HuffPost circling the drain

May 10, 2019 • 1:30 pm

Call me a bad person and shoot me, but what I found today affords me some true Schadenfreude. Here’s the traffic at HuffPost over the last six months as reported by SimilarWeb.

It looks as if views (monthly ones?) have dropped from 120 million to about 12 million, a decrease of about 90%, and the average time spent on the site is a scant 47 seconds. I guess people have gotten tired of their opinions masquerading as news, ads masquerading as news, and their effusive love of Chrissie Teigen, the Royals, Samantha Bee, AOC, and the site’s relentless obsession with identity politics and ideological purity.

Does this mean that Social Justice Warriorism is dead? I doubt it, but maybe people are sick a purely one-sided view of politics. HuffPo, after all, is the Breitbart of the Left.

Read and grin:



Desperate to retain readers and clicks, the site has started a new feature, HuffPost Plus, where you pay good money but get nothing except special newsletters. Nobody’s been fooled by this, judging from the vitriolic reader comments when the “offer” was first made.

Yes, I’m a bad person. As Hitchens said of Jerry Falwell, if you gave them an enema they could be buried in a matchbox.

Is “deadnaming” always an egregious sin?

April 12, 2019 • 11:30 am

“Deadnaming” is the use of the pre-transformation name of someone who has transitioned between genders. So, for example, referring to “Bruce Jenner” in an article about “Caitlyn Jenner” is a case of deadnaming.

My view on this practice is that it’s respectful to use the name a person chooses after they’ve transitioned, but it’s not an egregious sin to use their former name if it’s relevant. In some articles about Caitlyn Jenner it might be, for example when you’re giving biographical details about her. If you’re going to note that Jenner is a trans woman, which is usually fine if it adds information, why is it horrible to say that Jenner was formerly the decathlon champion Bruce Jenner?  In fact, that’s what Wikipedia does. It gives her bio article the title of her present name, but also gives the birth name:

And since being trans is an integral part of the identity of many trans people—something that they themselves mention—I don’t see much wrong with using the former name as an indication of that. What I see as demeaning is referring to the person solely by their former name without any indication that it’s been changed, which denies or mocks their own choice. Yet there are few sins worse than deadnaming in the Authoritarian Left community.

HuffPo (of course), also sees deadnaming as a horrible thing to do under any circumstances, and in this article about Chelsea Manning gives us a little lecture about deadnaming. It doesn’t help that it was Fox News that performed the despiséd act (click on screenshot):

Here’s the sin:

Fox News correspondent Greg Palkot referred to Chelsea Manning twice on Thursday by the name the convicted government leaker and transgender activist used prior to her gender confirmation.

To be fair, the correspondent, referring to Manning in both instances, says “at that time Bradley Manning”, meaning that Chelsea Manning went by another name during the Wikileaks fracas. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on Manning gives her birth name:

It’s not irrelevant to the story that Chelsea Manning was once Bradley Manning, as the news back then used the name, and if you want to find out what Manning did when he identified as male, you have to Google the former name. Also, Manning didn’t announce her gender preference until 2013, several years after she leaked information as an identified-as-male soldier in the U.S. Army. In other words, the crimes for which she was convicted and imprisoned (and now she’s back in jail) were committed when she used another name and served as a male soldier.

HuffPo can’t resist giving us a little lecture at the end of what is supposedly a news piece, mostly about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks:

Deadnaming is problematic because it can feel invalidating and disrespectful to the person it’s being done to, according to Pink News. 

“Essentially, it highlights that they’re not supported in their transition process, whether it’s before, during or after,” says the publication, which stresses that many people don’t realize the “depth of emotion” linked to a trans person’s identity.

Twitter banned deadnaming in 2018.

“We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals,” Twitter said in a revised iteration of its hateful conduct policy.

As Parker Molloy wrote in The New York Times, Twitter’s move “represented a recognition that our identity is an accepted fact and that to suggest otherwise is a slur.”

To make sure you never deadname a trans person, ask the person what they would like to be called, refer to them by their new name even when they’re not nearby, and correct others who deadname.

It seems to me that there shouldn’t be a blanket ban on deadnaming so long as you identify the person’s present name along with the past one, and have a good reason for using the former name. It is not “erasing” somebody, as the New York Times article argues, to say that they have transitioned and once went by another name. It’s not erasing Muhammad Ali to say that he once was known as Cassius Clay.

