Member since: Oct 1st, 2009
Oct 1st 2009 3:48PM Grant,I accept everything you are saying - but you focused on my first sentence (which I should have omitted anyway) and ignored everything else. We have a problem with accuracy and accountability in ALL media, and Huffington Post is not better or worse than the rest of our mainstream news sources. It's just different. While the NYTs probably wouldn't mistakenly post a 5 year old youtube video, it certainly has done more than its fair share to distort information to fit is own privileged worldview. As have most other for-profit corporate news sources. It's almost unavoidable.
Oct 1st 2009 1:37PM You're criticism of Huffington Post wouldn't have anything to do with your political bias, would it? The reason I'm asking (rhetorically) is because you are nuts if you somehow think that what you consider "real" news organizations don't print inaccuracies or distortions without retraction or correction. The Times, for example, has been shown to take articles that first appeared in an overseas newspaper source, reprint the article, but hack out over two thirds of the words, changing the entire meaning of the original piece, before presenting it to American readers. This is usually done to remove all references to the United State's that might reflect a more accurate representation of its involvement in the situation before distributing it to an American population that, like yourself, loves to trash independent media but laps up establishment biased quasi-reporting from the corporate media like a starving stray dog. That's disingenuous distortion of the truth. And it is never apologized for. One only need look at the documentation of sites such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Matters, Fact Check.org to discover the MASSIVE amount of inaccurate or sloppy journalism done by mainstream print and television media that goes unaddressed and unapologized for. It is debatable whether or not you would consider FOX News or the now Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal to be actual "news" sources, but if you do (since one is print,) the documentation of both organization's gross inaccuracies, mistakes, distortions or reporting of 100% factually incorrect information has been well documented by both left-leaning AND non-partisan media accountability sources. When you want to read sanitized "news" as seen through the lens of huge corporations and their interest in greater economic power and profit and their total disconnection from labor and the American working class - by all means, go spend fifty cents and read the New York Times. Heck, I read the New York Times. But acting as though there is a huge gap between the accuracy and objectivity of the Times and well-established internet journalism websites is embarrassingly naive. Your rant sounds fairly silly in light of the fact that our print news is wholly corporate owned and regularly manipulates and/or sanitizes its reporting to protect and reflect the interests the wealthy and its privileged shareholders. Kind of makes a wrong youtube video seem like not that big of a deal, doesn't it?
Save your tabs and Panorama tab groups in Firefox 4
Amazon Appstore for Android hands-on review: Android Market is in trouble