digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Howard Dean On Fox News: Coverage Is "Shockingly Biased"

huffingtonpost.com — During an appearance on Fox News Sunday this morning, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said that Fox's news coverage has at times been "shockingly biased, and I think that's wrong and I just say so right up front." Dean also said he agreed with the netroots campaign to boycott the Democratic debates on the network.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cg4et, on 05/05/2008, -23/+89It is only shocking to those who haven't given up any hope for an honest, intelligent, unbiased media.
    • GhostyBoy, on 05/05/2008, -12/+48Yeah, seriously. Mainstream media FAILS big time.

      I have been seriously studying media for about 15 years and it has gotten worse and worse.

      When the internet became an alternative source and gave people the ability to call MSM out on their B.S. it seemed like they actually amped up the ***** level.

      With thousands of alternative news sources now available instantly and for free the only thing MSM had going was their good name and their credibility. Decades have been spent by phenomenal journalists to establish these networks. I am still amazed (completely ***** awestruck) at how quickly they gave up both.
      • zenithmbr, on 05/05/2008, -22/+5if by 'seriously studying' you mean fapping it to HBO soft-core porn in your parents basement for the past 15 years, then i agree. afterall, you are only 27.
        • GhostyBoy, on 05/05/2008, -3/+16I'm interested in having a discussion with people on digg. Have an opinion? Offer it.

          Want to start a flame war? Not biting. Try here: MySpace.com
          • zenithmbr, on 05/05/2008, -9/+4I'm just curious what your 'serious study' of the media entailed when you were 12 years old, watching fresh-prince?
          • GhostyBoy, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6I started with the music from that time period.

            When I was around 12 or 13 there was all this music that took a very jaded and cautious perspective towards the media . Think KMFDM, Nine Inch Nails, Pearl Jam, Nirvana...even Guns'n'Roses had 'Get in the Ring" where they ripped the music media a new one.

            But Frank Zappa got me with this track here: http://www.ocap.ca/songs/imthesli.html

            It's called I'm the slime and it's a major diss to television. So I started trying to look at television and radio with a critical eye. It has a profound effect on our society and it's important to understand how it works.

            From there I began reading guys like Noam Chomsky, Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, George Orwell, and taking any media related classes that my school would offer. And I even watched a few episodes of the Fresh Prince for good measure.

            Television wouldn't exist without advertising dollars, and advertising dollars wouldn't exist if it didn't work. Mass media exists *because* it can alter the publics opinion to the benefit of a corporation or an individual.

            Think blatant propaganda doesn't affect us to this day? Hell yes it does. Look at those "Reefer Madness" movies from the 30's. Absolutely silly and ridiculous by our standards, but the fact remains that this was the initial propaganda push that sparked anti-marijuana legislation that still exists today, regardless of how flawed or ill-advised it is.

            So yeah, maybe started being interested in media studies around 13, and yeah I know my *****. If you want to debate my opinion or attack my point go ahead. Just please don't try and split hairs about ***** with me.
          • zenithmbr, on 05/05/2008, -6/+1crap, you saw reefer madness?? you win, continue posting as an expert and a child prodigy.
        • jcm267, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. If he's "fapping it" to cable porn he'd be watching Cinemax, Showtime, or TMC.
          • zenithmbr, on 05/05/2008, -5/+3you've never watched HBO before, have you?
          • jcm267, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6Real Sex and that show about the brothel don't count as softcore porn, Zenith. Cinemax, Showtime, and TMC are where it's at.
          • zenithmbr, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2sigh, whatever you say... i'll happily concede that i don't know which channel has the best softcore porn.
          • jcm267, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4And I'll happily boast that I do know. HBO's isn't even worth watching.
      • pixelate, on 05/05/2008, -5/+9The tragedy here is that we now refer to Fox News as part of the 'mainstream media' without cracking up.
      • DeathfireD, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"When the internet became an alternative source and gave people the ability to call MSM out on their B.S. it seemed like they actually amped up the ***** level."
        They do it for ratings now. They know people will watch just because of the fact that the stuff they show is plainly biased. Hell they even have talk shows with hosts that are "in your face I wanna slap you" biased.
    • eth3l, on 05/05/2008, -7/+9THe Huffington Post has won awards for it objectivity.
    • lickmylovepump, on 05/05/2008, -11/+4What a HUGE news story!! Who would have thought! Fox News? I just always thought that they were 'fair and balanced' because they always said so! Are you sure this isn't a theonion.com article? Whew, that Howard Dean just blew the lid of a HUGE secret!! I wonder if those other news stations have any HUGE secrets up their sleeves?
    • bitweever, on 05/05/2008, -11/+15Tell me NPR isn't biased. I've been listening for years, and have yet to hear any Pro-GOP remarks. I still listen, but only with the knowledge that it IS biased. I take everything I hear on there with a grain of salt.
      • elipabst, on 05/05/2008, -6/+9There are definitely some liberal-leaning segments, but I think overall it's pretty fair. In fact I just recently saw some study about how NPR has now swung to be on the conservative side of the spectrum compared to 10 years ago. I guess it's an eye of the beholder type thing. I'm sure there are people out there that are shocked that someone would consider Fox to be biased.
        • Bhima, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4NPR is fairly balanced from a wider perspective. From an American Neo-Con (or the recently Libertarian) perspective it's apparently not. I've heard various complaints on this issue. This isn't so much of an observation of NPR as it is of bombastic speech and warped world view that is so prevalent in the US today
          • Digger1123, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Well, if you dont think NPR is biased, go over and watch NBC or CNN for a day. They are more bias towards the liberals in a day than Fox is towards the Conservatives in a month.
          • bpoteat, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4Prove it digger. Just this morning on the freakin' Today show, fluff-piece haven that it is, both interviewers laid pretty hard into Hillary and Obama while two weeks ago they had Laura & Jenna Bush as guest hosts. Do you really think Fox would ever have ANY family members of democrats on at any time without drilling them about their relatives? You can spout how NBC and CNN are more biased than Fox but nobody is buying it. Fox is a joke.
      • dn11, on 05/05/2008, -5/+17I've heard plenty of conservatives get air time on NPR - and unlike fox the interviewers aren't confrontational about it. NPR no doubt leans left philosophically as do it's listeners, but there is no comparison to Fox News. Fox is pure propaganda. It tells it's viewers "you decide" while using what I consider brain washing and manipulation tactics on them to stir up fear and outrage at every turn. Whatever you might say about NPR, they certainly aren't over the top.
        • bitweever, on 05/05/2008, -5/+5I've heard them "give airtime" to conservatives, but the most recent example that I can think of is when they had ultra-right wingers on there (whoever the radio guy was that kept calling him "Barack Hussein Obama" on his show, for one), and kind of interviewed them as if they were in a fishbowl. It's subversive to more moderate conservatives which might actually have useful input.
          • dn11, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7I would direct you to this podcast: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ... in which controversial, politically divisive debates take place in long form with experts and intellectuals from both sides of the isle weighing in equally - to me it represents the tone I hear most often on NPR across the board. I'm not sure what you've been listening to, but when I hear conservatives on NPR, more often they tend to be moderate and come across with much more reasoned arguments than you will hear on AM radio.
          • bitweever, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Good to know. Seems like a good series. I mostly hear NPR on the way to/from work, so I hear Morning Edition and All Things Considered mostly.
          • novenator, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2The "liberal media" is a myth started by a core group of ultra conservatives in the 70s in an attempt to get their clearly biased side of the story on with equal footing to regular stories rooted in FACT. Its a shame how successful they were and how the myth took hold over the mass consciousness in America. Now we have news with neocon counterstories being represented as "fair and balanced", when in fact it is not. Try reading some international news to get a clearer idea of what real news can be like.
      • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -6/+10Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
        • keymanjim2, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1No. It's "Liberals only accept bias as reality."
      • Bilabrin, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5NPR is considered biased in that they don't prais Jesus or denounce gays. They are considered biased in that they present evolution without prefacing that it's just a "theory."

