Video: Michelle versus HuffPo editor on O’Reilly

posted at 9:13 pm on March 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Wasn’t much of a debate, I’m afraid: O’R did most of the talking, Sekoff ended up agreeing that bloggers should note when they’ve substantially redacted a post after it’s been published (as Charles Karel Bouley has now done, although he hadn’t originally), and the rest devolved into yet another round of “when is it fair to judge a blog by its commenters?” The sage of Puppetland took it upon himself to draw up some guidelines a few weeks ago, but unfortunately for Sekoff they do not redound to HuffPo’s advantage.

My own rule of thumb in this area is to go by word of mouth. The only two sites on the left whose stench wafts consistently over the fence into our yard are HuffPo and dKos, although whether that’s because they’re unusually rotten or because they’re the biggest blogs in America and thus produce more garbage along with more of everything else, I’m not sure. Anyway, not a particularly interesting subject but it sounds like O’R wants to have another go of it on Monday, so look forward to that.


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wasn’t much of a debate, I’m afraid: O’R did most of the talking

Imagine that.

Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Michelle sliced him on his comments error and he never recovered. He then tried the cherry-picking argument and O’R headed him off. Not a good night for the HuffPuffer, imho.

Bryan on March 30, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Wasn’t much of a debate, I’m afraid

I disagree, I’m rarely (if ever) a cheerleader, but Michelle owned that dude.

I would however liked to have seen a double segment, so they could get in to how the HuffingtonPost, in preparation for the hate and deathwishes for Republicans regularly seen in their comments, they’ve just not allowed comments on certain posts where they know the comments would be particularly embarassing for them (revealing what they’re about, if this is what their audience consists of). Other times when they’ve left comments open and the death wishes were still bountiful, they’ve stealthily removed comments, while leaving up the moderately civil ones.

RightWinged on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM

I should add, that’s why I’m not an O’R fan. It’s hard to conduct an interview when the voice you find most interesting is your own.

Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM

The Democrat Underground (DUmmies) also emit quite a strong odor.

pjcomix on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM

It was Sekoff who did most of the blubbering.

And I thought his concession to amend the post was, in fact, particularly interesting.

Michelle on March 30, 2007 at 9:26 PM

The Democrat Underground (DUmmies) also emit quite a strong odor.

pjcomix on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM

That they do.

Say, I seem to be missing a certain Herald.

steveegg on March 30, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Great job MM!

infidel on March 30, 2007 at 9:28 PM

As usual, the left just talks and talks and talks and says nothing. Michelle kicked his butt with 1/4 the words. Nice job MM.

Wade on March 30, 2007 at 9:28 PM

True that pjcomix. Course this is your area of expertise so you’d know. I like your site and drop by for the sweet sweet crazy. I don’t think you get the recognition you deserve.

Michelle pwn3d the HuffPo guy, and O’reilly got good shots in too.

I’ve said it for ages, but the left is gonna get exposed for their antiamericanism, socialism, trutherism and antisemitism in a big way, and its gonna hurt the left bad. That said, expect them to try and dredge up anything to tar this site and Michelle, and you know they’ll focus on LGF and the FReepers.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 9:31 PM

And I thought his concession to amend the post was, in fact, particularly interesting.

Michelle on March 30, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Yeah, that was interesting. Maybe its damage control? They have to be scared, the most dangerous thing for the left is to have this lunacy and hate in the open.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Michelle, you slaughtered him.

TheBigOldDog on March 30, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Total nitpick – DU isn’t a blog. Which is probably why it wasn’t on the list.

Though I agree it stinks in a vacuum.

Merovign on March 30, 2007 at 9:36 PM

they recycled michelle’s background?

lorien1973 on March 30, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Didn’t HuffPO have to close comments over Cheney last week because of the same thing? “commenters” wishing him death? Its a pattern, not cherrypicked.

lorien1973 on March 30, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Great Job Michelle! I, like Slublog, am absolutely shocked that O’Reilly did most of the talking.

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 9:41 PM

Great Job Michelle! I, like Slublog, am absolutely shocked that O’Reilly did most of the talking.

