The Stupidest Article On The Huffington YET…

// Last updated on //

This one takes the cake. Huffington’s nonsense take on the Blair House Incident wins the prize for the stupidest article on the Huff we have seen.  If you have seen dumber, please drop us a note to let us know.

Huffington is notorious for making stories where none exist, either by lying outright or distorting the story in such a way that it totally misleads their readers, who, it is unfortunate to say, are mostly sheep.

Please note while reading this article, you must follow the related links to have it all make sense. Without reading the lead article referenced below, one reader noted you may have difficulty following the thread. The Lead Article is a very short two paragraph satire of the Huff.  Thank you.

Our lead-off article, in case you missed it, consisted of this Huffington satire. It mixes two unrelated Huffington lies to make one big Huffington lie.

The Huff primarily uses splogging to misguide their readers. Splogs (spam blogs) like the Huff take credit for someone else’s article by typing in a lead paragraph, appending the link to the original article, and submitting the article as their own. Huffington has taken it a step further by submitting their web page on to draw readers to their site rather than to the site of the original author.

The Huff augments this by ensuring the headline and lead paragraph distort the truth. The Huff will also pick up on total nonsense liberal articles printed by liberal blogs that will do anything, including publishing lies, to get a reference from the Huff. In this way, the Huff can distort the truth and blame someone else for the lie. Convenient eh?

The typical Huff reader has a very short attention span. To be fair, most browsing the internet do. So, they read the misleading caption and lead paragraph or two and skip straight to the comments section to bash the intended target of the article, typically, you guessed it, a Republican. The sheep have been conveniently herded into believing another Huffington Lie.

In this case, the ignorance of Huff Readers was evident beyond belief in the comments section following the Huffington blurb. As usual, they just read the original two misleading paragraphs which intentionally made an attempt to imply that President Bush was somehow snubbing Obama. Comments were the usual drivel we expect from the small minded liberals that frequent the blog.

“The Bushes have NO CLASS.” said jdw1981

“They have class. It’s just all LOW”, spewed BrahminNoodles

“OOOPS!!! Looks like someone forgot about the President-elect!!” AdamAnt12 ignorantly chimed in.

blairhouseMore hateful comments were also made, some disgusting in their inference, referring to Laura Bush as a racist or worse.

In reality, no President elect has moved into the Blair house before January 15, which is 5 days before the inauguration. Much planning goes into making the house ready by that time and much security surrounds the event. It would be incredibly unusual for that to happen early because functions and other activities are planned well in advance, especially during transition periods such as the departure of a standing President, including January 15 itself. Security and other arrangements involve extensive planning of personnel and such a change would be extremely onerous to arrange.

The misleading blog article implies the Bush’s are somehow nefarious for keeping the guest list secret from the public, but the fact is, the guest list has always been secret.  For obvious security reasons, guests would not want their presence advertised, so that list is intentionally not made public. Assassinations and attacks on international and public officials are rather unpleasant affairs.

What did Obama’s transition staff have to say about this horrific event reported by the Huffington Post and referenced from an article written by a Liberian born blogger?

The Bushes have been extremely accommodating to the Obama family’s needs and the entire process has been smooth and friendly,” one told NBC News, speaking anonymously because the discussions about the family’s transition are considered private. Said another: “It’s just the way things happen. We understandit’s no big deal.”

Yup, Obama acknowledges this was a racist and horrific insult to the President Elect, and George and Laura Bush should be drawn and quartered immediately in front of Arianna Huffington.

This story, which Huffington and the New York Times blogger attempted to make into a hate article, was a very simple one that should have interested no one.  Obama requested that an exception be made because his children have to enter school. It was a reasonable request. Obama is well aware that the Blair House is not typically available until January 15, and never has been, but the Huff attempted to make it a hate issue, to which many hateful comments towards Bush were made.

Surprised? Don’t be. The Huff is designed to breed hate and lies. Their readers were screaming “RACIST” and “BIGOT” in the comments section, but they had no understanding at all about the actual topic thanks to the Huff. The Huffington breeded hate and twisted logic in the minds of their readers once again.

How many DIGGs will this new Huffington Lie get?  Please read this MSNBC article first that explains the truth, then read the distorted Huffington Original the blog actually had the audacity to make their main headline.  We think a normal person would DIGG the first because it is the truth, but the sensationalistic lies and distortions of the Huff will likely win out.

Facebook Comments

Related Post

NEXT READ:  The Lie Of Urgency

9 Responses to "The Stupidest Article On The Huffington YET…"

  1. DIMPLES   December 13, 2008 at 10:58 am


  2. Martin Gradwell   December 13, 2008 at 11:21 am

    “**In this case**, the ignorance of Huff Readers was evident beyond belief”. Brilliant. Up to the point where you say this, you have give no clue as to which “case” you’re talking about. The only links have been to a spurious and supposedly satirical mashup by yourselves, a pointless definition of “splogging” and another story, again on your site and not on huffpo, in which you pretend that the stories about Palin had no merit because a trickster falsely pretended to be the source of one of them. What has any of this got to do with anything?

    “.. two misleading paragraphs which intentionally made an attempt to imply that President Bush was somehow snubbing Obama”. Ah, now I get it. You’re talking about the story where Blair House won’t be available to the Obamas until 15th Jan. The one where the link on the Huffpo home page is to the full NYT blog article. Of course Huffpo has a page for comments, and that only includes a coupe of paragraphs from the NYT blog (I think the NYT would have something to say about it if they quoted more), but again there’s a link to the full article. And I have tried to find something misleading in the two quoted paragraphs, but failed.

    “In reality, no President elect has moved into the Blair house before January 15”. Which reality would that be? In the reality that most of us inhabit, various sources say that more than one president has had Blair house available for the whole of January. Maybe in your reality Carter, Reagan and Clinton weren’t presidents. Meanwhile in the real reality other former presidents didn’t make use of Blair house at all, not having any need to, and only ONE president, Dubya, moved in precisely five days before inauguration. That one case is enough to establish a tradition, in the murky processes of the Bush white house.

  3. sheepinthehouse   December 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    To Martin…

    You have to follow the links clearly provided in the article Dick Tracy. If you didn’t take the time to read the referenced articles, your comments will be about as relevant as yours were, as in ir-relevant.

  4. Martin Gradwell   December 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Hi sheep. You’re right, I didn’t follow all the links in the article. Now I’ve followed the link to the Wikipedia article on Liberia, and suddenly it’s all clear. I never knew there was so much stuff about Liberia that I didn’t need to know. I never knew how important an understanding of Liberia was to an understanding of Huffpo, and Obama, and everything else.

    But that link comes towards the end, as do the links to the MSNBC and Huffpost articles. Which is why I said “**Up to the point where you say this** (referring to a point about a third of the way through the article), you have given no clue”. This article is like a thousand-word German sentence, one of those where the verb comes right at the end and until you get to that verb you can have no idea what it’s about. Except that it’s bashing Huffpo. I’l admit that I got that much fairly early on.

  5. David E. Brown   December 14, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re so upset about. I’ve followed all of your links in this article, and the similar one that you posted yesterday, and I can’t see the kind of attitude distortion that you’re seeing in them. They’re remarkably straightforward reporting of the kind of information that I would want if I were in Bush’s position.

    If my staff had failed to consider the possibility that the President-Elect might want to use the Blair House in the period prior to the inauguration I would have been very upset. And if there were a covenant of this nature in the history of property that I was purchasing, I would want to know about that also, so that I would have an opportunity to assess whether it was reflective of a current problem with the property and its neighborhood. I don’t know too many people who would like being blindsided by that kind of thing.

    Since I agree that it might not emerge in the selection and purchase processes, I would want it brought to my attention as soon as possible and would like to think that I wasn’t so thin-skinned as to think that the history of the property were reflective of my values, although I would want my reaction to that information to reflect my values.

    The most distortion I find with regard to these issues is in your presentation of them. I find that the way you present the You Tube clips that you cite in your Nov 23rd contribution are a particularly egregious and clumsy attempt to get something to stick. I find the use of laugh tracks especially bereft of class, not least in their use to support the exaggerated distortions inso many of the editorial comments that are screened in that clip.

    There, the distortion mostly relates to the significance you find in the clips, and in some cases your distortion is so excessive that your agenda starts showing. I hope your chiropractor has been successful in restoring your skeleton to normal after all the contortions you went through with that. I have no doubt that Obama regrets a lot of those incidents, but they’re hardly earth shaking, and it should have been a clue to you that they lack much value, since the McCain Campaign didn’t jump right on them, or is that because McCain was so meek and mild?

    You seem to have a burr up your posterior with regard to Ms. Huffington and her publication. She must have hurt you very profoundly and personally to generate as much trauma as your reaction would suggest. If not, then I can only conclude that there is some other profound trauma in your history, echoes of which are triggered by some minor aspect of her approach to the communication of news and ideas. If so, relief from the attendant emotional pain will only come from addressing that original trauma, not bashing the ghost of it that you see whenever you look at Ms Huffington’s work.

    Good luck.

  6. MeYouPunk   January 8, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    If Lex Luther tells me Superman is evil, I’m not going to take his word for it because he obviously has motives for doing so… I have a feeling that The Politic will pretty much say anything negative about any publication that doesn’t agree with their closeted view points. I think my dad says this was the news carrier of his choice, now it all makes sense: “Huffington is notorious for making stories where none exist, either by lying outright or distorting the story in such a way that it totally misleads their readers, who, it is unfortunate to say, are mostly sheep.” What, you expect me to take your word as truth, just because you say so. Please.

  7. Denford   January 9, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    I must admit I do not understand what the fact that the NY writer is Liberian born has to do with the issue you are discussing.

    Do his views matter less because he was born in Liberia or is there some evidence that Liberians are congenital liars and hence we should not listen to anything they say or take it seriously?

  8. Craig Crosby   April 23, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Splogging is mainstream. Even NBC does it. See No original content.

  9. maxine   March 21, 2012 at 3:32 am

    Here it is, 2 + years later and Huff Post is not only the same but it’s WORSE! More Enquirer type stories and God FORBID if you are not a gay, athiest Liberal! Its a daily hate fest They HATE Republicans, Tea Party members. and most of all Christians. If you are against gay marriage and say so you may as well hide the rest of the day. Absolutely NO doubt at least 95% of posters now are liberal athiests and about 60% at least gay. Regardless of talking point or the topic, politics take over. Even if the article is about a lost dog with 2 heads – out somes the HATE politics with wildly hateful Liberals. Its UNBELIEVEABLE. I wonder just HOW many there have ANY idea that Adrianna was a die hard Repub!! lmbooo!! They’d ALLLL be calling me a LIAR for SURE!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.