What constitutes “erasure” is to use a person’s pre-transition name alone, or to use the present one in a mocking fashion. And, I suppose, it’s bad form to use a former name if someone has transitioned and wants to keep it a secret. But that isn’t the case for most transsexual people—as far as I know.

Huffpo “news” = ads

March 14, 2019 • 3:00 pm

Here’s yesterday’s “latest news” from HuffPo. I emphasize again that I read the site not for pleasure (it’s like going to the dentist), but to keep up with what “woke” opinion is saying. I also read the Daily Wire for right-wing takes, and sometimes look at Breitbart, though I can’t stay there long lest I get ill. I also look at Slate and Salon, which fatigue me, Everyday Feminism (for the Woke Woman), The College Fix for a right-wing take on campus shenanigans that the Left won’t cover, and, of course, the New York Times. I don’t know if that’s a balanced scan of the news, but I don’t have time to do much else. I stopped my subscription to The New Yorker after David Remnick became an invertebrate, and in the evening I read books.

Increasingly HuffPost, which I hate with the heat of a thousand suns, is pretending that ads are “news”. Here’s what I found yesterday.

Four of the six “news items” were actually ads from which HuffPo profited, with a teeny little note in each item:

Call me old fashioned, but I see that as duplicitous, especially because they put these ads under “latest news.”

I couldn’t stand it any more, God help me (he won’t), and against my better judgment I commented. Someone even supported me!

However, given HuffPo’s traffic lately, it may not be around much longer, and I won’t mourn it (I guess there’s only so long readers can sustain multifarious outrage). But what can I replace it with? Salon?


John Lewis’s Christmas ad with Elton John, and some stupid pushback from HuffPo

November 15, 2018 • 1:31 pm

John Lewis & Partners have put out their annual Christmas ad, and this one with Elton John is, as the kids say, “epic”. The obvious point is that a gift you give to a child can make an immense difference in its life. But the way it’s done is poignant, and also features my favorite of all Elton John songs: “Your Song“, written by John and Bernie Taupin and released in 1970. (It’s #137 on Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.) Have a look at the two minute commercial, and see if you don’t like it.

So who could possibly object to this lovely Christmas vignette? HuffPo, of course:

The tactic here, as always in that reprehensible rag, is to use some dissent on Twitter, which you can always find, to push HuffPo’s own views, and then pretend it’s not the magazine’s opinion.  Why don’t they like the ad? Get this:

Many people on Twitter said the ad ― titled “The Boy And The Piano” and set  to John’s ’70s classic “Your Song” ― was “fantastic,” with one person praising its “endearing message.”

Others, however, said the promo that cost around $8.6 million and uses actors to depict various stages of John’s life was a “shameless plug” for John’s final Farewell Yellow Brick Road tour, which kicked off in September, and the upcoming 2019 “Rocketman” biopic movie of his life.

You know, I don’t fricking care what “Twitter” thinks, because no matter what opinion you seek, however odious, you’ll find it there. As for the ad’s cost, well, John Lewis can spend its money however it likes, and 8.6 million is small potatoes when you think of what it costs to make a movie. And I bet most Tweeters liked it, but HuffPo chose to headline the Scrooges. You might as well write about evolution with the headline “Darwin’s ideas miss the mark for many.”

As for me, I love the commercial, which almost makes me tear up at the end.

h/t: Grania


American professor: “White crime dramas” are a sign of racism. So are black and Hispanic crime dramas

October 2, 2018 • 9:30 am

I really should stop looking at HuffPo, as it’s simply the Left’s version of Breitbart: a tendentious and often ridiculously slanted look at politics. Both sites anger me. If you know what subject a HuffPo article is about, you already know what it’s going to say. Or, at least, you know what line they’re going to take, as the article below surprised even me with its stupid thesis. Click on the screenshot if you must see the carnage:

This article is not written by a gung-ho Leftist college student but—and I guess it’s no surprise—by a gung-ho Leftist academic: Jessie Daniels, a sociology professor at Hunter College and the City University of New York.

Her thesis is clear, and amounts to a lot of virtue signaling by the good professor, as she simply has no solution for the “problematic” issue she raises. Her claim is that our fascination with “white crime dramas” like “Ozark”, “Weeds,” or “Breaking Bad” reflects racism. How? Because, as racists, we don’t expect white families to be engaged in crime, so our attention to these kinds of television shows reflects the overturning of our expectations. Of course, black and Hispanic “crime dramas” are also racist, as they fulfill our expectations of the criminality of people of color. In other words, you can’t win, for every crime drama is racist, no matter who it portrays.