        Seriously the "liberal bias" that conservatives talk about is a codeword for "failure to push a religious agenda"....How dare they!
        • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3So true. This is why NPR listeners were 3 times as likely to know the facts about the invasion of Iraq than were the viewers of Fox News.
    • DarrylWatts, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Mainstream Media is a joke. It blows my mind to see what is broadcast versus what is really being said and felt by REAL Americans!

      Anything that is on TV and calls itself news is nothing more than whorish entertainment. WORD!
  • BabushkaBlue, on 05/05/2008, -20/+42I'm glad Dean said it. I wonder why Hillary didn't say it when she had the chance?
    • ahoy, on 05/05/2008, -12/+21because she was on fox badmouthing Obama for what Rev. Wright said with Bill "I cant believe black people can operate a restaurant" O'reilly
    • gl77, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4because she's a puppet?
    • DerangedPenguin, on 05/05/2008, -15/+4Because Hillary is not bright enough to make the observation. I am digging you, I am digging all Liberal-Fascist up, If they mention controlling the free press or controlling Big Oil or taxing the producers and paying the non-producers with those taxes I want to public to see the Liberal-Fascist ideologies.
      • bosko1983, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2you do realize that fascist are the complete opposite of liberal, right? I'm trying to figure out if your comment is a joke or what... but fascism is a right wing ideology, you would've been more correct if you said Marxist, socialist, communist, or anything other than fascist.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 05/05/2008, -10/+8All Dean is missing now is the ball nose and the big, red, floppy shoes.
    • Atlatal, on 05/05/2008, -11/+5Dean is a lying piece of *****!
      • hittnrun, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3If you had seen him yesterday, you would add "idiotic" to" lying POS". He got caught with his BS 100 year ad.
    • Jordan117, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Well, she wouldn't want to contradict her campaign chairman, would she?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbJVkIzKq64

      Terry McAuliffe: "Let me congratulate Fox because you were the first ones to call it for Hillary Clinton. Fair and balanced... Fox, you beat 'em all!"
  • DancingAngels, on 05/05/2008, -27/+36Hillary didn't say anything because she is a part of the "Right Wing" bias he's talking about..
    • cbodall, on 05/05/2008, -16/+9Idiot. If Hillary is right wing then I'm a liberal.......

      which I'm NOT
    • kemp34, on 05/05/2008, -1/+9More like the "Evil Wing" of the southern portion of the Nolan Chart. (Right and Left is very outdated for anyone sincerely trying to discuss politics intelligently).
    • MxM111, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1Come on, Obama lovers/Hillary haters. The policy difference between Hillary and Obama is so minuscule that they start talking about "language" how they put the same policies to distinguish between each other. If you say that Hillary is Right Wing, than you say this about Obama too.
      What amazes me is that many of the Obama funs do not hear the Obama message: build the bridges. If you can not build the bridge withing YOUR OWN partry to Clinton supporters, then please stop calling yourself Obama supporter, because you miss his message completely!
  • radiantarchon, on 05/05/2008, -56/+29pretty much all the other news channels are are liberal. why can't there be a conservative news channel. guess it must be a double standard
    • nblsavage, on 05/05/2008, -19/+35*****. The "liberal media" is a fiction.
      • whatthefu, on 05/05/2008, -4/+12I think both of you are kind of wrong. The problem here is the 24-hour news networks. It doesn't matter which way they lean because they give shoddy reporting regardless. CNN, MSNBC and Fox all rely greatly on pundits to fill up their time, and contrary to popular belief giving a liberal pundit and conservative pundit their own shows on the same network is not at all a form of "fairness" and "balance." All of the people who appear on these channels should be completely unbiased in their reporting, unless they are explicitly stated to be otherwise. And I'm not talking about these ***** analysts that "reporters" call in to comment on stupid issues. I'm talking about legitimate commentators.
      • RepubOperative, on 05/05/2008, -15/+21UCLA and the liberal bastion of Harvard say the media is liberal.