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 9:41 PM

I know O’Reilly can be a little much at times, but give him points for bringing the liberal hate sites into the light. No one else with his kind of audience is doing it.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 9:45 PM

I know O’Reilly can be a little much at times, but give him points for bringing the liberal hate sites into the light. No one else with his kind of audience is doing it.

True. The guy does perform a good public service in that way.

Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Michelle sliced him on his comments error and he never recovered. He then tried the cherry-picking argument and O’R headed him off. Not a good night for the HuffPuffer, imho.

Bryan on March 30, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Great job Michelle! The only thing missing was the ragged “Z” sliced on his shirt with your foil…

Zorro on March 30, 2007 at 9:48 PM

Didn’t HuffPO have to close comments over Cheney last week because of the same thing? “commenters” wishing him death? Its a pattern, not cherrypicked.

lorien1973 on March 30, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Yep, here we go.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006956.htm

The jihadi attack on the base Cheney was visiting.

Course when Cheney had a blood clot, they headed off the pass and closed comments.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM

And I thought his concession to amend the post was, in fact, particularly interesting.

Michelle on March 30, 2007 at 9:26 PM

That’s why I say, despite not usually being anyone’s cheerleader, you owned that guy… You basically forced him t odo that. Just like the time O’Reilly forced Jane Fleming to admit that she’d have kept on Edwards’ anti-Christian bloggers, but fired ones who’d said anything anti-gay or anti-black in the past. You properly boxed him in and forced him to choose a path.

I’d still like to have seen this go in a few other areas (as explain in my previous comment), but this was still a great beating, and one of my favorite segments that you’ve been on. I’m kind of shocked that AP wasn’t that impressed with the segment.

RightWinged on March 30, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Sekoff says about the Bouley
“Bill, We agree that it was completely inappropriate.
That’s why he took it down himself “.. .

WTF does that mean .

Stumble, bumble, blam, face on door.

Texyank on March 30, 2007 at 9:54 PM

It seems like they sent him in there saying, “Don’t own that blog post. Distance yourself from it. Carry us away.”

I thought he was pretty contrite and repentant.

Of course, he’s wrong about the ‘cherry picking.’
As the son of a cherry picker, I’m outraged.

PastaKeith on March 30, 2007 at 9:57 PM

And I thought his concession to amend the post was, in fact, particularly interesting.

Michelle on March 30, 2007 at 9:26 PM

The post doesn’t say what was editted though; it simply says “it was editted” that isn’t very useful to anyone. Is it?

lorien1973 on March 30, 2007 at 9:57 PM

The post doesn’t say what was editted though; it simply says “it was editted” that isn’t very useful to anyone. Is it?

Good point, but given that it just went up, I’d give them till tomorrow or maybe up to monday to put an official change down, just to be fair, or maybe generous.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 10:03 PM

The Queen just showed the King who has the balls

driller on March 30, 2007 at 10:11 PM

So if Bouley removed that content because he recognized that it was objectionable, why did he try to defend it in the comments? I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure out how these people think.

Jim Treacher on March 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM

After watching this segment, I was so PROUD to be a part of this community. Is Hotair the anti-HuffingtonPost?

CrimsonFisted on March 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM

I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure out how these people think.

Jim Treacher on March 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM

There’s a word in that sentence that just doesn’t belong.
(hint: it rhymes with pink)

billy on March 30, 2007 at 11:03 PM

Presumably these 900 bloggers are being paid, right? Even if they get nothing but 15 minutes of fame, why doesn’t HuffPo just fire Bouley, or at least suspend him with a warning?

Is it too much to expect basic human decency from their contributors?

Buy Danish on March 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Just saw the segment on Fox. It was pretty good but Bill really blew it at one point when he seemed surprised that just anyone would be allowed to make comments on a blog and that they would post immediately.

Shows he doesn’t get around much on teh Internets.

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Sekoff obviously was not telling the truth when he said inappropriate comments are rare. We all know what the language is like on the lefties’ websites.