Her thesis:

a.) White crime dramas are popular because they overturn racist expectations of how white people should behave. I quote:

In all of these shows, part of the drama and the comedy and the surprise depends on these families being white. Their whiteness is largely not discussed. But the juxtaposition between what audiences expect from these moms and dads and kids ― innocence and stability ― and what we see characters doing ― committing crimes and trying not to fall apart ― is intrinsic to the programs’ appeal.

White crime family dramas actually rest on the subversion of two expectations. The first is the widely held belief (at least among white people) about the inherent wholesomeness of white families, and the second is the false notion (again most popular among white people) that criminals are almost always individuals of some color other than white. [JAC: That last sentence is pure bullshit, I must say.]

Is there any truth in this? Well, I’ll admit that, for some, part of the suspense of a show could be the juxtaposition of a “normal” family with their life of crime. But that might not have anything to do with the families being white; it might have more to do with their middle-class status jarring with what they do on the side. It would also startle us if there was a “double” television show (à la Hannah Montana) in which Bill Cosby’s television family did the comedy show on one side but then dealt drugs on the other. (Bill Cosby isn’t white, of course.) Or perhaps 5% of our interest could come from the expectation that Daniels notes. But what is the evidence? There is none, just anecdote and assertion. I don’t watch much t.v., but I’m sure readers can produce counter-anecdotes.

After all, there’s a whole history of crime dramas that I find it impossible to characterize as subverting expectations that white people shouldn’t do crime. Take The Godfather trilogy, for example. Did anybody like it, or watch it, partly because they thought, “Jesus, the Corleone family is white! How odd that they’re in the Mafia.”?

I’m somewhat handicapped here because I don’t watch television except for the nightly news and “60 Minutes”, and don’t get cable. But I remember plenty of crime dramas in the old days, like Hill Street Blues, in which whites and nonwhites both committed crimes, and my absorption was with the story, not with the race of the criminal. And, of course, although racism was more pervasive before the Sixties, the crime dramas before then, like Dragnet, were popular not because they subverted expectations, but because of the story. There were almost no black people on television then, and I can’t imagine that Dragnet was popular because it overturned our expectations about whites. (One can also think of the popularity of the Bogart crime dramas, which had white offenders.)

I’m sure I have a lot of readers with cable who watch crime dramas, so please weigh in below.

b.) Some of the racism that motivates our watching these dramas is their concern with the family. I quote Dr. Daniels:

Together, Wendy and Marty are clear about what motivates their life of crime: It is always “for the family.” When Wendy tells Marty she bought a house so they can launder money through construction costs, she says she feels good about it because she “did it for our family.”

Then, she asks Marty, “What’d you do today ― for our family?”

“Bought a strip club,” he replies.

In “Ozark,” as in other white crime family dramas, the characters manage to justify every horrendous deed ― even murder ― because it was done “for the family.” These are anti-heroes, to be sure, but their moral and ethical dilemmas are meant to be sympathetic, because who among us wouldn’t do everything possible for our family? If the audience wants to think these felons-in-the-making are not as bad as the “real criminals,” the show gives them some room to do so.

Again, I doubt it is the case—though The Godfather involves “the family” a lot, but not in the way described above—that white crime dramas invariably involve families, and that’s to make them more sympathetic. Perhaps this is true to some degree, but Daniels doesn’t make the case that this involves racism and whiteness. She merely quotes anecdotes because, in the end, this is not about fixing racism (Daniels has no solution), but about the author showing how virtuous she is.

c.) Even showing white families engaged in crime somehow buttresses racism. This part of the article escapes me, but I think what Daniels is saying is that these dramas gives a false picture of crime because they portray the white criminals as more “wholesome” than blacks or Hispanics. That, at least, is what I glean from this bit.

The reality is that white families are no more or less wholesome than any other families. A majority of most violent crimes against white people are committed by other white people, and white people are far more likely to commit white collar crime.

Well, I’ll accept Daniel’s data here, but what she doesn’t point out—surely deliberately—is that blacks commit violent crimes far more often, compared to their proportion in the population, than do whites. This is well known, and I’m not for a minute imputing it to anything inherent in being black. In fact, I think it represents the residuum of racism, with blacks being put into living situations, including dire poverty, that can promote criminal behavior. But it can’t be denied that there’s a disproportionality. As one website notes,

It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white. Homicide is a broader category than “murder” but let’s not split hairs.

. . . What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

Clearly, these figures are problematic. We’re talking about arrests not convictions, and high black arrest rates could be taken as evidence that the police are racist.

But academics have noted that the proportion of black suspects arrested by the police tends to match closely the proportion of offenders identified as black by victims in the National Crime Victimization Survey.

This doesn’t support the idea that the police are unfairly discriminating against the black population when they make arrests.

I don’t think that this means that black families are less wholesome than any other families. The crime could, for example, reflect the higher proportion of black families that have just one parent. I simply point out that the tendentious Daniels is being very selective in citing her statistics.

What is to be done? If the popularity of white crime dramas reflects racism, and the popularity of black crime dramas also reflects racism, as Daniels suggests below, what can we do? It’s not to show more crime dramas involving people of color:

One could argue that we need racial and ethnic diversity in the representation of crime families. Writing more criminals who are black, Latinx or Asian would only reinforce existing stereotypes about race and crime, and we have plenty of shows doing that already.

The stories we tell ourselves matter, even when they come in the form of middling shows like “Ozark.” When stories about white crime families rest on ideas about the supposed goodness of white people, they reinforce a whole apparatus of assumptions, benefits of the doubt and second chances afforded to white people who cheat, steal, rape or kill someone.

You can’t show more black crime dramas, and you can’t eliminate white crime dramas, as that would suggest that white people don’t do crime. Nor should we show more white crime dramas, as those dramas simply reinforce racism. Are we then supposed to eliminate all crime dramas? Daniels doesn’t say. I suppose one could suggest we show white crime dramas that don’t show seemingly wholesome white people, but I don’t think that would work, either, as The Godfather attests.

In the end, Daniel’s misguided essay does nothing to eliminate the problem of racism. But, as I said, that’s not why she wrote it. She wrote it to signal her virtue by crying that racism is everywhere. Well, fine, but where is her solution?

Oh, and at the end of her essay, Daniels can’t resist taking a wholly gratuitous lick at Donald Trump and his family. This has nothing to do with her essay; it’s just another flag she runs up to show her virtue. I quote:

Those set of assumptions that animate “Ozark” are also the same ones that have enabled the white crime family that’s currently installed in the White House.

I don’t think so. And neither do a lot of commenters on the piece, who say stuff like this:


There’s hope for America yet.

Samantha Bee puts her foot in it—as does HuffPo

June 2, 2018 • 11:45 am

I’ve never been a fan of Samantha Bee. I don’t find her funny, and she’s a one-note Social Justice Warrior comedian, whose real schtick is dissing Donald Trump. Her fervor seems faux, too. Now Bill Maher does a lot of Trump-dissing as well, but somehow he seems a lot funner than Bee (for one thing, his delivery is more low-key, clever, and wry). Plus, to HuffPo, which I abhor, Samantha Bee is a recurring hero and leitmotif in their instantiation of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Fortunately, I don’t even get the channel Bee’s on, and don’t watch much t.v. anyway. But this week she was all over the news for going off on Ivanka Trump on her “comedy” show “Full Frontal”. In particular, she used the words “feckless cunt” to refer to Ivanka, whose innocuous tweet, below, I wrote about the other day.

HuffPo went off on that tweet with a post (below) about how Twitter reminded Ivanka, in view of the post, of the “missing migrant kids.” Well, Ivanka doesn’t make immigration policy, and it’s simply rude to go after her for such a tweet, especially when the “missing migrant kids” weren’t her father’s fault, but kids who had arrived alone at the border, were placed into custody by Health and Human Services, and whose sponsors didn’t answer attempts to contact them. They were not “ripped from their parents”, either.

This was HuffPo’s article a short while back (click on all screenshots in this post to go to the original articles):

“Twitter”, of course, is not a monolithic person, but a social media site from which HuffPo culls the anti-Trump tweets it wants, and then reports these as if they represent a uniform American reaction. It’s a lazy and even duplicitous way of reporting.

Well, I have no use for HuffPo, but I’m more distressed at the people who went after Trump’s daughter for an innocuous tweet. We on the Left should be better than this: we should not totally demonize someone just because she’s Trump’s daughter, nor damn her for not influencing her dad’s immigration policy. It’s this kind of overreaction that makes us look ridiculous, and gives ammunition to the Right. There’s simply too much demonization from both Right and Left, and a lack of forgiveness, but it’s especially galling coming from our side.

