On Sunday, May 9th, The Huffington Post celebrated five years in business. Below, five CJR reporters reflect on various aspects of The Huffington Post’s legacy.
Liz Cox Barrett: Top 5 UNENTHUSIASTIC HuffPo Reviews of 2005 (NO PHOTOS) What is a birthday without being reminded of what you were like when you were first born, according to some of your peevish relatives (the ones who always knew you’d amount to nothing)? And so, below, some (very) early media reactions to the birth of The Huffington Post.
1. Nikki Finke, LA Weekly, May 12, 2005, “Celebs to the Slaughter: Why Arianna’s Blog Blows.” Sample: “Judging from Monday’s horrific debut of the humongously pre-hyped celebrity blog the Huffington Post, the Madonna of the mediapolitic world has undergone one reinvention too many. She has now made an online ass of herself…” Read more…
Ryan Chittum: The HuffPost’s Business Reporting Shows the Site Maturing Let’s get it out of the way up top that I think The Huffington Post is a mess—a schizophrenic, mostly unreadable hunk of tabloid journalism leavened with serious stuff. I mean, where else can you read a droning missive on the BP oil spill by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, helpfully identified as “Spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide,” on the same screen as “Lawrence Taylor RAPE Arrest: NFL Legend ARRESTED For Attacking Teenager” and “Elisabeth Hasselbeck SLAMS Erin Andrews’ Clothing, Excuses Stalker”?
Eyeballs JARRED. Reader GOOGLY-EYED After Reading HuffPo… Read more…
Alexandra Fenwick: Huffington Post and the Art of the Headline Everyone’s heard the Huffington Post described as the Drudge Report of the left, but someone once told me that they thought of the HuffPo as the New York Post for liberals, which I think makes a lot of sense. Both share a refined taste for the salacious, lowbrow, and downright distasteful; both take an almost palpable pleasure in writing eyeball-grabbing headlines on such subjects, though the way they go about grabbing eyeballs is quite different… Read more…
Clint Hendler: Stop Blaming The Huffington Post When I think about The Huffington Post, I’m troubled. But when I think harder, I reconsider what, exactly, makes me queasy. I don’t love the prime element behind Huffington Post’s business model: the army of unpaid writers whose work generates traffic to subsidize a small group of editors and reporters. But no one forces anyone to write for free, and The Huffington Post can plausibly claim that the writers get some intangibles—exposure and a small amount of cachet among them… Read more…
Greg Marx: Why My Brother Likes The Huffington Post I confess: The Huffington Post brings out the Andy Rooney in me. The site obviously supports some good journalism, it’s just as obviously used skillful aggregation to build a tremendous audience, and as a professional media observer you’d be derelict by not paying attention to it. But I’ve never really understood why so many people would choose it as their first place for news, rather than as a supplement. All those bright colors, and the photos everywhere! And never knowing where a link will go before I click on it! And why is it always shouting at me? If I stay on the site too long, I get a headache… Read more…
@Greg
But I’ve never really understood why so many people would choose it as their first place for news, rather than as a supplement.
1)Who says they do?
2)And, you know, not *everyone* wants the same kind of news that you think they should.
You guys have to admit, there is something on HuffPo for everyone. Ya know, lots and lots of people like a *little* serious, wonky stuff, some entertaining stuff, a little skin, some schadenfreude, pictures, videos, comedy and local news. It's all there, in one place.
3) As for the "unpaid writers," so the clowns on the Washington Post OpEd page get paid lots and lots of money for that stuff? Or are they writing their horsepuckey for free to advance their agenda? And what's the difference, then?
4) Not Andy Rooney so much as this guy.
Cheers.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 01:50 PM
Bloggers produce content, visitors read the content, advertisers pay money to the website for content that the readers read. Advertisers get exposure, readers get information and commentary, and bloggers get -- wait, where did the money from the advertisers go?
Something is strange in Huff land. And now a group of bloggers have come together to ask, "Why aren't we getting just a little of that money coming in? Why are we the only ones getting nothing out of this exchange?"
Is there a movement brewing? Is an earthquake building that will shake the Internet? Is a famous conservative-liberal turned selfing to good hearted and fair about to be embarrassed big time by her exploited workers?
Bloggers of the world, listen closely for the words: "Bloggers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose because your free content."
#2 Posted by Anonymous (to Keep Huff Blogging), CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 02:55 PM
Exploited workers? That's a stretch, don't you think? They certainly have the option of *not* blogging, right? That's kind of preposterous, when you think about it.
And what business of yours what a private company does with its revenue? Are you one of those poor, enslaved, exploited HuffPo bloggers?
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 03:37 PM
@James,
In reply to your first comment:
1) I was less rigorous than I should have been in the sentence you quote, as I don't in fact know how many HuffPost readers use it as their primary news source. Even if it's a small minority, though, that's a lot of people. And my brother does use it that way.
2) Of course I admit it! That was the premise of my piece, that lots of people make a choice for where to get their news that's not the one I make.
3) This may be better directed at Clint Hendler than me; I don't think I mentioned "unpaid writers."
4) I think you've given me a new Twitter avatar.
#4 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 05:27 PM
@Greg:
1) Classy. Hat tip.
2) and 3) Okay, fair enough.
4) Ha! You're welcome.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 08:40 PM
James,
You are correct they do have the option not to blog and they have the option to blog and fight to be paid for blogging, right? The option is not merely to blog for free or leave blogging, but to fight for money for blogging. And Since Huff Po is raking in some money, time to demand a slice of the money that they are crucial in bringing to Huff Po.
A weird take on reality -- it is our business, since they are asking for and are using our products. Of course bloggers have a right to demand that Huff Po explain where the money is going. Private? If private why are they using public products?
#6 Posted by Anonymous (, CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 09:56 PM
See, Mr./Ms. Anonymous -- I'm a moderate to heavy consumer of Huffington Post (though I do not, Greg will be pleased to know, use it as my primary source for news) -- I think she is doing you a favor by allowing you to blog there. She is allowing you to express your thoughts and opinions in a very public forum which she provides for you, just as the Washington Post provides a very public forum to allow ex-bushies to express their detestable opinions on its OpEd pages. I don't think your blogging is "crucial." If you stopped blogging at HuffPo, someone else would gladly step up and take your place. You could take your blogging indy, and see if you have some kind of "right" to be paid for blogging. Anyone can set up their own blog within minutes and see if they can make a living at it.
Does John Yoo and Mark Theissen have a "right" to to know where Washington Post revenue is "going"? I don't think so. Do Daily Kos diarists and Front Pagers have a "right" to know where Marcos' advertising money is going? I don't think so. The idea is preposterous, actually.
I imagine that if you could prove that you brought revenue into the company, they might be willing to pay you. Indeed, perhaps there would be a vigorous public blogospheric bidding war for your blogging. But I can't see it. Explain why anyone should pay you to blog about your opinion.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 11 May 2010 at 04:57 AM
i've been reading the huffpost since day 1. i admire ariana huffington. at the same time, i think the huffpost is a journalistic mess. it produces almost zero news. the only thing it tells me is what's hot and what's not. if lindsay lohan were ever to straighten her life out. the huffpost would go out of business.
#8 Posted by cliff barney, CJR on Thu 13 May 2010 at 01:45 AM