffPost chose to employ, that led to this top thread? See for yourself:


Well, that picture at least looks like U.S. military personnel --- yet there isn't a handcuffed detainee, let alone one being abused, in sight. One doesn't see that picture until one clicks on the story link.

Bottom line: There is absolutely no telling where the handcuff picture came from --- yet HuffPost chose to use it, twice, in regards to two entirely different stories.

Stay tuned to HB for more examples of fauxtography as they develop.


========================

Addendum: And as for that other classic misrepresentation, re HuffPost's claim that it doesn't pre-moderate user comments on its news threads... the following JPG shows, once again, that this is not true. On the "Military... Harsh Interrogation" thread, while there were 76 comments published, 194 others were stuck in pending, meaning that they were being reviewed by HuffPost management prior to being "published":

And as one might expect, given the precedents documented here at HB, many of the comments HuffPost "approved" were hateful and/or off-topic--- supposed bannable violations --- but of course, nothing was done to put a stop to it.

.

A Selection Of Articles About & Interviews With HuffPost

.

The following is offered as a regularly-updated compilation of select articles about, and interviews with HuffPost and its management.

It is provided to give both newcomers and critical observers a convenient means by which to compare what HuffPost has said about itself, to the reality that one can discover upon visiting HuffPost, and reviewing the facts that have been documented here at HuffBusters.

Here are some additional sources that provide ongoing critical analysis of HuffPost (the following are convenient search-links):

• Little Green Footballs
  
  
• NewsBusters (also see the 2007 report on HuffPost by the Media Research Center, NB's parent: "Huffington's House Of Horrors")
  
  
• HotAir (more here)
  
  
• Michelle Malkin
  
  
• The Lie Politic

HuffPost's claims that its news coverage will be nonpartisan, and that its blogs will represent the left and the right

Can The Huffington Post Obsess Itself Into The News Cycle?
Online Journalism Review, Knight Digital Media Center, May 3, 2005

Excerpt:

OJR: What is the voice of the publication? If you're going to include people from different modes of political thought, what can people expect to see when they visit your site?

AH: They know it will be the news. I actually believe that the news is not right-wing news or left-wing news, it's the news. And that will be the sensibility, that will basically permeate our news coverage. (...)

-----

(...) Huffington has surrounded herself with a group that's heavy on satire, heavy on irony and heavy on controversy. She has comedian Harry Shearer doing a journalist-watchdog feature called "Eat the Press" and has tapped former Drudge sidekick Andrew Breitbart to edit the news headline section as he did for Drudge.

Breitbart has worked for Huffington before. He is in an interesting spot, as he co-wrote the 2004 book "Hollywood, Interrupted," a moralizing book on celebs and limo liberals that calls out various group bloggers from Huffington Post, including Rob Reiner and Norman Lear.

Breitbart wouldn't comment for this article, but did make a statement to the blogosphere through Roger Simon's blog.

"I like to go where the action is," he wrote. "Bringing my former boss and longtime friend Arianna's intriguing friends to the blogosphere, the ultimate level playing field, makes perfect sense to me, and I am thrilled to be committed to such a groundbreaking project. Will my pals on the right have a place to offer their two cents at the Huffington Post? Absolutely. Will I agree with everyone's written word? Of course not. But that's precisely the point. May the best ideas win."

Huffington told me Breitbart's news headlines would run on the right side of the home page while the group blog would be on the left side -- perhaps a not-so-subtle play on their political orientation. But the wild card could be the 200 or so people that will be included in the group blog but haven't been trumpeted to the media yet. They could be the swing vote that tips the Post in any direction. (...)

--------

OJR: Do you find it ironic that Andrew [Breitbart] co-wrote a scathing look at Hollywood celebrities and now will be helping run a site with the same type of celebs?

AH: I'm not sure I'd agree that these are the same type of celebrities. This isn't the Michael Jackson or Paris Hilton group blog. But, in any case, the fact that Andrew and I may not see eye to eye on every issue will not interfere with what we are trying to do. In fact, it will enhance it.

Huffington Posts A Profit
Conde Naste Portfolio, November 14, 2007

Excerpt:

As traffic has grown, so has scrutiny. Some critics dismiss it as shallow. Others have attacked Huffington Post for what they perceive as a liberal bias, favoring stories that tend to be critical of conservatives, Republicans, and especially President Bush and the war in Iraq.