        The Liberal Media: It's No Myth
        http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/fil ...

        Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
        http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is ...
        • Charlotte_Web, on 05/05/2008, -6/+11Great quote from the first link:

          "The main finding is that the liberal inclination is pronounced. Although Fox News emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left."
        • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5@Charlotte---that's probably the most accurate statement I've heard on the subject. It's not that Fox leans way to the right, it's the other networks lean so far to the left it makes Fox look ultra conservative by comparison.
      • jstone, on 05/05/2008, -7/+4Liberal bias in the media is due to the well-known liberal bias in reality. Which, as we all know, Fox News doesn't live in.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2You're going to have to do better than quoting bumper stickers.
      • plhearn, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Yea but at least the liberal media stations don't go around claiming to be fair and balanced.
    • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -12/+24Almost all of the media in the country is owned by only FIVE corporations. If you think these mega-corporations don't have a conservative bias then you're just being naive.
    • fadeout, on 05/05/2008, -12/+4The only way you could believe that is if you've never actually watched the news on another channel.

      Joe Scarbarough, Pat Buchanan, that shrill harpy on CNN at night, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck... need I go on?
      • p0s3r, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6There is a difference between someone who's paid to give an opinion giving an opinion versus someone who's paid to remain objective not remaining objective.
    • lhbaker, on 05/05/2008, -9/+16There is a Liberal Media: It's called Comedy Central. The irony being that the news you see there is more truthful than what you find on the networks.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/05/2008, -5/+8If your original statement about the "liberal media" was accurate (which it is not), then there is nothing wrong with a conservative alternative. Fox however is not conservative, they are neocons, neocons are not in any way conservative. Also the reason many people dislike Fox news is not because they are "conservative" but because they are completely full of *****. The illusion of a liberal media has to do with the media's occasional foray into the reporting of actual facts, accurate reporting often appears as a liberal bias.
      • ShagratOfMordor, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2How often do you pleasure yourself while thinking about a sweaty Fidel?
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4I completely support radiantarchon on this one. Fox News is just upfront with its bias while most other networks try to conceal it.

      And also, this article is on Huffington Post......which is so unbiased.....
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/05/2008, -5/+0The Huffington Post is unbiased...
        • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1You'd make a good politician, lying with a straight face like that.
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2The Huffington Post has never claimed to be "Fair and Balanced".
      • andrew7667, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"Fox News is just upfront with its bias". Right, which is why their slogan used to be "Fair and Balanced" and their new slogan is "We report. You decide."

        That doesn't sound very upfront about a bias. In fact, it seems to be THE COMPLETE ***** OPPOSITE.
    • mCanada, on 05/05/2008, -4/+7Fox News isn't conservative. It's a neo-conservative, semi-fascist propaganda machine, designed to promote a very narrow point of view that would never be taught in any self respecting academic institution.
      • ShagratOfMordor, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Yeah, self respecting academic institutions (They have to be self respecting as no one else does): Land of speech codes, intimidation, mecca of segregation by identity group, petty discrimination against anyone with differing views, and contempt for anything outside it's borders. Much different than fascism! As for FOX News, I can't stomach most of the opinion shows, or the tabloid *****, but anyone who finds Special Report to be anything but an unbiased quality hour of news doesn't have an honest bone in their body.
        • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2#1) The only people who DON'T respect academic institutions are the people too stupid to get into them.

          #2) Go look up fascism online before you use the word anymore. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

          #3) FAIR (the non-profit, apolitical organization dedicated to accurate reporting) thinks that Fox New's Special Report is a perfect example of right-wing bias. There is a very detailed article about it here (to read the stuff explicitly about "Special Report" just search the page for those words- it's about 1/5 of the way down).
          • ShagratOfMordor, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1#1) My I.Q. was just above 140 in grade school, although I may be getting stupider. I was somewhat joking about having no respect for learning institutions, although it has been diminished due to the reasons I listed and the feeling I get after a while that the anti-(us, military, traditional ideals, etc) is more of a childish attempt to inflame than honest intellectual exploration.

            #2) The mad anti-nationalist fervor bears no resemblance to mad nationalism to you?