That said, there are those on all forums/blogs, both right and left who have a hard time thinking of a substitute for the “f” word. I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

One other thing – O’Reilly said he’s not an “Internet guy” and that it’s a waste of his time. Note to Bill: You may want to consider getting with the program. You can’t talk about those horrible left-wing websites if you don’t actually visit them. Nor can you mutter something under your breath about “kool aid right-wingers” just to be fair and balanced in your comments without visiting the right side. I asked him who was on that kool aid right-wing list of his. Rather than answering, he did the polls. Who is the farthest left? Who is the farthest right? I wouldn’t even vote in the 2nd one. None of them are radicals. I just wished he’d answered my question instead of “letting the folks decide.”

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM

So if Bouley removed that content because he recognized that it was objectionable, why did he try to defend it in the comments? I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure out how these people think.

Jim Treacher on March 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM

They don’t think, Jim. If they did, they’d understand why what they say and do is encouraging the terrorists and why their words are causing kids in Portland to think it’s ok to burn effigies of our troops.

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Since I am not allowed to post here, does that mean I can say anything I want TOS be damned?

If so I will be dropping the F-bomb all over this site.

/sarcasm

F15Mech on March 30, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Sekoff obviously was not telling the truth when he said inappropriate comments are rare. We all know what the language is like on the lefties’ websites.

That said, there are those on all forums/blogs, both right and left who have a hard time thinking of a substitute for the “f” word. I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

One other thing – O’Reilly said he’s not an “Internet guy” and that it’s a waste of his time. Note to Bill: You may want to consider getting with the program. You can’t talk about those horrible left-wing websites if you don’t actually visit them. Nor can you mutter something under your breath about “kool aid right-wingers” just to be fair and balanced in your comments without visiting the right side. I asked him who was on that kool aid right-wing list of his. Rather than answering, he did the polls. Who is the farthest left? Who is the farthest right? I wouldn’t even vote in the 2nd one. None of them are radicals. I just wished he’d answered my question instead of “letting the folks decide.”

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM

To clarify, I’m not someone who cares about language, I care about sentiment. I use the F-word all the time, and find the whole idea that some words are swears and others aren’t pretty stupid, just because someone somewhere along the line decided the half dozen or so words were not okay.

RightWinged on March 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM

speaking as a person not allowed to post on Michelle’s site…

Once again great job Michelle.

It is nice to know that I can go to the Kos site and drop filth for at least 8 hours before I get banned.

However here it only takes an hour or less if I did the same.

I expect the computer, in your closet, must work overtime to ban people on this site.

F15Mech on March 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM

The fact Tuesday they wouldn’t even allow the inmates at PuffHost to comment about Tony Snow spoke volumes.

Game.Set.Match to Michelle.

Lord, she destroyed him.

A shame this slackjawed cretin wasn’t asked about this commenter pining for Cheney’s assassination.

I would like to take a sledge hammer to Cheneys foot……then tell the fucking terrorist bastard ”now you know what if feels like’. Then shove a .45 in his mouth and blow his fucking brains out.

By: PissedoffVietVet on March 20, 2007 at 06:57pm

JammieWearingFool on March 30, 2007 at 11:44 PM

I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

While HA might be better than most, they’ll find something and go ZOMG!!!! LOOK LOOK MALKIN AND HER SHEEPLE ARE FULL OF TEH HATE!!!!!111!!!1!!1!eleventy!!1

And the media will do its own version of Rolling Thunder and start doing hit pieces, -Well there were some bad thing on the liberal blogs and list one mildly bad thing, then go BUT LOOK AT THESE WINGNUTS!!!! and find a few quotes either out of context or admittedly bad ones despite the fact that conservative commentators are’t nearly as bad as the left. Guarantee you. So be ready for it, commenters, Malkin and HA crew alike. But we have to keep exposing the left for what it is.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 11:46 PM

I actually thought the HuffPo guy did a good job articulating and defending his position and site. If all I had to go on was this interview (which, I’m sure, is what most of the O’Reilly audience will only get) then I would have no idea how loony and despicable that site is. I was mildly disappointed with Michelle for not citing the Cheney comments a couple of weeks ago, among other incidents. I don’t think these blogs were exposed nearly as much as they could have.