The issue is particularly important because Huffington Post is in the process of ramping up its original reporting. How can it claim to be an objective purveyor of news when it has been so critical of the current administration?

"That really is a very important question," Huffington said, "because your assumption is completely wrong. The editorial stance of the Huffington Post is to debunk the right-left way of thinking, which has become completely obsolete." (...)

[Betsy] Morgan, the C.E.O., described the Huffington Post approach as "covering the news in a 21st-century kind of way." In addition to new ideas about balance and fairness, that approach includes a new business model too.

Accusations Of HuffPost Plagiarism And Bad Journalistic Practices

Huffington Post Defends Clooney's "Faked-Up" Blog Entry
Journalism.co.uk, March 20, 2006

Excerpt:

US celebrity blog the Huffington Post is in trouble with George Clooney after compiling quotes from the actor and presenting them as a blog entry. [...According to Clooney] "What she [Huffington] most certainly did not get my permission to do is to combine only my answers in a blog that misleads the reader into thinking that I wrote this piece. These are not my writings - they are answers to questions and there is a huge difference." [...]

Blogger and journalism commentator Jeff Jarvis said the credibility of the site's other star bloggers would be damaged by the 'faked-up' Clooney post. Ms Huffington's claim that re-purposed material still constitutes a valid blog is described by Mr Jarvis as a "fundamental misunderstanding of the medium". "If you're not really writing your blog, if you're having or allowing someone to do it for you, then you're gaming me, lying to me, insulting me," he writes.

Plagiarism At The HuffPo
National Review Online, September 12, 2007

Excerpt:

The current issue of Azure (for which I am an editor), features a piece by Jamie Kirchick on the decline of post-Aparthied South Africa, an essay that was reprinted by the Wall St. Journal’s OpinionJournal. Six days ago, a HuffPo blogger named Henning Andre Sogaard posted a piece on the same subject that reads like an op-ed length version of Jamie’s Azure essay — and in many places it is literally a line-for-line bootleg. [...]

One would think that such blatant, undisguised plagiarism would require little by way of investigation before the removal of the offending piece, the firing of its author, and, if the HuffPo gang is feeling magnanimous, perhaps a word of contrition to the offended parties. But it’s been three days since the HuffPo was made aware of the plagiarist in its midst, and despite promises to the contrary it appears that little is going to be done about it — the offending piece is still online and unannotated. One would hope that the HuffPo could enforce the basic standards of journalistic ethics more rigorously than it enforces, say, the intellectual seriousness of the commentary that it publishes, but apparently that’s not the case.

Stossel Talks Politics With Huffington
20/20, ABC News, April 25, 2008

In this interview, Stossel confronts Ms. Huffington on a variety of issues, points out the factual fallacies in her political arguments, and her hypocrisy in urging others to live enviro-friendly "green" lifestyles, while she epitomizes the gluttonous "limousine liberal": living in a mansion, flying around on private jets, and being shuttled to speaking engagements in a gas-guzzling, super-sized SUV.


The Huffington Post Slammed For Content Theft
Wired, December 19, 2008

Excerpt:

The Huffington Post [...]is being accused of slimy business practices by a handful of smaller publications who say the site is unfairly copying and publishing their content. Whet Moser, an editor at alternative weekly Chicago Reader wants to know why The Huffington Post’s newly formed Chicago-focused venture is stealing their copyrighted concert reviews and reprinting them in whole in order to get search engine traffic. And he found other examples taken wholesale from The Onion and Time Out Chicago.

Arianna Huffington: The Web's New Oracle
Time, March 19, 2009

Excerpt:

(N)ews organizations may not tolerate others cherry-picking their content and repurposing it for profit for much longer. "Someone is going to sue the Huffington Post," says Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. "It's not just about the volume of the content that it appropriates, it's about the value." There are other aggregators, but HuffPo is the most tempting. "It's a big player, and the site that has got closest to the line" between fair and unfair use of copy, Benton notes. [...]

(Huffington) is offended and bewildered by the suggestion that other news outlets think she's getting a free ride. She sees herself as the future of journalism, not the end of it.