How to Lose Credibility on your blog, the Huffington Post way

summer2007 (summer's new blog) | Feb 17, 2007 | summer

[summer]

Don't be a stranger here, summer!

Miss Marple, thank you so much for your post and kind words!

No matter what I do, I'll always remember you and all the good people here. And, when I write an essay I think FR will like, I'll post it, as I did here. BTW, I posted a big THANK YOU on my new blog, with the first thanks going to FR:

"A big thank you to some very nice people who post at the conservative web site FreeRepublic.com, and to its founder, Jim Robinson. They taught me a lot about conservatives, while letting me write what I wanted on that site..."

I'm sure someday Jeb Bush will be President Jeb Bush -- and, I'm sure he'll be a great president. (I'm not so sure what will happen in 2008, though!)

Thanks again for writing. Hope all is well with you, And, it's really good to hear from you, too! :)

[summer]

Re your post #58 - and its first paragraph

I reread your initial post, and you had written this about FR: ...headline not matching the article -- and, that is I recalled and what I disagreed with. I have never seen that happen on FR because they do strictly enforce their policy; if it has happened, it was a rare instance of an error.

Beyond that, I notice you are talking about "liberal" media. And, I know that exists. However, as more than one poster on this thread pointed out, there are tactics other media like Drudge uses, and as Miss Marple points out above, the right has used. So, I guess it's a media mess out there, up to a point.

But, what Huff Post did still stands out because it looks to me like outright fraud (switching photos, rewriting a headline AND keeping the original AP journalist's name on an excerpt of only a sentence or two).

In any event, thanks again for writing -- I'm not trying to disagree further with your additional reply; it's simply that one phrase I mentioned above, that you origiinally wrote, stuck in my mind.

Also, as an aside -- it is amazing how the web and internet is transforming everything so quickly, and the news business as well. Since the time I published this editorial, it has been indexed in a Latin American index I found on google, under the heading "credibility" (see below).

So, it appears credibility does still count, and does matter to people (as even those liberal bloggers on Huff pointed out, in addition to people on this thread). Again, thanks for writing! :)

From a google search:

News, Photos, Videos, Links and Blogs related to credibility

How to Lose Credibility on your blog, the Huffington Post way. Editorial written by summer Whenever I start writing something I hope can be appreciated by ... www.buscasitios.com/index.php?sen=credibility - 28k - Feb 18, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

[CutePuppy]

In any event, thanks again for writing -- I'm not trying to disagree further with your additional reply; it's simply that one phrase I mentioned above, that you origiinally wrote, stuck in my mind.

I reread your initial post, and you had written this about FR: ...headline not matching the article -- and, that is I recalled and what I disagreed with.

Let me clarify that:

"headline not matching the article" referred not to FR posters changing the original headline, but, as I tried to explain in a second post, to headline writers sensationalizing or stating intent not expressed in the body of the article, and sometimes even exactly opposite from the facts presented in the article. Now, I found that type of misleading headlines prevalent in "liberal" media (AP, Reuters, major US newspapers and TV websites), though I couldn't vouch for all other media not doing the same.

Re Drudge, he's in somewhat different business ("breaking" and non-traditional news aggregator) and so his job IS to sensationalize some otherwise non-remarkable "news", and sometimes he's "embargoed" from actual article to link to (while told about form , subject or substance of upcoming article) - and in this way his popular website has been USED by the media (recently, by NYT and WaPo) to bring attention to their papers (often, Monday editions) - it's a symbiotic relationship, I guess. So he describes the nature of upcoming piece, until actual link becomes available.

Not that I like this, but it might explain the annoying and sensational way it happens now on DrudgeReport. The liberal media is now using him to "break" their "news", similarly to the way he was getting news before mostly from conservative sources like Washington Times or NY Post... The "price" of fame, I suppose.

[summer]

FYI, for your "Media Schadenfreude and other Media Shenanigans" ping list. :)

[summer]

I meant to ping you, too, backhoe. :)

[KevinDavis]

In all fairness, I think she made her ex gay....

[summer]

And, from news around the world: my editorial here on FR is now coming up on a FR feed to what looks like "Persian Community Journal" -- if I'm reading the homepage correctly:

Payam e Ashena
·How to Lose Credibility on your blog, the Huffington Post way ·Syrian president in Iran to discuss Iraq ·Romney buys pro-life credentials ... www.ashena.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=166 - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

[backhoe]

Deserves a bttt^

[an amused spectator]

Media Shenanigans ping.

Freeper summer busts Arianna's "Faux News Channel".

;-)

[summer]

Thanks, an amused spectator! I appreciate your ping here.

BTW, I pinged others here because I wonder if anyone has any experience posting something on "digg.com."

I didn't know anything about that site, but I posted this essay there -- and it is going nowhere fast! I put it in "Political News" but I am thinking that was the wrong category or something - maybe I should have put it in "Business" or "Political Opinion" or something else. So far only two people there "dig" it and voted for it. If you want to see it on dig, CLICK HERE. I think eventually they delete it if it doesn't get a ton of votes. Whatever. We live and learn!