Patriot33 on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Man, Michelle destroyed that buffoon. Can they please explain why this was allowed to stay on their site?

I would like to take a sledge hammer to Cheneys foot……then tell the fucking terrorist bastard ”now you know what if feels like’. Then shove a .45 in his mouth and blow his fucking brains out.

By: PissedoffVietVet on March 20, 2007 at 06:57pm

It speaks volumes how they wouldn’t even allow comments Tuesday afer the story about Tony Snow was posted.

JammieWearingFool on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Sorry about the double post. Thought the first one didn’t get up.

JammieWearingFool on March 30, 2007 at 11:50 PM

JWF, is that post still there, or has it been cleansed at Huffpo?

Next time make a screencap. We have to start screencapping everything, because they’re gonna get better at tamping down the sweet crazy because its starting to go mainstream.

I was mildly disappointed with Michelle for not citing the Cheney comments a couple of weeks ago, among other incidents. I don’t think these blogs were exposed nearly as much as they could have.

Patriot33 on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Look, its a start, and its a short segment. There’s a crack in the dike, and a trickle that the left is trying to patch, but the whole thing is gonna blow wide open, its just gonna take time as the left tries everything to stop it. They’re terrified at the prospect of the antisemitism, antichristian, socialistic and antiamericanism getting out. Leftism is about hiding reality and creating illusion, and this has their leadership terrified. It has to.

Bad Candy on March 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Hmm…where did that post go?

Bad Candy on March 31, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Michelle totally owned that debate, and to do him one better, noted she has two websites, one of which allows comments. Mr O was correct that HuffPo needs to have filters on certain language. Certainly Hot Air does. It can be policed, and should be, to prevent foul and obscene comments from ever getting any “air” time. One thing I’ve noticed about Hot Air is that offensive commentors are banned. I don’t notice this on HuffPo.

thedecider on March 31, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Huh, there it is. Weird. Sometimes they don’t show up, then appear as if by magic.

Bad Candy on March 31, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Mellow Michelle no more.

Rick on March 31, 2007 at 12:17 AM

I would hope that if RightWinged is correct and Hot Air is scrutinized, we will do Michelle proud.

Connie on March 30, 2007 at 11:19 PM

I realize I already commented on the whole F-word thing in response to you earlier, but I just glanced at this sentence again, and realize I’m not sure what you mean… Perhaps I don’t remember writing it, or perhaps you misunderstood me or something, but I didn’t say I thought HotAir was going to be scrutinized. What am I missing here?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Huh, there it is. Weird. Sometimes they don’t show up, then appear as if by magic.

Bad Candy on March 31, 2007 at 12:12 AM

No, it’s our resident deity at work.

Rick on March 31, 2007 at 12:21 AM

thedecider on March 31, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Exactly,

One other thing however…

The posters on HA generally police themselves/other posters.

Any dropped F-bombs or anything that goes against the HA TOS will get you banned by the HA staff.

As long as I make some point clearly. (I have a problem doing that) I expect any other poster to speak up and correct me.

If we agree to disagree then it is all good.

You will not find that on digg/dailykos etc. Any disagreements on a liberal site result in getting buried.

F15Mech on March 31, 2007 at 12:25 AM

It speaks volumes how they wouldn’t even allow comments Tuesday afer the story about Tony Snow was posted.

JammieWearingFool on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Ditto, JWF. Hot Air is one of the hottest blogs in the right-o-sphere, they periodically have “open registration,” and anybody who goes over the line risks banishment. Result? No flame wars, no death threats (those they get by e-mail), and therefore no “gotcha” fodder for the lefties to use.

By the way, JWF, you’re doing good with your blog. Averaging over 300 hits a day after less than five months is a pretty good accomplishment for an anonymous blogger. But you’d do even better if you had an e-mail link so that people could send you tips. Trust me.

Ali-Bubba on March 31, 2007 at 12:26 AM

michelle is right on. and the game face is back.

wryteacher on March 31, 2007 at 12:27 AM

“I actually thought the HuffPo guy did a good job articulating and defending his position ”

He was doing okay until the conversation came around to why the posting stayed up so long (not the comments but the posting itself). The part where he said when an offensive posting is noted, the poster has 24 hours to change or remove it is unacceptable, particularly if the comments to the posting are left. It presents a skewed vision of what is happening. To have a posting, then have a comment to that posting, and then to change the posting while leaving the comment in place means the comments are now out of context and later comments are out of context with earlier comments.

