So much for bipartisanship...

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

In an unsurprising move, the Huffington Post recently removed Andrew Breitbart from the front page of their website. He'd previously written two pieces, including one on the NPR/James O'Keefe story and HuffPo continued to promote him even through pressure from Liberal groups.

So what caused the change in HuffPo's attitude?

Van Jones.

Color of Change, an organization founded by Van Jones, attempted to circulate a petition calling for Breitbart's removal from Huffington Post entirely, but spokesperson Mario Ruiz pointed out that Breitbart wasn't the first conservative to publish on the site and they'd continue to promote him.

The idea being that dialogue — from a wide range of perspectives — is preferable to silence. The fact that Andrew Breitbart’s first post on our site drew over 1,635 comments, conducted in a civil manner, seems to validate the premise and the decision to publish his blog post.

Breitbart responded to the situation poorly, going after Color of Change and Van Jones, calling him a "commie punk" and "a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak" in an interview with The Daily Caller. Color of Change responded with a statement of their own.

ColorOfChange.org applauds The Huffington Post’s decision to no longer give Andrew Breitbart a prominent platform for his so-called ‘journalism’. Breitbart, whose entire career is built upon ‘reporting’ lies and falsehoods disguised as news, should have never been given the opportunity to present himself as a legitimate journalist or opinion-maker. Their decision is an important reversal. Over the course of one day, over 43,000 of our members called on The Huffington Post to end to their promotion of Breitbart. The Huffington Post has done the right thing by refusing to elevate someone who fear mongers, race-baits and lies – none of which have a place in America’s public discourse.

What Breitbart said concerning Jones isn't entirely wrong. Van Jones admitted his past as a Communist and is a known supporter of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who's been sentenced to death for killing a police officer (though the issue of whether he received a fair trial has been raised in the past). Does that justify his actions? Not necessarily. He could have handled himself better in his reaction, or he could have just ignored them since Mario Ruiz had already assured HuffPo's support.

There is something to be said for ethics, though. Huffington Post has no issue with ad homenim attacks by its own staff in its own pages. Erik Sean Nelson, one of their most vile offenders, is proof of that. In an article mentioning "nude" photos of Carrie Prejean that became public, Nelson said, "Jesus of course would never masturbate to naked pictures of Miss California winner Carrie Prejean. He has some dignity unlike this Bible-loving hypocrite." The Huffington Post issued no apology, no retraction. Alex Pareene from Salon.com boils the issue down to cronyism.

Breitbart then apparently went too far when he said a bunch of stupid and offensive things about Van Jones in an interview with the Daily Caller. And Arianna is actually quite close to the former White House “green jobs czar.” [...]
A strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks! (“Against Arianna’s friends,” is the big of that sentence that spokesman Marco Ruiz left out.) (Also there is apparently no prohibition on constant, practically obsessive race-baiting, but whatever.) (And obviously there is no prohibition whatsoever on spreading toxic bullshit about autism and other assorted crimes against science.)

[Source]

So what do you think - was the Huffington Post justified in reducing Breitbart's role or do you think this is a case of cronyism?

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I think this means that "Huffington Post" sucks just a LITTLE bit less today.

Breitbart has zero place in any venue that claims to be putting out journalism.

Not that HuffPo is really doing journalism, but at least there is a less high profile bottom feeding unethical fuckwad generating content.

[mzflux.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

did you hear, they're replacing breitbart with ann coulter...

/shitdisturbing

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

No shit?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the Huffington Post is a pretty low-brow source. I'd never link from there without being sure I could trace that link to a source that'd actually be reputable. They just don't want more egg on their face from Mr. "I'll handcuff the hot reporter to embarrass her."

[capthek.livejournal.com]

I think the Huff Post is like the national enquirer and Breitbart is even less reputable and their political leanings really don't matter.

But really, why did they pick Breitbart as their token conservative? The guy is a total hack. Are there no non-hack righties these days?