But Samantha Bee couldn’t stay away from the issue, either. Referencing the very same Ivanka tweet, she ranted on this week’s show about the immigration issue, calling Ivanka a “feckless cunt”. The video has been taken down, but you can hear the relevant bit by clicking on the CNN link below:

Here’s the transcript from

 “Ivanka Trump, who works at the White House, chose to post the second-most oblivious tweet we’ve seen this week,” Bee says with Roseanne reference No. 2. “You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child, but let me just say, one mother to another: Do something about your dad’s immigration practices, you feckless cunt! He listens to you! Put on something tight and low-cut and tell your father to fuckin’ stop it.”

HuffPo then wrote about Bee’s tirade, but did so approvingly, repeating the erroneous claim that “the administration has lost track of hundreds of children who were separated from their parents and placed in foster care.” (They didn’t correct that one; the kids were not separated from their parents):

But then the pushback against Bee came, and not just from rightists. She was called out by Chelsea Clinton, Sally Field, and CNN’s Poppy Harlow, among others, who said Bee’s rant was offensive and over the line. Bee apologized (insincerely, I think, given that she said later her show had been preoccupied with a single word when it should have been dealing with immigration).

I’m not going to call for Bee’s firing, as some have done, and I’m not going to compare her case to that off Roseanne Barr, who was fired from her popular t.v. show for racist tweets. The cases bear some similarities, but also differ in many ways. In Bee’s case, I think that taking away someone’s livelihood for an ill-considered remark is going too far, though that’s the way of the world these days. (The “feckless cunt” remark was not off-the-cuff, by the way, but scripted and approved by the show). I’m sure Bee will be a bit more careful now, and may stay away from Trump’s family a bit more.

But the Way of the Regressive Left is to never apologize, but always deflect. And so we now get this whataboutery from HuffPo, which misses the point entirely:

The point is that Ivanka isn’t making immigration policy, and her father is, and that policy is not good. HuffPo has devoted hundreds of articles to it, but it can’t resist using BeeGate to get one more hit at her father:

But bickering over semantics misses a more urgent moral contradiction: Bee was name-calling. Trump was bragging about sexual assault.

Yes, Bee’s use of the word on her show was juvenile. And as Erin Gloria Ryan noted in The Daily Beast, it distracted from Bee’s larger point ― that Ivanka Trump could be doing a lot more to help keep immigrant kids from being separated from their parents.

But Trump’s remarks, captured while filming an episode of “Access Hollywood” in 2005, weren’t merely a verbal attack. He was bragging about violating not one, but multiple women, arguing his fame made it permissible. And the words weren’t just “locker-room talk” ― more than 20 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.

Trump’s comments are backed by the weight of his actions and the damage he’s inflicted upon women he “moved on” without their consent. Women like Mindy McGillivray, Karena Virginia and Ninni Laaksonen, who all claim Trump has groped them.

Or women like Jessica Drake, Temple Taggart McDowell, Jennifer Murphy, Natasha Stoynoff and Cathy Heller, who all claim Trump kissed them without their consent. Or Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump’s show “The Apprentice” who said Trump not only forcibly kissed her on the mouth, but also thrusted his genitals at her.

Yes, we know: HuffPo has told us a gazillion times. But what we should remember is that we can call out the bad behavior of our worst President without going after his family, or calling his daughter a “feckless cunt” because she tweeted a picture of her and her child. We are better than that—or should be.

The real “person” who should be fired is HuffPo, which practices whataboutery all the time, and not in trivial ways. For example, they could use this headline:


But you’ll never see that on the site.

Huff post pretends that ads are articles

April 30, 2018 • 10:30 am

I hate HuffPo with the blazing heat of a million white-hot suns. Well, maybe not that much, but I really do despise its predictable Authoritarian Leftism, ascribable to a new editor and a new editorial position. It’s become the left-wing Breitbart, but in one respect perhaps even worse: it has “articles” that are really ads, for, while purporting to tell you what to eat, what to buy, and what to visit, HuffPo is getting a cut from whatever recommendations they give that you spend money on. And you don’t know it if you don’t read the fine print.

For example, here’s an article that I, as a foodie, would have clicked on (click on all article screenshots to go to article):

One of those “best food cities” is Venice, and, like the rest of them, they recommend food tours, as in the following bit.

