Slanted Shit..Huff Post..Sucks..worse..

[Stuart G]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Eight Pictures of Romney..Three of Obama, none alone of Obama..
Six of Romney alone...
...count them yourself..I am sure it is the same over most of the media..


More than 40 years ago, I recall reading about the coverage of Eisenhower vs Stevanson in 1956..Someone did a study and then, at the New York Times, after the author did all kinds of comparisons, said it was over two months almost the same..placement of picutres..size, column inches...etc.

Fuck the Huff Post..and most of the Mainstream Media..

hugs for DU ...
at least we don't claim to be fair....

No more reports on Huff Post..assholes...AOL.
done..

[TroyD]

1. At least Eisenhower was a moderate Republican

He was very popular with Democrats.

My 90-year old grandmother remembers Eisenhower well.

Would be considered a liberal today.

Even had the guts to call out the military-industrial complex when he retired in January 1961

[NCLefty]

2. HP is a gossip rag/tabloid.

And you'll never convince me it's anything but when you look at the teaser headlines they use on the front page to get you to click on stories. "So-and-so's SHOCKING statement!"... click-through... statement not the slightest bit shocking. Half the time what the teaser seems to allege was done wasn't done at all once you look at the story!

If you have to trick people into clicking (for ad revenue, of course) then you aren't being honest, and you can't really be a credible source of actual news.

*hrmph*

[mshasta]

3. yes but all of them

talking shit about romney ..

[Stuart G]

4. That may be true, but the pictures were clear and attractive..

Many people come to look at the pictures only, to get a short sample of whta is going on. Now, all those are gone..A few days ago, there was an awful picture of Elizabet Warren. The story was postive about her, but the picture was very ugly. The point was that the intitial impression was very poor. And they kept that picture up for 3 days. AOL owns it, and will slant that site the way it want to.
If it can con people into thinking it is progresive, or fair..good. I do not thinkthat AOL has my best interest in its corporate goals.It is really a sensational rag.....

How many half naked stories about women showing too much and celebraties has it had on the front page?. It is a rag, disguising itself as a progressive moderate site. For the 300 million they gave to Huffington, the owners can go to hell....