            #3) FAIR may be trying, but I see at least two references to the Military-Industrial-Complex on their homepage. I'm not buying their impartiality.
    • gullydwarf, on 05/05/2008, -7/+9Reality has a well known liberal bias.
    • p51d007, on 05/05/2008, -6/+8It's not that Fox is conservative, it is just that the liberal news media has such a slanted bias, it makes Fox "look" conservative!
    • egoherodotus, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2people still believe this myth? hahaha
  • brokenspatula, on 05/05/2008, -26/+14don't like the news, so you complain about it. Original from someone such as dean
  • leontes, on 05/05/2008, -15/+134I became a lot less incensed when I realized Fox News is the Colbert Report, minus the audience being in on the joke.
    • Waterrat, on 05/05/2008, -5/+14Agreed.
      ALL coverage on all the major networks (minus PBS) is "shockingly biased." Who has not figured this out yet?
      • avaugha4, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5unfortunately PBS (and NPR) cannot be considered major by any reasonable definition.
        • jhelmer, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4Nor can it be considered unbiased.
          • avaugha4, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5No news source is completely without bias, and even if it were, your personal viewpoint will make it appear biased if they did not agree with you, since you are not without bias yourself (see the ultra-conservative Christians who view Fox as 'liberal'). PBS and NPR have far more time to spend covering their stories than normal news outlets, and thus they are better able to present both sides of an issue.
          • jhelmer, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3You and I will probably never see eye-to-eye on the fairness of PBS or NPR's coverage, but I do agree with just about everything else you wrote here.
          • avaugha4, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Glad we can agree to disagree, as that is the entire point I was getting at. I see NPR as more in the middle of FOX and the CNN NBC CBS news simply because they present more of everything, because they have the time to.
    • lickmylovepump, on 05/05/2008, -6/+1It took you how long to figure that out exactly?
    • sremick, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I don't think those in front of the camera are in on the joke either. Disturbingly, they either believe it wholly themselves, or at least are oblivious to the harm they are doing to the general public via what they simply see as their "job".
  • macweirdo42, on 05/05/2008, -17/+84In other news, Howard Dean described water as "Shockingly Wet."
    • mearom, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2That's what she said?
    • DerangedPenguin, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0???
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Do you mean to come off as semi-retarded? I sincerely hope so
    • lickmylovepump, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1It's shocking that it's shocking, huh.
    • SquigglyP, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I guess he just now got the memo...
  • NorthMass, on 05/05/2008, -17/+24The only thing I dislike about FOX bashing is that people often think they are the only network that is unbearably biased. All mainstream networks are like this, with the exception to PBS who had the guts to air the Pentagon planted military analysts who infiltrated the mainstream news networks.
    • str1fe, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4npr?
    • OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -6/+11When has PBS ever been critical of ANY democrat?
      • NorthMass, on 05/05/2008, -3/+0They undoubtedly have flaws, but they were the only network to air the pentagon scandal, all the other networks apparently refused, which makes them at least somewhat better than the others.
        • willaggs, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2no, PBS has a left wing bias - but thats ok because really it's up to us, the viewers, to be discerning. We aren't going to change biases and really no one is truly neutral.
    • lhbaker, on 05/05/2008, -10/+18Fox News sued in a Florida court for the right to falsify news. The were sued by a journalist who claimed that she was fired for refusing to air a story known to be a fabrication. That's why FOX deserves a special place on the list of biased news organizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
      • OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -7/+14Right next to CBS for knowingly airing falsified documents in the Bush AWOL story.
        • swrostmore, on 05/05/2008, -8/+9The 100% factual Bush AWOL story.
        • nmessick, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2you wish... :-)
        • lhbaker, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4I hate to tell you this, but the documents never were proved fake, and people who had seen the actual documents said that was was stated therein was accurate.
      • p0s3r, on 05/05/2008, -5/+8Did you not even read your own link? The journalist sued Fox first under the whistleblowers law and won. Fox counter-sued because violating policy doesn't fall under federal whistleblowers law. How very fair and balanced of you and your propaganda.
        • swrostmore, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2So airing stories known to be fabrications is a Fox News policy, and refusing to air fabricated stories is a violation of said policies?
        • lhbaker, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4Same end result, thus no bias. Fox fired someone, got sued, countersued for the right to lie, and won. Do you even know what propaganda is?
          • p0s3r, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4Countersued because they were falsely sued to begin with. "Right to lie" is your ***** interpretation.
  • Johneeeee, on 05/05/2008, -34/+22Fox's real sin is they don't stack the deck with 5 Leftists to every Righty like everyone else in the so called "News" media does. That what makes all these drama queen punk loser Leftists go into hysteria about Fox. They cannot stand to actually have to intellectually defend their drama queen angst hyper emotional pig headed ignorant world views from serious question. The Left cannot stand that Fox allows the OTHER side's views equal time.

    In their world view only things that validate their ignorant emotion based political dogmas should ever be allowed to be heard anywhere. That why when ever you have a Lefty and a Right on the same show, the Lefty always is a punk who hysterically rants and raves trying pathetically to use up all the time and talk over what ever the Righty says.

    The Left has to hysterically filibuster every time they are on with any sort of challenge because they know intellectually they are wholly incapable of defending their political opinions.
    • armoreddillo, on 05/05/2008, -7/+12"They cannot stand to actually have to intellectually defend their drama queen angst hyper emotional pig headed ignorant world views from serious question"

      somebody just learned what an adjective is
      • ism70605, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3'ad hominem' is not a valid course of attack.
        • kingcam, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2What can be put forth without evidence can be dismissed likewise.
      • kingcam, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2And a hyphen.
      • Arcan, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Wait, you're calling someone else a "drama queen" in your verbal tantrum?
    • supremebeing18, on 05/05/2008, -6/+8Are you kidding? Every time I seen a real "leftist" on Fox and they are actually given time to answer or state their views they completely destroy the "righty". Oh, and by the way, you're definitely right about the liberals always trying to talk over the conservatives; I can't think of any anchors on Fox that yell over liberals.
      • ism70605, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1And the people on the right feel the righty completely destroys the lefty. This is called perspective.
    • nmessick, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Exactly, this why Lefty talk radio fails.
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Why do you hate American and why are you trying to compartmentalize America into 2 factions (Left / Right)?
        If you cared about our great nation, you'd try to UNITE and not HATE.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2I agree with this poster. Well said (although not concisely).
      • lickmylovepump, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1I agree with this poster. Well said, and concisely.
  • sacr3dc0w, on 05/05/2008, -22/+27No *****, ask Ron Paul.
    • gl77, on 05/05/2008, -17/+5Ron Paul? christ, havent heard that name since the paulbots went silent. damn you, sir, for bringing it up.
  • trackerbishop, on 05/05/2008, -18/+3this isnt allowed to make it to the front page. the neocons have hijacked digg to turn it into a moron site for distraction where the truth is covered up yet again.

    • brokenspatula, on 05/05/2008, -1/+11that's why every article is about how obama is going to save the world
      • trackerbishop, on 05/05/2008, -7/+3obama has been rubberstamped approved by AIPAC and the cfr. otherwise he wouldnt get any airtime or legitimacy. digg doesnt mind obama articles but they got in trouble for making ron paul famous.
      • mcberg182, on 05/05/2008, -2/+93 front page posts (nearly in a row too) from the Huffington Post. When will this end?
    • lead2thehead, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4With all of these pro-Bush stories I've been seeing lately, I was beginning to think that Digg was run by the GOP.
    • p0s3r, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7Which is why 3 out of 4 of the most recent front page stories, 3 of them are by Huffpo Obamabots with their mouth full of his balls.
    • lickmylovepump, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1You must have a 10 second memory span.
  • OfNumbers, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4Dean looked pretty fed up with reality as it is becoming in that video.
  • str1fe, on 05/05/2008, -18/+11Fox news? Biased?

    Nooooooo...
    • DerangedPenguin, on 05/05/2008, -5/+3Nope only less left leaning.
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4How do you explain Bill O'Reilly being against expanding excutive branch and unilateral presidential powers while Clinton was in office and being completely for it when Bush entered office?
    • jhelmer, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Of course you are right. Fox *is* biased, but so is every other network, so what exactly is the big deal? The difference is that Fox is the only TV news with a right wing bias. Apparently bias is OK as long as it's left leaning.
  • OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -11/+5It's time to get rid of Fox News, MSNBC, PBS, et al and get a truly unbiased news source.
    • ColonelJessup, on 05/05/2008, -2/+8Like Al Jazeera!
    • Me1000, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Digg?
    • TrevorPace, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6PBS is actually pretty legit when it comes to the news.
      • DerangedPenguin, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2well OK I listen to PBS news on the radio,... All Things Considered does an amazing job each day.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3A truely unbiased news source would piss off too many liberals in fact which is why you don't see one. Liberals would still label it as conservative and refuse to watch it.
      Conservatives still watch CNN, we just recognize that it is biased. Liberals won't watch/listen to anything that doesn't agree with their views (or at least they will constantly bitch about it).
    • jhelmer, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4There is no such thing. All news is going to be biased by the people in charge of picking stories, the people in charge of picking the angle to be covered, the people in charge of researching stories and the people in charge of reporting the stories. The best alternative would be for everyone to be upfront about their biases, but that's probably unworkable. In the meantime, the current system is fine. When I watch Fox I expect that I am getting a right wing take on the news. When watching CNN, MSNBC, PBS or any of the broadcast networks I expect to get a left leaning perspective.
    • jackajj, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0You mean every media outlet in the 21st century.
  • unpolloloco, on 05/05/2008, -16/+8NEWS FLASH: News sources cannot be unbiased. Stories are completely dependent on the biases of their contributors.
    • lhbaker, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3Because news stories never get edited or fact checked. I think I understand now. All these years, I thought journalists were just a cog in the machine, where they write stories on deadline, which are then vetted by other journalists to make sure that the quotes and claims in the article are accurate. According to you, these days reporters write whatever they want to write, and then it just gets printed on the front page. Wow, what an easy job being a journalist must be.
      • unpolloloco, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3Facts are largely correct from all major news outlets. The interpretations of those facts are what cause media bias.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1A fact is dependent on truth, which is relative.
      • unpolloloco, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1the interpretation of those facts is even more relative
    • mcquitty, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Fact. Bias is not only in the way the story is told, but if the story is told.
  • callinthelaw69, on 05/05/2008, -17/+5Wait...I thought Fox was fair and balanced!
    I've been had...
  • kidal25, on 05/05/2008, -14/+9Ron Paul and his supporters would know this the best.
    • Me1000, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3as a Supported of Ron Paul WTF are you talking about?
    • gl77, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3wow, who is this Ron Paul you speak of?
  • wildone71, on 05/05/2008, -29/+22LOL, so funny to see that the haters of FOXNEWS don't have any conception of its popularity with normal people. You guys really are retarded.
    • swrostmore, on 05/05/2008, -12/+14Its funny that you don't realize that the only people who watch FOXNEWS are Republicans, and that FOXNEWS acts as a Republican mouthpiece, not as a news organization.
      • malman4, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3The most widely watched, but dems outnumber repubs 3:2
        • avaugha4, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2And they have only the one network, Did you try adding all the other more reasonable (yet still biased) networks together... then it makes a lot more sense. Myself ? I go to other countries news to get a real look at the world.
      • withears, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1McDonalds sells more hamburgers than anyone else.

        They must make the best hamburger.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3Very true. Fox News has higher ratings than any other news network.
      I love how when I stay at the Ritz in NYC, the default channel when you turn on the TV (channel 2) is Fox News. CNN is like channel 15.
      • tidu, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Televisions don't have default channels. The order of the channel means nothing. Fox News is 99 where I am.
      • anstice85, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1CNN is the default news station at every airport I've ever been to in the USA. Fox isn't even shown.
    • KeirGordon, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4Exactly. Fox news has more viewers than the other cable networks combined. They can't all be republicans, or a democrat would never get elected. I guess the people still watching MSNBC don't realize that what they are getting is so disgustingly biased that most people have stopped watching it. I mean geez, these guys will make up complete lies just to support their candidate. Not to mention the outright hate they spew sometimes. And apart from all of that, fox news has far more entertaining anchors, and generally higher production quality.
      • tidu, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2It's all the old people sitting at home watching TV while the people who would watch another network are outside doing things.
        • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Yeah like sitting in front of their computer posting comments on digg?
        • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1flip2trip: I got a lot done today, and I'm relaxing right now by surfing the web. You must be the guy that went to church instead.
          • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1How on earth did you ever guess that? :p
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Fox "News" is ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, not journalism.

        It needs to be regulated so people don't confuse it with TRUE news. Look at Fox's major cast:
        BILL O REILLY from A CURRENT AFFAIR
        GERALDO RIVERA from A CURRENT AFFAIR (after his controversial GERALDO show)

        Fox "News" is an embarrassment to the US. It hurts diplomacy (other countries have Satellite TV too), and makes ALL Americans look like dolts.

        The rest of the world thought all of the USA was like what they saw on Jerry Springer. Fox News confirms that idea within them.