[summer]

Thanks so much, backhoe. :)

[summer]

Thanks for your nice freepmail, Fudd Fan. I'm still laughing... LOL! :)

[summer]

Dog, I was thinking more about this essay, and I realized my ending was somewhat off -- as the poster I quoted who felt so abused time and time again is also acting like a trained seal, by returning there time and time again.

I wrote and posted on my blog another essay about the aftermath of this, as I tried, in good faith, to get some of the well-known media professors to publicly denounce this media manipulation. But, they have conflicts of interest with that forum, in their direct and indirect financial ties in consulting and writing for Huff Post (I think they are all paid contributors there). One professor is starting a new business venture with an investor from that forum, as disclosed in the professor's blog bio.

But, when such relationships exist - how can those professors continue to do their jobs as educators, since their job duties do include, I am sure, to continue to uphold an academic integrity about their subject? There is no integrity in their field, media criticism, if they take money from media and then conveniently look the other way when someone complains of media manipulation by their media employer/business partner.

I know the term "media elite" is overused, but it does apply in some cases, like this instance. These educators are just too far above the little people to care that people on that thread were hurting as a result of that manipuylation by Huff Post administrators. It's sad.

[Dog Gone]

The only good thing I can say about today's media manipulation is that we've gotten much better at identifying it.

When I was growing up, Walter Cronkite WAS the most trusted man in America.

Today, we know he's little more than a Jimmy Carter clone, a hack who hates America.

So we have made some progrees. Not nearly enough, but some.

[CutePuppy]

Sorry to return to the subject, but found today a good illustration of both major media (AP) "headline not matching the article" and Drudge relationship (link) to it, which is what I was really referring to in post. Not that I am defending Drudge on sensationalizing, but this is a good example of headline writers, yet look who is getting the brunt of the blame for it, simply because his site has a huge traffic. No, it's not anywhere near what Huff's blog is doing, but my intention was to highlight more insidious and more prevalent misuse of journalistic ethics by major media.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/capitalcommerce/070227/did_the_drudge_report_help_tan.htm

Did the Drudge Report Help Tank the Stock Market?
February 27, 2007

Here's a headline sure to spook any investor or economist: "Greenspan warns of likely U.S. recession." That was the headline right near the top of the widely surfed Drudge Report yesterday afternoon and this morning, referring to a speech that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made the other day via satellite to a business conference in Hong Kong. Many market watchers are blaming those comments– along with a weak durable goods report and the plunge in the Chinese stock market – for today's stock market sell-off. But despite the inflammatory Drudge headline – which, in all fairness, linked to an Associated Press story with that same title – the Maestro was hardly so definitive as Drudge made him out to be. Here is what Greenspan said, according to AP:

All in one sentence and without skipping a beat - Drudge is at fault for linking to AP article with that title.

Freepers (correctly) are not allowed to change "inflammatory headlines" by AP, Reuters, ABC News etc., which in turn may (and sometimes does) invite reaction from other Freepers that may be unwarranted by the text and substance of the article itself.

That was the gist of my post, I hope this one made it clearer instead of more obtuse.

[summer]

What you are saying here may or may not be interesting to ponder if one wants to do so, but to me, it's actually unrelated to the topic, in my opinion.

In the matter you are citing in your above post, an AP reporter made an actual error -- meaning, I believe an AP reporter would not deliberately report the opposite of the important remarks made by the chair there. Otherwise, the reporter is manipulating the stock market. So, the reporter made an error for whatever reason. The reporter didn't hear the speech or didn't sit close enough or received a copy of the remarks that had a typo in it or didn't bother to double-check or maybe the hard copy of the speech given to the reporter contained an actual error so it wasn't even the reporter's fault.

Drudge did nothing wrong here because Drudge reported the exact headline from the AP.

But, because of the original error by the reporter (or someone who gave such erroneous information to that reporter), there was a bad outcome.

Now, as to what I am talking about here in my post: in my opinion, there was no unintentional "error" made by Huffington Post admins involving the numerous and various elements of the fake headline thread - as these elements fraudulently induced one to post a comment in a frenzy, or to then "click" to "read more." And, either way - that means: more money for Huff Post. Had Huff Post simply posted the real headline, no such outcomes for Huff Post. People would have shrugged and not posted at all, and people like myself would not have even clicked because I had already seen that headline elsewhere.

Also remember: if you are someone who ONLY gets your news by reading Huff Post headlines, then you have NO idea who is actually a candidate for president in 2008 -- and who is not.

So, you see, in the case of Huff Post, there is money to be made from this media manipulation by Huff Post, as they deliberately mislead the public, again, in my opinion. Never mind that the posters there are being abused - there is no customer service. And, I now realize too: Never mind what other wrongful results may occur by some crazed lunatic reading that headline, and concluding Jeb Bush is now a candidate, and yet, Jeb Bush is not. None of these consequences are of interest to Huff Post forum admins, since they ignored every poster who complained on that thread about this deception.

