Why has the Huffington Post become so negative on Obama

[bigdarryl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[GoneOffShore]

1. Because it's Huffington Post?

And Arianna is a contrarian.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Contrarianna?

[Historic NY]

15. We have a winner....

[Ineeda]

3. Hmmm. Pot meet kettle (all over DU, too.) n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Because it's a shit tier tabloid.

[WI_DEM]

5. What about DU?

[argonaut]

6. It's become an awful, gloomsturbating rag on economic matters.

I've grown tired of its cheap hysteria. ZOMGZ 1.6% GROWTH!!!, etc.

[AndyA]

7. Could it be because a large part of the base feels betrayed by Obama?

Where's the transparency?

Where are the investigations into the crimes of Bushco?

Where is the affordable health care we were promised?

Where are the equal rights for gays?

Where are the jobs?

Where is the accountability for corporations?

Yes, I know Obama was handed a mess, and yes I know the GOP has fought him every step of the way. But where is Obama's fight? Why isn't he out there giving speeches, damning the GOP for blocking progress in the economic recovery? Why isn't Obama condemning the GOP for filibustering and doing NOTHING TO HELP the past two years?

Whatever he's doing, it isn't enough, quite obviously.

Enough vacationing and redecorating, Obama. Get out there and make your message heard, loud and clear. The GOP is leading you around by the nose, and you're letting them do it! Figure it out: they aren't going to work with you. They said they wouldn't, and they've kept their word. So stop trying to be bipartisan, that's a two-way street and they aren't even on the same road.

The message Obama is sending is that he's above the fray, and he doesn't seem to get it.

Could that be the reason people are unhappy?

[ladjf]

19. Where is the brain power? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. Where is my pepperoni pizza?!?! n/t

[ladjf]

55. What I was trying to say in my post was that I had expected the

President to show his intelligence by doing some smart things. So far, there has been no sign of that as far as I can tell.

[Exilednight]

48. Good question. Obama promised a change in Washington ...........

He said he would bring in new people with fresh ideas. Instead, what we got was a rehash of the Clinton presidency. More than half of his top cabinet positions within the White House went to former Clinton centrist whose ideas and strategies failed to deliver big reform the first time around.

[WestSeattle2]

62. You hit the nail on the head. What's more, the perceived

aloofness will come back to haunt him should the republicsn's gain control of the house. Clinton was able to withstand the onslaught of republican investigations, because he connected with so many millions of people. Those people stood by him in his hour(s) of need. While Obama was able to connect with millions of people before the election; that connection has been for the most part, lost.

I really do believe that he could care less - he's said so himself - "I'd rather be a great one-term president, than a mediocre two-term president" - or words to that effect. That's why they seemingly operate without a care about appearances. Anyone who is truly interested in a second term, would not approve a highly publicized family vacation to a posh European resort, in the middle of what can only be described as a financial depression. It will be the Kerry/windsurfing thing all over again. I can't help but believe that was either a conscious or sub-conscious effort on the part of himself or Michelle, or both, to derail a second term. I'm sure there will be many more such incidents where his supporters will be saying "WTF are you thinking?!".

[pokercat999]

69. Face it, Obama is a moderate republician......nt

[truebrit71]

8. Maybe because it finally caught up with reality?

..

[still_one]

9. The Huffington Post is NOT a liberal blog, it is a money making venture

to create controversy, and thus attract people to her site

You also need to cypher through the commentary from the news, and the accuracy of their reporting of the news is at times misleading to downright dishonest. Again, create controversy, not necessary accuracy

Huffington herself used to be a right winger until her husband left her for another man. I suspect she appeared to come over to the Democratic side as a way to "dis" her ex-husband who was a repuke, and also because she saw an opportunity for revenue since the right wingers had already saturated the media market

In my view she has no ideology, just plain capitalism

Definitely, not someone to be trusted

[Inuca]

13. You took the words out of my keyboard n/t

[still_one]

30. I thank your keyboard /nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. I was excited about her until my friend warned me years ago not to trust her. I protested...

...but now I see that he was right! :puke:

[SidDithers]

51. +1...

and, the exposure they give to anti-vax nutcases is enough for me to not view them as credible.

Sid

[EC]

10. No different than here

Too many expected more I guess...


I'm happy with Obama and hope he gets another 4 years with a Dem majority to finish what is started...with improvements...

[NJmaverick]

11. Become? they have been negatives since the get go

As for why, their founder is a Republican who had a falling out with George Bush

[JamesA1102]

12. Because Arianna Huffington has always been a phoney.

She's a libertarian out to make money and nothing more. Just look at the almost Nazi-like censorship in their comments sections. Look at the way she pushes people she is friends with (ie. Joe & Mika) versus those she's not. She simply can't be trusted.

[avaistheone1]

14. Because the truth is difficult medicine for so many.

[emilyg]

16. +1

[OwnedByFerrets]

67. +2

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[avaistheone1]

18. Yeah, but all the same Huffington Post is bad for letting people know it.

Sssh!