That, by the way, is one problem I have with people being able to edit comments. Someone could post an inflammatory comment, get a real sh*t storm started, then go back and change the original comment and pretend they never said it in the first place. An acceptable medium is to allow editing of a comment for say … 15 minutes. After that it is locked and can only be changed by the site admin. Otherwise you have people playing games with trying to change history in the comments.

But to get back on track, allowing someone to leave something that is just.plain.wrong on a site for 24 hours is unacceptable.

crosspatch on March 31, 2007 at 12:34 AM

To clarify, I’m not someone who cares about language, I care about sentiment.

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

but I didn’t say I thought HotAir was going to be scrutinized. What am I missing here?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 12:17 AM

My apologies. It was bad candy, I believe. At this time of night, I could be wrong again. lol!

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:52 AM

JammieWearingFool on March 30, 2007 at 11:48 PM

That’s why I said the guy was lying. I guess his idea of what is acceptable is a “bit” different.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:56 AM

She had him and she new she had him. Almost couldn’t contain herself hehehe. Even twitched her eyebrows at him muahaha. Boys and girls, this is what is known as a royal spanking.

- The Cat

P.S. I lost a little more respect for O’Reilly . . . waist of time indead.

MirCat on March 31, 2007 at 12:57 AM

My God Michelle was good!
It’s no wonder they hate her so much.

And, it’s too bad O’Relly hates the internet so much. It would be wise for him or his staff to spend a little more time at HotAir, MM, Insta, Powerline, LGF…

gatewaypundit on March 31, 2007 at 1:09 AM

It is nice to participate in discussions like those that take place here without having to worry if one of the kids sits down on my lap while I am viewing the site. Language doesn’t bother me, but it is nice to have a site where I don’t have to worry about those young reader’s eyes straying onto the screen.

When I view this site, I am often inviting you into my home in a way and my kids might be within “eyeshot” of what you say. I could prevent them from being around the computer when I look at this site, but it is nice not having to worry about it.

crosspatch on March 31, 2007 at 1:41 AM

My number one hero in my life, among human beings alive today, is my wife. She is a strong willed, loyal, moral person who stand up for what she believes in, and stands her ground against those who try to lay a trip on her, especially those who need their head examined due to their absurd, misguided point of view.

Among my other heroes I can confidently, and without reservation, list Michelle Malkin, that stalwart of truth, honesty, dignity, and justice. She is excellent at stating the truth, backing it up with substantiating facts, and refraining from ad hominem attacks, but choosing instead to wield the sword of truth to do her bidding!

Wonderful!

Bill O’Reilly appears to be growing as well, as he more often stands for truth and justice, and more often acknowledges the dishonesty and hatred of the left.

William

William2006 on March 31, 2007 at 2:06 AM

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I understand that you care, as do others… but can you tell me exactly why? Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why do you have to say anything about that in public?

Closest I come is an IM to one of my daughters with “brb…bathroom.”

Crass is crass.

I’m old enough to remember the guy who won the lawsuit that enabled him to say the “f word on campus. Oh yeeha! Society has gone downhill since then.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

Why do you have to say anything about that in public?

Closest I come is an IM to one of my daughters with “brb…bathroom.”

Crass is crass.

I’m old enough to remember the guy who won the lawsuit that enabled him to say the “f word on campus. Oh yeeha! Society has gone downhill since then.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

It was an example Connie, you avoided the point… Though there are plenty of instances where that would be used in public.

I’ll give you an example more to your liking then. I stub my toe and shout “sh**!” or “fu**!”… Why is that any worse than saying “darn!” or “dang!”?

I’m not denying that society has gotten worse in the past couple generations, but it certainly has nothing to do with the acceptance of swears… though the reason they’ve been accepted may be part of the fact that anything taboo is now celebrated, and swears were once considered much more taboo. It’s been a free-for-all for acceptance of anything considered nontraditional and cutting edge, but I think “swearing” has been improperly tied in to it.

