Huffpo Sherroded Me

I was asked by the Huffinton Post during the Primary Campaign to follow Hillary Clinton on the west coast--using my own dime--since this is when Huffpo was promoting 'citizen journalism'-- and write stories demonstrating she was a liar by writing that in different places she slanted her message to the audience.

Huffpo is screaming NoNoNo this morning at Jim VandeHai of Politico who yesterday asserted that the HuffingtonPost trained Andrew Bretibart, the guy  who recently slimed Shirley Sherrod and suckered the Obama Adminstration into firing her from her job. 

So Politico's VandeHai is asserting that the Huffington Post uses Breitbart methods of distorting and slanting the news.

Is there anyone who things otherwise? Fox is the conservative shoutfest, Huffpo the liberal fog machine. And both slant, distort and sensationalize the shortcomings of those they oppose

News? It is Gone With The Wind.

Take the facts and distort them to fit the agenda is what is passing for news today and the blogosphere is no exception.  During the primary campaign Huffpo offered me the job of covering Hillary Clinton on the west coast. I was to travel around, on my own dime--this was when Huffpo was promoting "citizen journalism"--and write up her campaign appearances. But there was an agenda: I was to catch her lying, i.e. giving different messages according to the different locations.

I supported Hillary, part of a  small band of liberal bloggers who did, and I refused the agenda. And Huffpo no longer cared for my services.

So I wrote for dKos until I was thrown off for being a "racist" which is to say that I talked about Obama's shortcomings. During the primary campaign anyone who blogged for Hillary was ipso facto a racist on most of the liberal blogs.

It wasn't a fair fight. And much like Journolist, the liberal blogging forces schemed to put their guy over. Part of this effort was to brand as racist anyone effective enough to make a dent in Obama's pristine reputation.
Peter Daou may be the only prominent Hillary blogger who escaped unscathed, and I am not even sure that is true.

What the Shirley Sherrod "moment" offers is a peek into a shoddy and corrupt practice of smears and innuendo passed off as news by nearly everyone in today's media. No one is exempt. Fox does it brilliantly. And the liberal organizations are playing catch up as fast as they can.

Hold onto your critical faculties. Take nothing at face value or should I say first read. And look for the agenda in Everything. It is always there.    

Tags: The Huffinton Post, Jim VandeHai, Politico, Peter Daou, obama, DKos, MyDD (all tags)



it is worth writing about

we think at the time it isn't worth writing about. But now we have a moment in which it is important to add one's two cents to the conversation

by linfar 2010-07-23 11:04AM | 1 recs
So, if I hear you correctly...

Your story slimes Huffpo, dKOS, Obama, "the liberal blogging forces" as you explain just how slimily the slimy slimers slimed you.

I think I'll do as you suggest: "And look for the agenda in Everything. It is always there."

I looked, and I think I found your agenda.

by QTG 2010-07-23 01:34PM | 3 recs
RE: So, if I hear you correctly...

Wow QTG you still can't hear the truth. Amazing!! I mean AMAZING. Why on earth would I bother to share this except that with the Sherrod slime job, the info is out there. And we might have a teachable moment. Breitbart worked for Huffpo, a so-called news outlet who asked me to deliberately find ways to say Hillary Clinton was a liar. How much clearer can it get for you?? Oh, wait. You are still back there fighting the primary war and yhour side can do no wrong...Jeeeeeze...

by linfar 2010-07-23 03:40PM | 0 recs
RE: So, if I hear you correctly...

In the original diary you are doing exactly that which you are condemning others for doing, and now in your reply to me you are doing it again - with a transparent attempt to do that which you accuse me of doing - re-opening the PW. As much as you believe there was a conspiracy against Hillary, there wasn't. As much as you believe she lost unfairly, she didn't. She's a great Secretary of State. One of the best ever. And there is no doubt in my mind that she was, is, and will ever be a Democrat, and proud of it. She also has a record of supporting less than perfect male Presidents.

by QTG 2010-07-23 10:09PM | 3 recs
RE: Huffpo Sherroded Me

Did HuffPo ask you to deliberatly distort her speeches, Breitbart style? Because it doesn't sound like it when you say they wanted you to "write stories demonstrating she was a liar by writing that in different places she slanted her message to the audience." If they thought that was the truth, they just wanted you to point it out, right? Did they specifically ask you to lie in order to write those stories?