[Milo_Bloom]

20. Because they don't tow a party line.. they REPORT.

[urgk]

26. Whew. I'd like to think that were true.

But it's more about driving traffic than anything. Remember the Harry Potter dedicated section? And the stories about Natalie Portman wearing leg makeup? And Harry Shearer's recent nonsense about Obama's visit?

How about Frank Luntz with a guest blog?

HuffPo is not Edward R. Murrow in digital form.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. You can be both, at the same time.

[urgk]

31. You mean emphasize REAL reporting and be E! news and opinion posts?

I guess hypothetically, you could do all three well, but latter two seem to take away from the credibility on the first.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Sure, networks do it all the time.

One show has one type of program, one show has another type of program.

Websites are much like networks, as they can have various things going on at the same time.

[urgk]

37. Do you ever just stop and wonder why you're in a conversaion?

I just did.

I don't think the HuffPo reports, especially not in capitol letters. You do.

The end.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Sure they do.

Their headline is in all caps right now.

It's funny how people react when their position is challenged and then proven wrong.

[urgk]

40. LOL...I haven't been proven wrong.

I just have no interest in trying to prove to you that HuffPo's first priority isn't reporting.

It's silly.

And, sure they put capitol letters in headlines. I think that's part of the ridiculous, non-reporting, titillation. What I was saying was that when you said they "REPORT" I thought you were wrong, but especially wrong because of the emphasis.

But, like I said, we can disagree. This has been one of the least interesting online conversations I've ever had. I'm sitting here fighting to keep my attention on the screen and off the houseplants.

It's the conversational equivalent of dunking a teabag in lukewarm water. I'm bored out of my mind, yet not interested in proving myself right.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

For someone who is SO DISINTERESTED you sure can type alot explaining why you haven't been proven wrong.

The fact that you tried to claim that the proof that they don't report is that they have other items on the website, as if a website is incapable of doing 2 things (such as a network having different shows or a newspaper having an entertainment section AND a news section never occurred to you).

What is extra funny is watching you try and wiggle out of your initial position, "first priority"... no one brought up which priority is first, second, third or equal.

Obviously, you have no interest in defending your position, but instead you want to type line after line explaining and explaining why there is no point in defending your dis proven position because you are so disinterested in even trying that you wouldn't waste your time reading or typing to do it.

The fact that your entire defense to your initial dis proven position is that you are disinterested in proving it doesn't say anything about your inability to defend it.. just your complete lack of interest.

I bet if you say it again, you may convince someone.

[urgk]

49. Oh man. A whole swamp bog of warm, sucking wrong.

I think that you think you're making an argument. In fact, I think you think you're winning one.

I'm not wiggling out of any position. I'm wiggling out of a stagnant, viscous pool of pointlessness.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. Wow. Two more replies, for something you claim to not care about...

And still unable to prove yourself right.

Obviously, you don't care one bit.

How could anyone think otherwise??

Wouldn't it have been so much easier just to admit you made a mistake and move on?

[urgk]

54. Again, you're wrong. but, please, keep taking a lick at the electric fence.

The conversation about the silliness of the initial discussion is far more interesting than the initial discussion itself. But, maybe not more interesting than athousand other pointless things I could be doing. We'll see.

[Milo_Bloom]

57. Of course it is.

Because the initial discussion ended with you being wrong, which is why you keep trying to deflect it and feign disinterest.

Think how much easier it would have been if you just admitted your mistake in the first place.

[urgk]

58. "Blurble.... flurnnnn.... blnnnn..." said the quicksand.

"Because they don't tow a party line.. they REPORT."

First, there is no such thing as "tow a party line." Look it up. Secondly, I stand by my assertion that HuffPo is less about "REPORT"ing than it is about generating site traffic. Considering they employ few (or no) "REPORT"ers, it'd be hard (as in "futile," not "impossible") to argue otherwise.

By the way, I think you meant "REPOST." But the R and S are within a few small keys of each other, so I can see where you might have been confused. In any care, I ruggest you rtop warting our time.

[Milo_Bloom]

59. Wow, what disinterest you show.

So much so that you scan posts for typos. I know I always look for typos in posts I am not interested in.

You also don't seem to understand what you got wrong. Your assertion that huffington post is less about reporting than about generating traffic is just your ill formed opinion based on a basic misunderstanding of business and how business works. I haven't bothered to correct your silly assertion on this since it was followed up by your completely backwards statement.

The item you got embarrassingly wrong was your statement that an entity can't have both serious and frivolous items associated with it. This is what you have been trying to defelct from ever since by feigning disinterest, yet coming back time and time again to try and act as if you are not doing so.

And yes, the Huffington Post does employee reporters indirectly. http://huffpostfund.org/about-us


Think how much easier this all would have been for you if you had just admitted you were wrong and moved on.

[urgk]

60. Wrong.

And, meanwhile, incredibly convinced otherwise.

"The item you got embarrassingly wrong was your statement that an entity can't have both serious and frivolous items associated with it."

Nope. That's your spin on what I said. Try it again. Once you have it right, we'll both be in the same discussion. But I'll give you points for trying to keep up.

[Milo_Bloom]

63. Such disinterest at 6:00AM

I know when I am not interested in something, I run to the computer at 6:00AM to look at it.

And even denying what was said in an attempt to backtrack.

Wouldn't it have been so much easier to just admit you were wrong?

[urgk]

64. Please keep up with the conversation. Or just wander off.

I don't have any plans to keep reminding you what's been discussed.

There is wisdom, it has been said, in not trying to teach a pig to sing.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. What is being discussed is your being wrong and being unwilling to admit it.

You have tried several tactics to divert attention from that.

#1) Feigning disinterest, despite repeatedly coming back to the thread over and over and over again.

#2) Ad hominem attacks.

#3) Denial of what you said.

#4) Feigning lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

It is a wonderful display that could have been avoided if you simply admited you were wrong in the first place.

[urgk]

68. Again, you show unwillingness/inability to follow a simple conversation.

And, again, I refuse to take you by the hand and toddle you over to all of the bits you should be able to understand on your own.

I'll leave you with this - I still disagree with your premise that HuffPo "REPORT"s. My initial comment said that the site was more concerned with driving traffic than with reporting. They repost. And titillate. Pro Publica (http://www.propublica.org/) reports. There is an enormous difference.

This is the end of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.

[Milo_Bloom]

71. Just like every newspaper/news organization in the country.

And THAT is the mistake you were never able to admit.

[urgk]

50. Maybe this visual metaphor will get my point across.

The discussion you insist on having is exactly this useful --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo_TST33-vQ

[whistler162]

61. Report just like Pulitzer did!

[Phx_Dem]

21. Because they're the "professional left" who love to hate Obama.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

22. The best place to find a fair assessment on President Obama is Alan Colmes...

Sure we don't like his employers in any way , but the guy does a great radio show. I haven't abandoned any of the others but Alan's show keeps me inspired. He reaches a very wide audience that's massively important.

[ibegurpard]

38. lol

[boppers]

23. "Things not so bad, but still kind of lame" doesn't make money.

Blogging is not journalism, it's shit-stirring... and they don't make money from journalism, they make money from shit-stirring and ad revenue.

[besdayz]

24. a

internet...viral...spread....lie



but lets not all pretend that the obama administration is not a bunch of pansies......most pussified defense of principles a

[SidDithers]

52. Huh?...nt

Sid

[vaberella]

25. It's always been a bit negative. Just louder now. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

27. because negativity and outrage draws viewers/readers

if she posted positive/nuanced articles, it wouldn't draw as many people to her site--and that wouldn't be good for her advertisers and her bottom line. Ever hear "if it bleeds, it leads"? That basically means that the news business believes a negative story draws more viewers than a positive story. The need to pad the bottom line means that the media, including HuffPo will generally tend toward negative stories.

HuffPo uses what I call the Fox Model of Journalism. Fox discovered that you can get a hard core of loyal viewers by presenting news in a way that reaffirms the viewer's preexisting beliefs and values, even at the expense of the truth. People like to watch news that "agrees with them" so to speak. The prime directive is to affirm and validate the viewer's ideology and not to inform. This works because there is no accountability in America for not printing the truth. MSNBC has been adopting the Fox Model with Olbermann/Maddow/Schultz, but CNN has not, and thus CNN is suffering.

In short, liberal media using the Fox model tend toward (1) negative stories, because those draw more attention, and (2)stories that affirm liberal ideology. In this political climate, this means stories attacking Obama from the left.

[RoadRage]

29. Because there is FAR more $$$ in being negative..

Especially if you're on the left. If you're Fox bitching about Obama.. it's not news. If you're "supposidly" on the left bitching about him.. more people pay attention, thus more $$$ opportunities.

Arriana isn't dumb... she's like Palin in the fact that she does everything for the money.

[brentspeak]

32. Maybe because Obama deserves the criticism n/t

[ibegurpard]

36. indeed

[DrSteveB]

33. Liberal websites and centrist Presidents are bound to disagree often

In my opinion.

[Mr. Sparkle]

35. The Huffington Post proves Gibbs was right , imho.

Sometimes when I go there, it seems like i have gone to a republican blog.

[pokercat999]

70. Could it be that you've gone to a progressive leaning blog and

we have a Republican president?

[timber84]

41. Troll

Still at it eh?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. Huffington has been anti-Obama since the primaries. But, it has also been negative against Dems.

The phony Big Ed story from the New York Post? Can someone explain why Huffington even wasted its time on that garbage?

[zulchzulu]

46. Purity Concern Trolls have parlor talk to back up civics-challenged ego-screeds n/t

[FrenchieCat]

47. Where do you think the quotes from Obama in San Francisco during the campaign

where he's quoted as saying (paraphrasing) "they cling to their guns, their religion, etc..." come from? Fuffingtonpost...that's where.

[Jakes Progress]

56. Must be a bunch of commie devils. Couldn't possibly be any other reason.

[Ikonoklast]

65. So you can find a more negative things about Obama to post here.

You have that "Why does..." bullshit down pat, Skippy.

[LWolf]

72. Because he's earned it. nt

[JVS]

73. I'm sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions Obama has made while governing.