        To be clear: America is NOT Fox "News" or Jerry Springer.
        • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Once again, for the hard of hearing--- you are confusing pundits with NEWS! For instance, Keith Olbermann's show is NOT news. Hardball with Chris Matthews is NOT news. CNN's Crossfire is NOT news. Why is this so friggin' hard to understand? I'm beginning to think there are nothing but morons on digg.
          • xienze, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Well, maybe not morons, but people who repeat "Fox News is biased" without ever having really watched it themselves.

            "O'Reilly, O'Reilly, O'Reilly!" Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News. But his show isn't "The News Hour with Bill O'Reilly", it's just an hour-long opinion show. He rants about stuff. In no way is it presented as news. I suppose these guys have a problem with the opinion section of the newspaper too...
    • gregggallagher, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4And, MacDonalds is the most widely eaten at dining establishment in the U.S.. Being popular doesn't necessarily mean being better....
      • cwmather, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Did you really misspell McDonald's?
    • Fremen93, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Fox news has more viewers because they focus entirely on reporting news that improves their ratings, whereas the other networks do that too but not to the degree in which Fox does it. At least the other news stations, try to report news thats important to the future of this nation, but Fox, is purely focussed on either furthering the republican agenda, or getting more viewers. They are a trash news source....and the fact that they have more viewers doesn't mean much when those same viewers also made Baywatch the # 1 show in the world.
      Somehow you think that having more viewers means its more accurate news??? The accuracy of the news, or lack of bias, has nothing to do with viewers...in fact, it probably means less viewers.
  • kb29, on 05/05/2008, -11/+4"YEEAAAAAAAAAAAH"
  • EnderMB, on 05/05/2008, -8/+59I think it's funny how this story is on bias when this is the third story from The Huffington Post, possibly the most pro-Obama news source to hit Digg. I want Obama to win already but please come up with a different source for stories! I cannot trust this website any more.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -2/+20Huffington is rediculously biased (and openly admits it), yet people here view it as simple news and not biased reporting. Huffington is probably the worst example of liberally biased media I've ever seen.
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5Digg isn't liberal or conservative - it's an aggregate of how society actually feels / thinks !!!

        You ***** always say "diggers" like we're some collective. I've never met another digger in person (via this site). We're not some giant collaboration trying to destroy your Republican failure.

        As I use it, digg is just a website where ANYONE can submit ANYTHING they consider newsworthy.

        The fact that you corrupt Republican fat-Cats can't control this medium is killing you, isn't it?
        • EnderMB, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1First of all, I'm British, so there is no possible way I can support a republican party even if I wanted to. We simply do not have one.

          Secondly, you really seem to forget that we do not talk on behalf of every single member of Digg. The power comes from Diggers that are most vocal, and the Obama fans have made a name for themselves here, dragging everyone else into it. How can you not even see the bias here?! The reason most Digg users cannot believe Hillary Clinton is still in the race is because they follow this crap whilst she most likely could still win it. I've YET to see a valid reason as to why she can't, with the most used excuse being this mystical Maths formula that proves it. Come on then Digg, prove to me with references to all your proof that Hillary Clinton doesn't stand a chance?

          If Clinton was as screwed as most of you believe she is then Obama would have ignored her and claimed a victory already. Thanks to this bias there are hundreds who'll think this is a done deal and not vote for the man. You've done nothing but distort the real news and make Clinton fans more determined. Thanks for ruining Obama's run for presidency.
      • petebert, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2they dont view it as simple news, they view it as ooh headline meets my agenda.
        remember the Obama goes bowling in PA story that made it to the front page?
        • andrew7667, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1You know the cat with the wolf shadow picture that everyone say two years ago? THAT was on the front page yesterday of the main digg site. It's not like it takes something amazing to get on the front page.
    • umerok, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Ariana Huffington wants Obama's ***** badly.
  • lead2thehead, on 05/05/2008, -10/+5Every news network is shockingly biased.
  • SuperJay, on 05/05/2008, -12/+8In other breaking news, Howard Dean claims the sky is blue.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Wow, you must have taken the whole bottle of clever pills this morning!
    • avaugha4, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Shockingly Blue!
  • Barbrady, on 05/05/2008, -20/+16Howard Dean is shockingly stupid.
    • ssn697, on 05/05/2008, -3/+6The people digging you down do not understand politics, as much as they would like to think it has changed...
  • Brayman, on 05/05/2008, -8/+2www.SeekingTruthNews.com
  • masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -17/+12Ohh my god, a left winger crying about right wing news. This is shockingly retarded.
    • jackajj, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0News isn't meant to be right wing or left wing. Thats the point of the article, and i think its the point of most people that complain about todays media.
  • TheFoo, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Say it ain't so!
  • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -10/+41Because Huffinton Post is so unbiased........
    • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7Huffington Post doesn't claim to be unbiased.

      Fox "News" claims to be "Fair and Balanced".

      If you have to sell yourself as "Fair and Balanced", you're a liar. It's assumed that a MAJOR NEWS BROADCAST is fair and balanced. The Huffington Post is what it is.
  • JLecker, on 05/05/2008, -5/+22Wait, three HuffPost articles in a row on the front page?
    • masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Only 3, wow.
    • Gorgamel, on 05/05/2008, -2/+12Buried this article as spam. Huffington Post spam, no less.
    • Atlatal, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4This is Digg! Diggers think Digg is 'Literature"
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1It's better than thinking of the "bible" as literature.

        At least digg and the comments herein are sane. Just because we don't believe in an invisible man and his talking garden snake doesn't make digg any less valuable.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Huff is the new Rawstory
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Huff is the new sensible reality.

        Welcome to the real world. Is there anything we can do to help you recover from being Republican?
        • mike17032, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Quiet kid, adults are talking here. Go huff glue in the corner or something.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Ariana has a lot of digg accounts?
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1No, she has a lot of sensible friends.
        • mike17032, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Riiiiight, and I have a 12 inch *****.
    • ralphthemagi, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2The Huffington Post is nothing without Digg and Reddit. That's how they make all their money.
    • mike17032, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Just start burying anything from this site as spam, thats what it takes to get rid of the jackasses who game this ***** to the homepage.

      It worked to get rid of most of the rawstory and thinkprogress spam, it will work for this too if we start to all bury it.
  • DerangedPenguin, on 05/05/2008, -14/+8OOooohhhhh Aaaaaaagh Ooooooohhhh Aaaaaagh, this has been an Howard Dean scream alert. Fox News is biased in Howie's eyes because the other agencies are biased to the left.

    I hope the DNC never gets rid of Howard Dean, he is always good for a scream, just as Ted Kennedy is good for a Drunk or a Dunk and Nancy Pelosi is good for her husband tuna packing business.
    • fugazied, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Reality has a very obvious left wing bias.
  • Landlocked, on 05/05/2008, -2/+10As a former reporter myself, I dare you to ask any active reporter why they do their job. In short, they will say to change the world. So much for objectivity. Why do newspapers issue endorsements if they are objective in their reporting?
    • mithrasinvictus, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2you could change the world by enabling people to make an informed decision.
      newspaper endorsements are wrong, though
  • cbodall, on 05/05/2008, -7/+13says unbiased social commentary website. But it's fine when the bias is in your favor right?
    • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Wow, are you new to reality? Bias is everywhere. The difference is that Huffington Post has never claimed to be a "CON" site.
      • mike17032, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2It does pretend to be a news site though, and its not.
  • eth3l, on 05/05/2008, -11/+5Shockingly because Chris Wallce tore Dean a new one and Dean looked like the fool that he is.
    • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/05/2008, -3/+0Then Keith Olbermann socked Chris Wallace in the face and saved the world as we know it.
      • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Keith Olbermann vs Chris Wallace? Olbermann better pack an extra brain in his lunch box.
  • AMSRay, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3I'm witholding judgement on how much faith to put in Howard Dean to see if he pulls some ***** to try and steal the nomination for Hillary.
    • novenator, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I think Dean is clearly in the corner of change and against the entrenched powers that Clinton has embraced. Obama has a very similar style of campaigning (grassroots, small donors, reaching out to the disenfranchised, etc.), but is WAY more successful than Dean was in his presidential run.
  • masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -7/+15...because Howard Deans opinion of fox is going to be unbiased. Would this be irony or hypocrisy?
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -7/+6Hypocrisy since he knows he is full of *****.
    • pedo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+9how can any opinion be unbiased?
      • masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3It can't but you wouldn't make the pitcher the plate umpire.
      • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Best. Reply. Ever.
    • Atlatal, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4Either irony or hypocrisy would require a basic understanding. Howard Dean is merely a fatuous air-head.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3Howard dean does not think he's a news channel. He also does not constantly claim to be "fair and balanced"
  • shiftclick, on 05/05/2008, -4/+6...He goes on in another interview to call CNN "Fair and balanced". Spam.
    • sremick, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Seriously. CNN bashes Obama almost as much as Fox. What the hell?

      Now I know why people call it the "Clinton News Network".
  • brion182, on 05/05/2008, -15/+11Bias on all three major news networks is what created Fox News, they have the largest cable news audience(by far) because of leftist bias.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/05/2008, -5/+6You are going on my friend's list for such an awesome comment.
  • elfprince13, on 05/05/2008, -7/+5shocking? no. horrifying? yes.
  • brwright, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Wallace obviously knows how biased Fox is, he does not even try to defend Fox News.
    • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1When you have a moron on as your guest you can just assume that everything that comes out of his mouth is moronic; hence, it's not necessary to offer a defense to a moron's statements.
  • pedo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6anyone else notice that wallace succeeded in not letting dean talk about the war, the economy, the environment, gas prices, education, healthcare, or anything else that matters? instead the whole interview was basically about rev. wright and how democrats don't like fox. the interview was a win for fox and republicans
    • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Let me guess Dean's views--hates the war(Bush lied), economy sucks(Bush did it), environment sucks(Republicans did it), gas prices are way too high(Bush's fault), we need better education(Republicans suck), health care for all(Republicans want your kids to die in the streets)---see it's all been said all over the other networks, why the hell do we have to hear his sniveling, whining crap on Fox News too?
      • TTURabble, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1I'm a democrat, but I wouldn't mind having your kids die in the streets. Does that make you feel better?
        • flip2trip, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If that's your attempt at comedy, it failed.
  • Pedestrian101, on 05/05/2008, -7/+5I'm still shocked that people think FoxNews is the only extremely biased media network, it's the only rightwing network. Not defending Fox though, they're idiots.
    • reaper527, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2its easier to see bias towards views opposite of your own. i see cnn and msnbc as being just as biased as you have said, but people who stand on the left miss that bias because they agree with it.
      • Sean42, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1You do have a point. Although, as a politically independent voter, I observe fox as being incredibly biased, while the others that you mention are only slightly biased. Fox set the standard for blind cheerleading of a particular party, always wrapping themselves with the flag and branding anyone who questions the government as un-American.
  • pedo, on 05/05/2008, -3/+9my favorite part was when wallace said "but but but but but but but" just so dean couldn't talk
  • CrazyWayz, on 05/05/2008, -9/+5I wish everyone would come to the real truth; ALL media is bias one way or another.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4You mean all media ARE biased. Media is a plural word, yet you used the singular verb 'is'. Also, a colon would have worked better than the semicolon you used.
      • TecK415, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2Really??? You are a hero. Your life is very meaningful, and I don't know what this world would be with out you.
        • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Don't you find it annoying to read bad grammar? I absolutely can't stand it, especially big mistakes like this (I don't really mind the little common ones...'to err is human', but big ones like this just bug me).

          Just for your information, and to annoy you more, I will tell you why 'media' is plural and what its singular is. 'Media' comes from Latin, directly in fact; it is an adjective meaning middle. The masculine form is 'medius', but in English we use the neuter 'medium', which when declined becomes 'media' in the nominative plural. We use this word because news sources are in between the actual event and the reader/viewer. CNN is a 'medium', while CNN and MSNBC together are members of the 'media'.
          I hope you learned something.
        • darkciti2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3The US is a more coherent place because Phoenix posted that. His post made sense. Yours didn't.
  • iDoc21, on 05/05/2008, -10/+5Oh, yeah, well, Howard Dean said it so it MUST be true, just like all of the DNC anti-McCain ads.

    BURY ME !
  • funknjunk, on 05/05/2008, -6/+3BYAHHHH
  • Scottc320, on 05/05/2008, -11/+7Dean needs to go away.
  • Jamihabs, on 05/05/2008, -5/+6What does the Democratic Party see in Dean?
    • johnlabmonkey, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3We see a man who tells the truth, even if nobody wants to hear it.
    • shiftclick, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1UNBRIDLED EXCITEMENT! YAHOOOOO! Dumbass.
  • Dysarthria, on 05/05/2008, -9/+5The Dems are willing to talk to Iran, but not Fox news?

    Yeah, that makes sense.
    • johnlabmonkey, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6Yeah it does.
      • Sean42, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2very articulate reply. Please explain why.
      • wilburcabbage, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I'm guessing it's because Iran actually matters... and in the end who cares about Fox News?
      • Dysarthria, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well, Obama and Clinton do - to the point of boycotting them. Then when they realize there's no benefit in pacifying the loony left wing of the party that's cost them elections for decades they go on it with great fanfare.
    • ubergeek09, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Iran is probably less of a threat to our liberty in the United States than Fox News is.
  • NelsonR, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Oh come on now. Fox, Hannity and O'Reilly are fair and balanced. Now all I can think of is the name of Wright for every second of every minute and hour. I have been propagandized into knowing the Right is Right. I am now a pious religious human that feels we have the moral and ethical duty to dominate the world with our wisdom, even if it means destroying whomever gets in our way. I am now a true Republican. McBush is my God who may have a few quirks but he is a man's man and would use force of arms to quell the nations who oppose us. If a small group of terrorist attack we will attack nations to solve the dilema.
    Got to love all this pragmatism and saintlyness of our current leaders. Oil helps to.
    • flip2trip, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Wow, I bet you could put your head through a key-hole with that narrow mind you got.
  • tehknotte, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1YEEAAAH
  • TJATL, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Foxnews is biased and Huffington Post isn't? Sheep all around...

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.as ...

    "Huffington Post is an Internet webzine featuring mostly left-liberal participants. Though press releases use the word "blog" to describe it, Huffington Post is neither constantly updated nor interactive; nor is it an outlet for fresh voices not already heard in the liberal mainstream media. It was launched as a commercial venture on May 9, 2005. Huffington Post takes its name from its creator Arianna Huffington, a "progressive independent" syndicated columnist, author, media personality, and co-host of the nationally-distributed public radio program Left, Right & Center.

    In designing Huffington Post, Huffington openly intended to do for the left what Matt Drudge's DrudgeReport.com has done to coalesce the right. As the New York Times reported, Huffington hired Drudge's "right-hand web whiz, Andrew Breitbart" to help her prepare her website for launch. Little-known to the left-liberals who she attempted to recruit as investors and bloggers, Breitbart is co-author of the 2004 book Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon -- The Case Against Celebrity. "People would have gone crazy here [in Hollywood]," one of Huffington's friends told the L.A. Weekly, had they known that the person running The Huffington Post website "was the guy who wrote that awful book."

    Huffington initially "approached five major players" to invest in Huffington Post, wrote L.A. Weekly reporter Nikki Finke in May 2005. Among them were Pulp Fiction producer Lawrence Bender, and Seinfeld co-creator Larry David's wife, Laurie [David]. "… Sources tell me that of the five, only Bender and David expressed real interest, and lo and behold, Laurie David shows up on the [Huffington Post] home page."

    Among the "bloggers" who Huffington initially said had volunteered to write pieces were former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite; West Wing creator-writer-producer Aaron Sorkin; playwright David Mamet; writers Nora Ephron and Norman Mailer; actors Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, Gwyneth Paltrow, John Cusack, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus; Playboy Magazine chief executive Christie Hefner; music mogul David Geffen; cable channel mogul Barry Diller; Clinton White House attorney Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.; former Colorado Senator Gary Hart; current New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine; and former Huffington beau Mort Zuckerman.

    Ephron told the New York Times that she sees HuffingtonPost "as a chance for the left to balance out the right." Initially Huffington insisted that conservatives would be welcome. A handful--Tony Blankley; former President George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum; film critic and radio talk host Michael Medved; and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund—did contribute occasionally at the beginning. But within a few weeks after Huffington Post's launch, however, writings by these few conservative authors became scarce.

    Among Huffington Post's notable repeat bylines are those of former Democratic Assemblyman and State Senator Tom Hayden; Marc Cooper of The Nation Institute; longtime Sierra Club President Carl Pope; slavery reparations advocate and TransAfrica leader Randall Robinson; Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern; Newsweek writer Jonathan Alter; The Nation media critic Eric Alterman; Institute for Public Accuracy founder Norman Solomon; LewRockwell.com founder Lew Rockwell; and environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    Several members of Congress have written pieces for Huffington Post. These include Representatives George Miller of California, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Jim McDermott of Washington State, and as a repeat contributor John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan. All are Democrats and members of the socialist-oriented Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.

    Control of the day-to-day operation of Huffington Post is in the hands of seven paid staffers in New York City under the direction of Huffington's business partner in this venture, Ken Lerer, a former Executive Vice President with AOL Time Warner.

    Huffington Post does not pay its writers. What they write, however, is sold for profit to newspapers by the Chicago Tribune's Tribune Media Services, which also syndicates Huffington's column."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.