HuffPo stupidity of the day

The debate last night wasn’t even over before HuffPo was falling all over itself with glee at Trump’s performance. That’s fine for a Democrat, but not so fine for a news site. And so, if you go to PuffHo right now, you’ll find this headline (click on screenshot to go to story):


And talking about ad hominems, this one’s a doozy. I didn’t watch the debate, but heard that Trump sniffed a lot. That inspired this article:


Yes, Robert Durst, not a convicted killer but an accused one, also sniffed! OMG! Now imagine if Hillary Clinton had had a cold and sniffed like Trump. Do you suppose PuffHo would put up a similar article?

The Trump-bashing and Hillary adulation go on and on on the main page of PuffHo. But, over on the religion pages, the endless celebration of genuine female oppression continues:




  1. Carolinacurmudgeon
    Posted September 27, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Huffpo is NOT a news site. Of course, neither is Fox “news”. Both are propaganda sites.

    • Posted September 28, 2016 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, HuffPo is just a clickbait/aggregator site. Your (PCC’s, not Carolinacurmudgeon’s) “create a HuffPo headline” contest is a perfect example of that. A sudden shift to objective, intelligent commentary about the debate would be quite unexpected, to say the least.

  2. GBJames
    Posted September 27, 2016 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    You should not confuse HuffPo with a serious news operation.

    That said, when it comes to Trump, it is hard to be over-the-top.

    • Posted September 28, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      “You should not confuse HuffPo with a serious news operation.”

      Yeah I thought that confusion was happening when I saw the line “Do you suppose PuffHo would put up a similar article?” if Hilary had a cold, of course they wouldn’t but their right wing equivalents would.

  3. DrBrydon
    Posted September 27, 2016 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I watched the debate. It was, on the whole, unedifying. I disagree with almost all of Clinton’s proposed policies, but she did a creditable job of getting some of them across, and managed not to get ruffled by Trump. She even got a couple decent jabs in. Trump said one or two things I actually agreed with, but continued to show himself as a complete tyro who can’t manage to get to the end of a sentence without getting distracted. If we’re going to have a lying crook in the White House in January, I choose Hillary.

    • Leigh
      Posted September 27, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      In reply to DrBrydon:
      I have no problem with people disagreeing with policy and position statements, but I don’t think name calling adds anything to a discussion. I have never understood what evidence there is to support the claims that Hillary Clinton has done anything illegal that would warrant arrest, and conviction. What evidence can you cite to support calling Hillary Clinton a crook?

      Can we agree to stop the name-calling?

    • Posted September 28, 2016 at 4:59 am | Permalink

      I find the last sentence brilliant.

      • Leigh
        Posted September 28, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        I find the last sentence to be far from brilliant. If you are going to say Hillary Clinton is a crook, offer evidence, otherwise you are just engaging in name-calling.

        I don’t think we should form our opinions on the basis of “tell a lie long enough, shout it loud enough and people will believe it.” I don’t see evidence for Hillary Clinton being untrustworthy. I know she has been characteized as such by people who feel their self-interest is threatened, but I see no reason why I should follow their lead.

  4. Posted September 27, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Maybe they are lacking in “take it serious” style, but they are mostly right; even many Republicans think that Trump was mostly speaking gibberish toward the end.

    I think that one can say objectively that he made little or no sense throughout and made a few major gaffes…..”his temperament is a strength of his”?

  5. Historian
    Posted September 27, 2016 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    While the Huffington Post is known for its blaring headlines attacking Trump, the mainstream press is basically doing the same thing in somewhat more muted terms. A regular visitor to the New York Times or Washington Post sites will see that these publications no longer hesitate in pointing out Trump’s unending spewing of lies. They are doing this in regular news stories in addition to the opinions of the op-ed contributors. Granted that these publications are Democratic leaning, but until recently they hesitated to call out Trump for what he is. After finally realizing how Trump has played the press and duped half the country, they are finally doing what responsible journalists should have been doing all along.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 27, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

      Amen, brother.

      The problem with the Times and the Post and all the other mainstream outlets is that they’ve been trying too hard to play by the Rules of Objective Journalism with Trump. Problem is, as Hunter Thompson once observed about Richard Nixon, it’s the built-in blind spots in those Rules that can let a Trump-type slither into the White House.

      A Trump, who doesn’t himself play by the ordinary rules and conventions of politics, can slip through Objective Journalism’s cracks. It’s why you have to get subjective to see Trump for what he is. And why the shock of recognition, when it comes, is so painful.

      • Dean Reimer
        Posted September 28, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

        Actually, WaPo has been extremely critical of Trump for longer than just about any mainstream media site. It’s the NYT that has gone to great lengths to appear objective.

        • Posted September 28, 2016 at 11:20 am | Permalink

          “It’s the NYT that has gone to great lengths to appear objective.”

          I’ve seen that a huge problem this entire election cycle. One method they use to appear objective is by giving Trump, and Clinton equal time. So while Trump for example might say 10 stupid things on a given day, and Hillary one, they only report one of each, or they’ll be condensed under a single headline like. Actual objective reporting can’t help but to appear to be Trump bashing because he engages in so much more that’s bash worthy.

  6. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted September 27, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    I think today’s HP selections are much more
    FUBAR than yesterdays, which could have been improved with some tweaking.

    (For those who don’t know, this is an engineering acronym meaning
    “Fouled Up Beyond All Repair”
    although the first word can be replaced with other past passive participles beginning with the letter ‘F’ as desired.
    The religious, I suppose, can replace the last word with Redemption.)

    At least HuffPo does not use Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” as a slogan. Their actual slogan is “Inform • Inspire • Entertain • Empower”.

    I give HuffPo 1.75 out of 4 (1/2 on Inform, 1/4 on Inspire, 1 on Entertain, and 0 on Empower).

    I give Fox 0 out of 2.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted September 27, 2016 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

      I think the superlative is FUBB – Fouled Up Beyond Belief.



  7. Stephen Barnard
    Posted September 27, 2016 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    I prefer Talking Points Memo, Politico, and Slate (in that genre of political web-based publishing).

  8. Phil Rounds
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    I don’t always agree with the Huff Post….

    (insert Jonathan Goldsmith pic here)

    ….but when i do, it’s about Donald Trump

  9. colnago80
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    How about Howard Dean’s speculation that the Donald is on nose candy?

  10. sponge bob
    Posted September 28, 2016 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I thought the debate was quite entertaining.

%d bloggers like this: