HuffPo fails to correct erroneous post on hijab-cutting

Three days ago I highlighted HuffPo‘s article on a Canadian Muslim girl’s complaint that she was attacked by a man (twice) who cut up her hijab with scissors. Here’s the article (click on screenshot):


As I noted at the time, this report turned out to be false: the girl admitted she made up the story. One would think, then, that HuffPo would correct this story, or at least add a note that it was false. But it hadn’t done when I made this comment on February 16.

It’s been three more days, and while the site has reported elsewhere that the girl’s story was false, do you think HuffPo revisited the original report to either correct it or link to the followup?

Don’t make me laugh. It’s HuffPo, Jake!

18 Comments

  1. Joseph Stans
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Huffpo ceased to be serious site some time ago.Probably before Ariana left.

  2. Barry Lyons
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    HuffPost is in turnaround mode, for the better. It used to accept all sorts of pieces from all sorts of people, which no doubt accounted for much of its daffy “reporting” and essays, but according to today’s New York Times, that period has now come to a close:

    • Richard Sanderson
      Posted January 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure HuffPost will suddenly find its liberal, progressive feet.

      Its regressive journalists and contributors will still be regressive, paid or unpaid.

      Guardian contributors and journos as most certainly paid, and yet, everyday, there is a new piece of post-modernist tripe.

  3. Michael Fisher
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    I read the other day in the NYT that HuffPo will dump its unpaid contributors program — “to improve the editorial quality of the news site and cut down on unvetted reporting.”

    According to VARIETY :-

    HuffPost’s blogger network has ballooned to some 100,000 contributors. The decision to end the program by the Verizon-owned site comes under editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen, who joined in December 2016 after more than a decade at the New York Times.

    “Open platforms that once seemed radically democratizing now threaten, with the tsunami of false information we all face daily, to undermine democracy,” Polgreen wrote in a blog post Thursday. “When everyone has a megaphone, no one can be heard.”

    I have no idea how they’ll be able to afford only paid & fact-checked content – perhaps they’ll escalate their tendency to aggregate content from other sources – sources that have done all the donkey work…

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted January 19, 2018 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      Snap! Barry Lyons 🙂

  4. Martin Levin
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I’m wondering,in fact, hoping, that the girl’s story is a semi-conscious effort to rid herself of the hijab. That is, if someone else cuts it off, then she cannot be guilty of wishing it away. She may also hope that her family sees her wearing of the hijab as an invitation to bigots and allows her to shuck it.

    • Max Blancke
      Posted January 19, 2018 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

      I have read several articles conjecting the reasons for all the hijab hate crime fakery. Most of it seems to revolve around the young women’s being forced to wear a modesty sack while living in a culture where female sexuality and beauty are very much out in the open. It has to be pretty conflicting.

  5. Richard Sanderson
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    BTW, without checking, I’m fairly certain the DuffPo recently published an article saying “we” (presumably that the Canadian public) need to “apologise” to the girl.

    Not sure why. I didn’t bother read it.

  6. Taz
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see Prof. Coyne’s comment on that site.

    • Posted January 19, 2018 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      It’s there: click on the “balloon” icon at the bottom of the left-hand column to make the comments visible.

  7. gary yane
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    I,for one, am tired of all these huffpo posts. Why are you wasting your time on this? I don’t read huffpo or the National Enquirer, unless I’m in the checkout lane and it’s a story about aliens(the outerpace kind)and I don’t think any other remotely serious person does either. I do apologize, if I broke the rulz.

    • Posted January 19, 2018 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

      Yep, you did. Frankly, I don’t care whether you want to read these posts or not.
      I’ve explained why I post so much about HuffPo. Time for you to find another site.

      • Posted January 20, 2018 at 11:32 am | Permalink

        I sure am tire of all those cat posts – besides, I am allergic to cats! JAC – before you banish me, that was said as a sarcastic commentary on those who would presumptuously tell you what or what not to write about. As noted, corrections of errors are always welcome, and I would note, along with Travis, that February 16 likely should be January 16.

  8. Chris Boyle
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    It seems that Reuters provided the article and the “did not happen” article. Both “news” organizations have left the original up with no note that subsequent events call the original into question.

    Reuters links:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-crime-hijab/canadian-police-search-for-man-who-cut-11-year-old-girls-hijab-idUSKBN1F12F4

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-crime-hijab/attack-on-child-wearing-hijab-did-not-happen-canadian-police-say-idUSKBN1F42JI

    • Posted January 19, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

      Yep, both HuffPo and Reuters are at fault here, but I never saw the article on the Reuters page.

  9. Travis
    Posted January 19, 2018 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Feb 16th wasn’t 3 days ago 😉

  10. jahigginbotham
    Posted January 20, 2018 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    There is a comment on the original story stating that it is false. Also there is a separate article stating the same thing. So the information is there for the reader.
    I would have corrected the original story, but it may not be appropriate for me to suggest how others should present their material.

  11. Jonathan Dore
    Posted January 20, 2018 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    I can’t see Jerry’s comment either. The only options I get for which comments to see are “Top”, “Oldest”, and “Newest”. Remarkably, all three criteria managed to exclude Jerry’s comment (apparently there are only 9 comments altogether, so that is quite a feat). One wonders why they don’t simply have an option to view “All” comments …


%d bloggers like this: