Media Royalism and Censorship at the Huffington Post

It isn't just NBC going totally overboard over the sudden death of Dick Cheney's favorite dupe Tim Russert. The Huffington Post has been riddled with tributes to the fan of Turbo Bush and it is now censoring comments excoriating Mr. Potato Head for his role in helping the White House propagandize the public into the disastrous war in Iraq.

I have personally had at least half a dozen posts reacting to HP contributors' effusive praise of Timmeh refused even though those comments weren't profane, off topic or ad hominem attacks on other posters. Indeed, somebody there apparently has it in for me since I have had other comments censored, too. None of those violated any of the HP's posting guidelines.

There was a particularly inane column about Russert scribbled by Jamie Frevele about how 'Sundays wouldn't be the same without [him]." So I retorted that Frevele had pulled a Pee Wee Herman and declared Russert "The King of Sunday!" I facetiously added that since his death cast such a pall over that day that no broadcasting be permitted to take place as a tribute to this media god.

In that connection, in talking back at a writer of another Russert brown nose article, I asked him, "so what are you guys going to say when Mike Wallace dies? Wallace actually made you feel good about the media because he was its junkyard dog that nobody wanted to cross, grilling his quarry to the wall until they admitted something they were attempting to conceal."

"On the other hand, Russert was a teddy bear, a soft, inoffensive, lightweight toy nobody minded having around. If you are going to treat Russert as some mythic figure, then how do you eulogize Wallace? As God? Russert didn't even deserve to breathe on Wallace's microphone."

Yeah, I can see how you would think of this complaint as whining, but the fact is that the moderators let through other more inane posts such as, and I quote, "do yo know how horny scotch makes you?" That one appeared TWICE.

In one instance, I questioned a writer's piece on his recent trip to Disneyland, pondering whether this was some kind of product placement. Disney is notorious for its unnecessarily relentless and sometimes underhanded promotion of its properties and there just wasn't any journalistic reason for the guy to pen this article nor for HP to run it other than maybe HP was being paid off to do so by Bush cocksucker Robert Iger's outfit. They printed three comments that were all just "we love Disney" type blather.

So the Huffington Post is both serving corporate masters and its own elitist circle of media acquaintances and friends and not necessarily its readership. In doing so, it is taking the condescending tack that characterizes the mainstream media's attitude toward regular folks. That is just wrong.