The Huffington Post as a News Source: An In-Depth Look

Have you ever heard of the Huffington Post? The self-described "Internet Newspaper" is a colorful mix of blogs and news.

Notice the last word in the sentence: news. News implies that it is covering anything that it considers relevant.

Now, I am not necessarily an idealist. I think it is virtually impossible for a news organization to remain completely neutral, after all, there is a flesh and blood human selecting the placement and publication of stories, and humans by their nature are rarely neutral.

We all know Fox News slants to the right, while less people know that CNN and MSNBC slant to the left. That's fine, I can deal with it.

If there is an issue I want a complete picture of, I usually get my information from both. Despite their flaws, those three generally get it right.

With the presidential election coming closer, every thing that each candidate (as if this writing, there are still technically three) does is presented, good or bad.

And here is where my problem with the Huffington Post lies. As far as political articles go, every single one comes from the same perspective.

None of them like McCain or Bush, they love Obama, they think Hillary is done and should drop out yesterday, and they are finished with the Clintons in general.

A sample of today's (6/3/08) headlines from the front page and the politics page:

Exclusive: Bill Clinton Calls Vanity Fair's Purdum A "Sleazy" "Slimy" "Scumbag"
Governors Supporting Hillary Prepare For Switch To Obama
Countdown: Obama Needs 37.5 Delegates To Clinch The Nomination
Clinton Associates: No One In The Campaign Sees Any Way To Win
Cheney Makes Incest Joke About West Virginians
Even Cheney Says McCain's Gas Tax Plan Is A Joke
CNN: Most Uncommitted Senators To Back Obama
Obama Overtakes McCain In National Poll

Does that sound like any sort of neutral reporting to you? And I haven't even touched on the blogs yet.

But wait, it gets worse.

Not only does the entire site promote its Obama-agenda, but now founder Arianna Huffington (tell me that name isn't pretentious), has the cojones to say that the Huffington Post is teaming with another organization to oversee the coverage McCain gets, to make sure it isn't too kind.

Has there ever been a more hypocritical move? Yes, (see: Spitzer, Elliot), but still, its ridiculous. Have they even thought about, or mentioned anything similar with Obama coverage. Because last I checked, Obama gets more love from the media than any politician I have seen in my lifetime.

Let me take a step back. Is there anything wrong with a site devoting its time and effort to a single point of view? On the surface, no. But when the same organization tries to claim that it is a news organization, and others see it as such, that's where it gets dangerous.

For example, Newstrust.net is the organization teaming with the Huff to observe McCain's coverage. The site is a journalism networking site dedicated to making sure the best journalism is given top viewing priority.

Here is what Newstrust.net says about HuffPo in the press release about their teaming up:

"The Huffington Post is a news and opinion website which in three years has become an influential media brand -- "The Internet Newspaper." The site offers coverage of politics, media, business, entertainment, living and green, and is a top destination for news, blogs and original content."

A top destination for news and opinion, inferring that they are two different things, which they are. Now assuming A)Newstrust.net is what they say they are, a site dedicated to highlighting good journalism (which I find they are), and B) Not in bed, so to speak, with the Huffington Post and are doing participating in the interest of promoting good journalism (which I also think they are), we can conclude that the Huffington Post (and others) considers itself a news organization.

A news organization that marches to the same pro-Obama, anti- Bush/McCain beat. How can anyone in their right mind trust the news you get from the site? The entire site might as well be an Obama campaign site. I have been looking at the site daily for the past month or so, and have yet to find a single news item that paints Obama in a negative light.

A brief word about the blogs on Huffington Post. They boast over 1500 bloggers, from celebrities to political pundits and everything in between. I find it amazing that every single blog I've ever read on the site is either about: A) How Obama is being wronged by somebody, B) How Bush is a war criminal, C)Why Hillary Clinton is an awful person (which I believe, and I admit, I do get some sense of satisfaction watching her own people turn on her) or D) How McCain will be like electing Bush all over again.

This raises an interesting question: what is the editorial control like at the Huffington Post? What if a blogger wants to write about how Obama has little experience in the political realm, and may not be mentally and emotionally ready to become the leader of the free world? Would they be allowed to write it?

Here's where it gets real interesting. Since I have not seen a single blog post about any of Obama's deficiencies (despite what you may think, there are several), then either A) bloggers are not allowed to publish them; or B) no one has tried.

Take a second to think about that. Which one is scarier? Take a step back. How scary is it that those questions even come up about any national news organization that gets 10 million visitors a month?

Your answer: Pretty terrifying from a journalistic standpoint.

My advice (not that it was asked for): go to the Huffington Post all you want, read the witty and erudite blogs of the celebrities, some of whom write quite well.

As far as news goes, don't touch what they're selling with a ten foot pole. Because no matter what they claim, they are not a neutral source, and they do have an extremely overt agenda, something that has no place in the world of quality journalism.