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with. Just because someone somewhere along the line decided they would make a list of half a dozen or so words that were “swears”, despite having the same meanings as plenty of other words, we’re supposed to think those words are any different. They’re a series of letters put together and people don’t even know why it’s offensive, other than “that’s just the way it is”.

So again, I point you to my examples… and ask you why the ones with “swears” are worse than the others?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 3:28 AM

Michelle just needs to be given her own damn show on fox. I’m not saying this because I just learned that this is her site today lol..funny huh? I didn’t know. But I’m serious, she is a sharpie…and deserves a spot to expose things. Everyone I talk to is like..good lord she is really smart. It is always great when someone is a voice of reason..very few have it on tv…o’reilly and glenn beck being the only two I know of for my tastes.

Highrise on March 31, 2007 at 4:40 AM

Kind of off-topic but is anyone else peeved that Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay are being put on the same level on the right as Sean Penn and Rose O’Donnell on the left? I think this really shows a lot: You have a ton of loons and radicals on the left, and the most “far right” O’Reilly could get included Rush Limbaugh–a completely mainstream leader of the movement. There really is no far right in American politics (not talking about Nazism or anything like that). Whereas the far-left, with the Cindy Sheehans and Sean Penn’s and the other American haters, has been mainstreamed and is socially acceptable.

Patriot33 on March 31, 2007 at 4:42 AM

Forgot to add…What does this say? That what 50 years ago would have been considered liberal, is now moderate? That because things continue to move to the left, mainstream conservatism is considered “radical”? What does that say about (to use an O’Reilly term) the culture war and who is winning?

Patriot33 on March 31, 2007 at 4:44 AM

Mr. Sekoff did seem a little defensive.

I wonder why.

(Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?)

But I would have liked to have given him enough time to “explain.” That sort of damage control is always amusing.

Bob's Kid on March 31, 2007 at 5:17 AM

My favorite part was when Michelle was interrupted and the camera cut to her as she took a deep breath to contain her response a bit longer.

It looked like she was Puffing Up to take on HuffPo.

iNeXuS on March 31, 2007 at 6:30 AM

Michelle, Brilliant as usual. Taking the good fight to those who so desperately need a whoopin, and the HuffPoo definitely needs one!

Viper1 on March 31, 2007 at 6:50 AM

By the way, JWF, you’re doing good with your blog. Averaging over 300 hits a day after less than five months is a pretty good accomplishment for an anonymous blogger. But you’d do even better if you had an e-mail link so that people could send you tips. Trust me.

Click on the profile and you can find it.

JammieWearingFool on March 31, 2007 at 8:52 AM

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I think the use of some words, especially those that have to do with bodily functions, are very much a part of society’s current problems. Coarseness in speech implies a selfish lack of respect for others and leads to the type of behavior we see at Huffington Post, DK, and DU.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 10:05 AM

I should add, that’s why I’m not an O’R fan. It’s hard to conduct an interview when the voice you find most interesting is your own.

Slublog on March 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM

Common ground :)

wytammic on March 31, 2007 at 10:41 AM

SMACK DOWNby MM! Excellent work!!!

silenced majority on March 31, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Michelle did a great job.

I agree with this poster:

I know O’Reilly can be a little much at times, but give him points for bringing the liberal hate sites into the light. No one else with his kind of audience is doing it.

While he is extremely annoying most of the time, the above is a good point.

wytammic on March 31, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Bouley complains that, due to the number of thread posted and the number comments each thread generate, it is impossible to monitor the blog and respond quickly to inappropriate content. Excuse me, but that’s a very lame excuse.

A blog like HotAir is really a modern, limited version of a BBS and should be treated as such. There are people, called administrators, that can monitor the main thread posts and delete the threads that are inappropriate. There are people, called moderators, that can monitor the comments and delete the inappropriate ones. Users that continually violate the posting guidelines can be banned. DU has this format, as does the FR and other forums and they all use administrators and moderators. I see no problem with sites like HA or DK doing the same.

