The Huffington Post, like all newspapers, has to decide what stories it wants to run and what stories it doesn't want to run. The HP has many newspaper sources, such as Al Jazeera, the AP, the NYTimes, the Guardian, etc., and literally hundreds of bloggers whose work it publishes. Even though the bloggers only post their personal opinions, the HP's choice of which opinions to publish still reflects on the HP.
I say this because this week, the HP's editorial decisions when it comes to Israel has really been questionable. Let's take a look at what articles the HP published.
The Settlement Freeze/NonFreeze
The HP first published an article about the settlement freeze about to end. Then it published one about the settlement freeze ending. Then it published not one but two articles about entities condemning Israel for ending the freeze, one about Obama and another about the US government. That's four, count them, four, articles about the settlement freeze, which is admittedly big news but maybe not worthy of four articles in the space of three days.
Nobel Laureate Barred Entry
Zach mentioned this story yesterday but I just wanted to point out this minor story received two articles, the blog post by Maya and a news story. Double coverage because some lady couldn't get into Israel? Even Noam Chomsky's encounter with the border guard only got one article.
Segregated Sidewalks
Apparently, the Israeli court ruled against segregated sidewalks in Jerusalem, which had been put there by the religious authority.
Now, let's see what articles the HP chose not to cover.
Israeli Arabs accused of recruiting for Hamas.
Three members of Islamic Jihad were killed by Israel
Two Israelis shot at by Palestinians, one a pregnant mother.
Now, what do the articles covered by the HP all have in common? That's right, they all make Israel look bad. Building homes, barring people's entry, segregated sidewalks? What a despicable country! And what do all the articles not covered have in common? That's right, they make Israel seem like a a victim of Arab violence or planned violence. It's no wonder the HP chose to cover the former stories over the latter, it doesn't fit their agenda to make Israel into the victim, that's reserved exclusively for the Palestinians.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
4 comments:
Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. Comments that do so will get deleted on sight. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You nailed it guys. I have a more expansive accounting of this coming up in a few days, but I don't think anything on Huff-Watch or anywhere else has ever summarized what HuffPost does, so well.
ReplyDeleteThey've repeatedly claimed to be nonpartisan, but as the saying goes, their actions speak so loud I can no longer hear what they say.
"Now, what do the articles covered by the HP all have in common?"
ReplyDeleteAside from the typical Anti-Israel schpiel......
the idiot poster Randy Rangoonanan who thinks he knows more about
Jews and Israel than Jews and Israel.
You do know Israel is a racist, evil and nazi-like state.
ReplyDeleteWith that kind of filtering, you're not going to see Israel's positive side.
With the worldview I described, the latter might as well not exist.
Is that what we see on the HP?
You bet.
This is all a reflection of how Arianna Huffington see's the conflict. She see's it as clearly a black and white issue: oppressor vs oppressed, evil vs innocence, all mighty vs the weak and destitute. She's aware of the criticism of her site but she can do what she likes it her site, in part thanks to marrying her rich ex Mr. Huffington. I don't believe she views the blogs as antisemitic. To her its all about occupation by Israel, and that's it.
ReplyDelete