In Venice, there’s something tasty for everyone. Wine lovers might want to chow down on the spectacular wine and unique seafood dishes at al Covo, while pasta enthusiasts might prefer tucking into a dish of hearty bolognese at Ristorante Trattoria Cherubino. TripAdvisor’s most-booked food tour in the city is the Venice food tour: cicchetti and wine.

But if you click on the food tours, you go to one that TripAdvisor recommends. Well, okay, they’re using TripAdvisor as a source. But HuffPo also gets a cut if you book using the link, for this appears—at the very bottom of the page.

Here’s the direct link to the Venice food tour via Tripadvisor:

And the link via HuffPo, clearly identifying their cut, presumably in bold:  .  The prices don’t differ; HuffPo is just taking a cut.

Why don’t they just label the article “ad” at the top? It’s deceptive.

Likewise, here’s a travel ad, with a weak indication at the top that, well, there may be some money given to HuffPo by

The description:

If London’s a bit too far away for you to travel, venture to the city of Chicago for an all-out celebration of St. Patrick’s Day. Irish taverns are bustling, joyful people are singing and dancing in the street, and even the Chicago River sparkles a brilliant shade of emerald green. Families will love the vibrant and bustling Downtown St. Patrick’s Day Parade, full of colorful floats, marching bands and Irish dancers.

The exquisite Staypineapple at The Alise Chicago was designed by renowned architect Daniel Burnham, with beautiful mosaic floors and marble ceilings oozing luxury, class and style. Select suites offer stunning views of Millennium Park and Lake Michigan, and the hotel is ideally located for shopping on the famous Michigan Avenue. Guests can enjoy an onsite fitness center, yoga and a bicycle rental service to explore the beauty of Chicago. After a fun-packed day of celebrating St. Patrick’s Day, guests will love the adventurous and contemporary cuisine at the The Alise Chicago, open for breakfast, lunch and dinner and serving a selection of premium cocktails.

HuffPost Brand Forum is a paid program that allows companies to connect directly in their own words with HuffPost readers. For more information on Brand Forum, please contact

In this case, the link doesn’t give HuffPo a cut; just pays them to recommend hotels where gets a cut.

Here’s an item that you might want to buy; you don’t know HuffPo gets a cut until the bottom of the page:

Number 6 of the recommendations is the Ted Baker London Tailor Wool Duffel Bag, with this description and link:

This vintage-inspired Ted Baker bag is, uniquely, made of textured wool. It’s [SIC!!!] faux leather trim adds a touch that gives it the timeless look of another decade.

The link is (my emphasis):\&cm_mmc=Linkshare-_-partner-_-10-_-1&siteId=tv2R4u9rImY-XGt3DO8GDElvQjUZR_l3oQ, which clearly tells nordstrom to give HuffPo some of the money.  And at the bottom of the page you see this:

How can such an evaluation be “objective”? Clearly they’ll choose based on the willingness of the store to refund some of the dosh to HuffPo.

Finally, there’s this from the “wellness” section. (Whose “wellness” is being promoted?)

And number 1 in water bottles with filters:


The description?:

For under $15, the filter inside this BPA-free bottle filters as you drink to easily rehydrate at the office, a sporting event or on a day trip.

Amazon Reviews: 1,900
Average Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

“These have changed my life. I can go anywhere and all I need is a tap and I’ve got tasty (non-gross chlorinated tasting) water. I have two and might get a third.” – Amazon Reviewer

If you click on the link above, the URL is

And, sure enough:

I wouldn’t trust HuffPo’s articles on “the best stuff/food/places” if there’s any kind of indication that the site gets a remuneration from its recommendations. If you want Amazon recommendations, just put in a product like “water bottles” at the Amazon site and click on “highest rated” on the right. That way you can see the same evaluations without HuffPo getting your dosh. It’s also duplicitous to put the “we might get a cut of the money” notice at the bottom of the page, as you may click on—and order—a product before you see it.

I’m not sure Breitbart does anything like this, and it’s sneaky. It’s sneaky if anyone does it, but particularly sneaky, to my mind, when a left-wing site does it. You may say, “Well, everyone does it,” but to me that’s no excuse for duplicity. After all, at the top of New York Times pages that may be mistaken for news but are ads, they clearly say “ADVERTISEMENT.”

My one consolation is that traffic at HuffPo continues to drop as its contents become thinner and more predictable. I used to go there to look at food and travel posts, but now these are rarely renewed, and when they are they are often “kickback posts.”

Traffic data:

HuffPo fails to correct erroneous post on hijab-cutting

January 19, 2018 • 2:00 pm

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!