RedinBlueCounty on March 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with.

In a polite, respectful society there are certain words and phrases that are deemed by common consensus as inappropriate to speak publicly, just as there are other modes of behavior that are inappropriate. These inappropriate behaviors can be, and in most cases are, regulated. This is done in the best interest of the society.

We regulate inappropriate behavior, like violence against another, as this type of behavior can be harmful to others if allowed. There is no difference between regulating public speech behaviors and other human behaviors. If swearing is harmful to sensibilities of others and/or leads to confrontation, it should not be allowed to occur in a public setting. There are some things you just don’t say in public.

You should not use foul or demeaning words or phrases in a public as as society has deemed this as inappropriate behavior and this behavior should be limited. Your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to use words and phrases that society has deemed inappropriate. You need to respect the sensibilities of others and that includes respecting the taboos on public speech. Failure to respect others is a good way to ensure that others will not respect you in return. Just how can any society hold together if respect is not a part of that society’s interactions? It can’t.

RedinBlueCounty on March 31, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I didn’t watch the clip – but I have ask: is that a man or woman?

From the still shot, I really can’t tell.

Is it Pink Xerxes out of costume?

Professor Blather on March 31, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Ok, I’ve said this over and over in the comments here, but those comment threads that HuffPo has deleted are just the tip of the iceberg. I don’t why they only attracted attention for the Cheney and Tony Snow threads, because everyday there is some thread on there that’s just as vile. This thread about the Iran hostage situation from yesterday contains pages of jew-baiting, filthy bigoted personal insults, conspiracy theories, and America bashing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/comments/2007/03/30/44592

I notice that today they’re not allowing comments on the latest devlopments in the Iran story. Nor are they allowing comments on the Rosie O’Donnell story.

Hopefully, they’re starting to get embarrassed by all their resident conspiracy nuts and useful idiots.

juliesa on March 31, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Oops, actually, now they are allowing comments on today’s Iran story. I think the comments were broken.

juliesa on March 31, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I just want to address the arrogance of Bill O’Reilly.

A message to Bill O’Reilly:

“Bill, the internet is here to stay. It has great value–in fact it’s value is exponentially larger than your world of old school media. And it’s growing. Bill. Do you really think that television is still the giant in the room? Bill, it’s time to wake up. Or hush up.”

What Bill refuses to understand is that Internet sites are not trying to mimic Old School Media like his. Instead–they offer something different, something that changes instantly or expands without huge cash outlays and staff increases. I believe Bill is upset because in order for us to express our opinions, we don’t have to genuflect to his rules, his show and his interruptions.

Bill’s claim to fame on his web site (which according to him he can’t waste time on) is that he has an army of people monitoring it. Well, Bill….that is great! It’s also a barrier to entry to the rest of the world. What you’re saying is: You can’t have a worthwhile information system unless you’re a large corporate entity with vast resources–and all the bureacracy, bickering, backstabbing and waste that goes with it. Nice vision Bill.

By the way, I link to Bill’s site perhaps 5 times a year. I link here EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

Bill…the very fact that I posted this should teach you something. Regrettably, I suspect you’re deaf to it. That saddens me because you were once a great advocate of the “little guy”. Or at least posed as such.

I used to really like and respect Bill. When I had a TV I watched his show every night. But his growing arrogance towards those of us who either operate web sites or use them as our main source of information has become “The Most Ridiculous” item of the day.

Perhaps I’ll link on over to FOX NEWS (I no longer own a TV so I can’t surf over) where I can undoubtely read the 1,000,000th news story on Anna Nicole Smith (RIP). FOX NEWS is at least 50% tabloid.

I can’t waste my time on that. I can spend my time here.

I came away from that clip not angry at Liberal hate for Tony Snow (in former posts I said that the Unholy Trinity to Liberals is comprised of: Truth, Logic, and Reason–hence their hatred towards Tony), but instead, I came away angry at Bill for his arrogance.

Why? Because the former is expected and incurable, the latter is not.

Name and town…name and town…if you wish to opine!

Jason, Bozeman, MT

Montana on March 31, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Screencap that juliesa,it could be gone soon enough once we start highlighting it.