It's apples and oranges what you are describing and what I am describing.

In your case, an AP reporter (or someone giving that reporter information) made an error, and there was an end result involving money -- but the person making the mistake did not benefit from that money changing hands.

In this Huffington Post media manipulation, there was, I believe, a deliberate falsification and fabrication by forum admins, with the intent to induce more clicks and more money -- and the Huffington Post owners do benefit, despite the current or future harm those forum owners are causing to others, whether voter or candidate or non-candidate. That forum doesn't seem to care who it harms, as long as their fraud results in more traffic, more clicks and more money.

And, that kind of "business" operation -- as I pointed out by writing this editorial (and in recent years I have been a right-leaning independent though my background before that was quite liberal, as people on this forum know since I came here as a Dem) -- is very well summed up by the left-leaning indendepent I quoted in my editorial, who correctly characterized Huff Post's actions here as: "despictable."

How Drudge was described in your post in that instance is irrelevant, since the description was inaccurate in this instance and was wrong. So - that's apples. My point concerned oranges.

[summer]

Thanks for your comment, Dog.

It's a good thing we've gotten so much better at identifying, especuially when academic experts in media criticism and media manipulation won't do their jobs -- and publicly identify media manipulation, critique it, and condemn it -- whenever these professors have a financial conflict of interest with the subject media company, as in this case. That is my opinion.

But, my opinion is based on my recent experience trying to report this matter to two of the world's leading experts in media manipulation, the head of NYU and CUNY, who are, respectively: Jay Rosen of Pressthink blog fame and Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine blog fame.

The more I think about this, the more distressed I feel because of them. (And note: I don't mean to incite a riot by saying this.)

But, had they simply done THEIR jobs after I sent them my editorial and emailed them, then MY job would have been done.

Instead, they are publicly AWOL or MIA in this, because they directly or indirectly benefit from any increased money rolling in at Huff Post. And, I was shocked to realize this - I am a teacher myself. I thought educators educate. I had no idea the education of the public about media manipulation by the world's leading authorities in that field would cease whenever the media manipulation is done by the media company now paying those professors. Again, this is my opinion, but based on recent events that are quite real.

One professor, I beileve now, and did not recall at that time I contacted him, is a paid contributor / writer on that site (Jay Rosen). I did not see where he discloses this on his blog. The other (Jeff Jarvis) is in a new business venture with a Huff Post investor as disclosed on his Buzzmachine blog's bio.

So, it now seems to me: these professors are UNAVAILABLE to DO THEIR JOB AS PROFESSORS in this instance, as they would normally and usually CRITIQUE and IDENTIFY and CONDEMN what the Huff Post is doing, since it is a textbooko example of media manipulation anad everything one should NOT be doing for a host of reasons. But, because there is a FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST here with these guys and that media entity, there is SILENCE from these professors who can no longer do their duty as educators. Thus, as an educator and citizen journalist, I am forced to step in AGAIN and fill the void; so, I wrote a new essay about it:

Missing in Action: Independent Academia

And, that's all I can do about this matter. I am one person. Surely there is someone else out there in this country who is reading this thread and understands all that I now realize.

[CFC__VRWC]

What do you expect from Huffington Post? When that suicide bomber went off outside the Bagram base in Afghanistan, hundreds of comments expressing outrage that VP Cheney wasn't killed went up on the thread over there. And those comments are still there.

[summer]

Well, I have not been over there recently - and, I will not be going back. But, I can you this: when that very liberal Texas columnist passed away recently, from breast cancer (Molly Ivins), I did read the thread here on FR. And, many people here were very kind. From what I read, and I did not read everything, I would say the VAST majority of comments were VERY kind. Those who weren't, for the most part, were scolded by others here.

And, I was glad to see that humanity, because I know there are many good people here.

However, when I did briefly visit Huff Post around that time, I was very sad and shocked to see a thread up saying the exact opposite of what was really and truly going on here, with respect to reaction to her death. That kind of thing does bother me. A lot. I wanted to think: that was a rare event over there, and the majority of their opinion and reporting will be a cut above, since there are SO MANY "experts" involved with that site.

But, my experience here is teaching me otherwise -- as those experts can easily misuse their expertise and big titles to harm people. And, they can do that even if they are educators. That is the part that has really disappointed me. I expect better from teachers. I still do.

Teachers have an ethical duty above and beyond, though I am WELL aware that not all educators act morally or ehtically in every situation. I always try. And, when I do, in a tough situation, I don't like feeling so alone as a teacher, as I do with respect to these media professor educators I mention above. It is disturbing to me. It makes the initial wrong even worse.

[summer]

Thanks for the ping on your thread; when I have a chance, I will try to tune in and listen sometime! :)