HuffPo has a bias. I don't read it on a regular basis. But having a bias is not the same thing as lying and dishonestly editing to push your bias no matter what the facts say.

by Nathan Empsall 2010-07-23 03:27PM | 3 recs
yes Nathan they were out to distort


What they were interested in was catching her in lies. The idea that every politician slants their message to their audience was the strategy they wanted to turn against her. It was a gotcha game. And when I wanted to just report the speech as opposed to framing the story in the gotcha style, they were Not interested

by linfar 2010-07-23 03:51PM | 0 recs
RE: yes Nathan they were out to distort

What they were interested in was catching her in lies

I get that, but catching someone in lies they actually tell is very different than making up claims that they lied when they didn't. You're saying HuffPo wanted to do the former. I'm saying Breitbart does the latter, and asking you if HuffPo would have wanted you to do so as well if you didn't find any actual lies. Was there evidence that she was indeed changing the speech, even a little, as most pols do? Looking for an opponent's lies where they don't exist may be undesirable, but it can't be compared to intentionally lying yourself about that opponent. Yes, HuffPo and Breitbart both seek to advance agendas, but I haven't seen any evidence yet that their tactics are the same, and that's Breitbart's problem - his tactics, not that happens to have an agenda.

by Nathan Empsall 2010-07-23 04:32PM | 3 recs
What on earth does it take to get heard

The truth is the liberal side of the aisle are part of the problem and every bit as willing to lie and distort as the other side. We simply aren't as good at it. I have said huffpo wanted to smear Clinton and they wanted me to find ways to do it. What else do you want to hear? But nope. Not possible, right? A former news reporter for the AP didn't know when she was being asked to smear someone. I effing give up...

by linfar 2010-07-23 08:52PM | 1 recs
RE: What on earth does it take to get heard

I have said huffpo wanted to smear Clinton and they wanted me to find ways to do it. What else do you want to hear?

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I asked you to explain yourself. An answer to the specific question I asked, that's what I want to hear - not a repeat of what led me to ask the question. I'm not going to believe accusations against anyone, right or left, without evidence - the fact that you're a credible figure who said so just isn't enough. I'm not doubting your story in the slightest; I'm just asking for more evidence to back it up before I believe it. That is hardly unreasonable.

So let's try again: We know HuffPo wanted Clinton to look bad. Okay, yes, I get that and don't doubt it, but did they ask you to make up evidence if it turned out she wasn't actually doing what they said she was doing? Or did they just insist that she was doing so and that you should show existing evidence of such? If the latter, how is that like Breitbart, and if the former, do you still have their emails so you can share specific quotes and name names? Simple questions, that's all.

Also, a tip on using MyDD - for me to see your comment in a timely manner, click "reply" on my comment, not "add a comment" at the bottom of the post. Users get notifications for replies on their own comments, but not for additional comments on posts upon which they've commented. More good conversations fall by the wayside that way... :(

by Nathan Empsall 2010-07-24 08:41PM | 3 recs
Sanity speaks!

Thank you so much for stepping forward to prove what most of us already knew!  It's evidence like yours that will finally lay bare the bald deception of the ruling forces that work so hard to quash the real will of the real people.


Dont let them get you down don't give up when your voice is so strong an pure among the filth out there.  Your being vindicated each and every day since nobody can now say you weren't absolutely right in the first place.   You have a world of real live experience that backs up your experience and people should listen to you with great attention if they really care about being on the right side of issues that matter the most!

by 2010-07-23 09:21PM | 0 recs
RE: Huffpo Sherroded Me

BTW, no matter how much these comments and questions may frustrate you, be grateful for them. The diary is currently on the "most commented" list, which means it will stay on the homepage longer than would otherwise occur. We may not yet feel there's enough evidence to believe it, and yet by virtuing of pressing the point, we're ironically geting it more readers. "Effing give up" on that.

by Nathan Empsall 2010-07-24 08:44PM | 1 recs
RE: Huffpo Sherroded Me

I was pro-Obama during the primary. But I do not hesitate to bash his mistakes now.

Having said that, this diary is a whiny one. You keep avoiding Nathan's question. Did they or did they not ask you to lie about Hillary? If they did not, just save us some time and shut up.

by Pravin 2010-07-29 03:19PM | 2 recs


Advertise Blogads