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Probably for the same reason that Fox chose Alan Colmes for &

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

HuffPo isn't the sort of rag that would be interested in a non-hack, right-wing or otherwise.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

too true

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Arianna and Breitbart are buddies from way back.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

And yeah, I don't actually read Huffington, but based on what I'd seen linked to on their site, I got the impression they were somewhat similar to the Onion.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I read HuffPo now and then but NEVER for information, more for entertainment and to enjoy some of that liberal media that I can't find anywhere else. ;)

As said above if I were to find something interesting I'll still want to see a more objective source before I'll even consider believing it. What I enjoy most is debating in the comments section.

On a side note let me say that I don't always agree with my liberal brethren and I'm not afraid to express said disagreement with the shrill masses. This is why I still only have like 100 friends despite the two years or so that I've been posting there. But I digress.

Anyway, I'm glad they got rid of Breitbart. They still are a long way from legitimacy but that was a good step towards it. Surely they can find a conservative commentator who actually possesses journalistic integrity? Breitbart is nothing but a smear monger who shouldn't get any coverage from the media whatsoever.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

HuffPO is a rag. Their anti-vaccine articles caused me to stop reading them long ago.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Breitbart is a hack and even a shoddy journalism site like Huffpo couldn't stand him any more.

Bipartisanship doesn't mean having raving lunatics representing a side.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Bipartisanship is used for office holders, legislators, etc. but not journalists. But anyway, when a few editorials by Al Gore appear on Brietbart's website, that will be real "bipartisanship."

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Who the hell do you think reads Huffington Post for bipartisanship?

No, really, point me to one person. The moment that rag gets bipartisan I'll just sack its ass from my playroom.

Go ask a conservative thinktank rag for bipartisanship, I'll applaud you and laugh.

[kris-schnee.livejournal.com]

It sounds like they got rid of him not for allegedly being a bad journalist, but because he attacked the self-proclaimed "radical communist" Van Jones (not just his past by the way; he's said openly that he's only dropped his "radical pose" to better achieve "radical ends"), and that set Jones off. I have no problem with the decision though; it's their own right to decide if they want to include opposing opinions.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

it's funny, because you think that an allegedly liberal website needs to be bipartisan, but you don't ask where the liberal writers are in the WSJ, or townhall.com, or whatever.

Also, it's funny because you think that HuffPo answers to anyone other than the owners.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Because WSJ isn't blatantly Liberal OR Conservative. Next!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The WSJ isn't blatantly conservative?

(http://s744.photobucket.com/albums/xx81/drewishdrewid/?action=view&current=f3d1f699-81b4-463a-9e97-d921cf4595c6.gif)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

First let me get this off my chest: I don't know why anyone reads HuffPo at all. It's a crap news source, full of bias, full of errors. I consider it to be a prime example of extreme moonbattery in action (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Extreme_moonbattery). Their treatment of science is absolutely appalling.

So what do you think - was the Huffington Post justified in reducing Breitbart's role or do you think this is a case of cronyism?

I don't know about "justified", but I can see why they did so. The Huffington Post is essentially a left-wing counter to sites such as the Drudge Report. Breitbart did most of the technical work for such sites, but I don't think Breitbart's views fit in with HuffPo's goals. And goals they do have; they're not a source of journalism but just a big-ass left-leaning blog. I can understand, from that perspective, the reduction. It's like, say, someone being kicked out of the atheist community for being way too fundie.

But I wouldn't call that justification. I call that "It's Arianna's blog and she decides who gets to play in it." If that's cronyism, than sure, but otherwise I see this as just a blog fight.

Fuck HuffPo, though. Really. The science woo? Their love of the anti-vax monster Wakefield? Fuck 'em.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Eh, I'm with those who say that HuffPo is more like a tabloid than a serious news outlet. I'm kind of disappointed that my favorite blogger (Radley Balko) is moving over there from Reason.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Why do you hate the free market?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

How very constructive.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Thank you! For a moment there I thought my sarcastic yet accurate one liner about the "grrrr, look at what those hypocritical Liberals do!" post wouldn't be considered at all!