Bad Candy on March 31, 2007 at 2:16 PM

They always bring out the ‘freedom of speech’ balance, when it’s in their favor.

A guy now runs a pedophile site, with pictures of young girls (he takes at public parties/gatherings), and tips on how not to be caught by the police as a pedophile…the police and no one else can’t do anything about him because he has never been caught with anything illegal. It’s all freedom of speech.

Yes, the blogosphere needs standards if it wishes to be taken seriously. However, the MSM has lost all its standards.

Not a good night for the HuffPuffer, imho.

Bryan on March 30, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Too nice. It’s the HuffPoo. Stench and rats. AP put it like it is, at the top. It comes over because it’s there, because it exists. They can’t have it both ways.

Entelechy on March 31, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Sekoff must go through Dramamine by the case, with all the spinning he does. I watched this when it aired, and I literally snorted when he said “Michelle doesn’t allow comments on her site”. You know, I could have sworn that she did… And it’s uncanny how Bouley just happened to change his post himself, for no apparent reason, after leaving it up for 8 hours. “The blogosphere is self-correcting”, my ass–only when people like Sekoff get attention they don’t want. I already knew that the terms “Huffington Post” and “Quality Control” were mutually exclusive, but if you’re going to go on natiional television and claim the title of “Editor”, you might want to, I don’t know, edit or something. Douchebag.

Clearly the cockroaches are starting to run now that people are shining a light on them. It was nice of O’Reilly to name some of the companies that advertise on DKos–I wonder how they felt about getting mentioned in the context of the horrible comments about Tony Snow. Heh. Based on Sekoff’s defensiveness and the way that comments have been disabled on some HuffPoo topics recently, I suspect that HuffPoo will be making a few changes in an effort to protect themselves from association with the most vile of their commenters. If that happens it should be fun to watch, because the moonbats will scream “Censorship!” and bloody murder at not being able to post any filth they want. And then the worst of them will go off and infect some other site, making it not just evil but concentrated evil. Which will in turn give our side even more ammunition to show normal Americans how hate-filled and vile left-wing lunatics are.

ReubenJCogburn on March 31, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Connie, I gotta bust you here… you’re being very evassive, because you obviously don’t have an answer:

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

That’s fine for some people, but I do care. I think the words we use define us. My grown kids still think “crap” is a swear word. (Well, kinda) ;)

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I understand that you care, as do others… but can you tell me exactly why? Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why is it worse to say “I’m going to take a sh**” than saying “I’m going to take a crap/dump/etc.” or saying “I’m going to go number 2″?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 2:31 AM

Why do you have to say anything about that in public?

Closest I come is an IM to one of my daughters with “brb…bathroom.”

Crass is crass.

I’m old enough to remember the guy who won the lawsuit that enabled him to say the “f word on campus. Oh yeeha! Society has gone downhill since then.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 AM

It was an example Connie, you avoided the point… Though there are plenty of instances where that would be used in public.

I’ll give you an example more to your liking then. I stub my toe and shout “sh**!” or “fu**!”… Why is that any worse than saying “darn!” or “dang!”?

I’m not denying that society has gotten worse in the past couple generations, but it certainly has nothing to do with the acceptance of swears… though the reason they’ve been accepted may be part of the fact that anything taboo is now celebrated, and swears were once considered much more taboo. It’s been a free-for-all for acceptance of anything considered nontraditional and cutting edge, but I think “swearing” has been improperly tied in to it.

But that’s my issue, the whole idea of “swearing” is artificial to begin with. Just because someone somewhere along the line decided they would make a list of half a dozen or so words that were “swears”, despite having the same meanings as plenty of other words, we’re supposed to think those words are any different. They’re a series of letters put together and people don’t even know why it’s offensive, other than “that’s just the way it is”.

So again, I point you to my examples… and ask you why the ones with “swears” are worse than the others?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 3:28 AM

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. I think the use of some words, especially those that have to do with bodily functions, are very much a part of society’s current problems. Coarseness in speech implies a selfish lack of respect for others and leads to the type of behavior we see at Huffington Post, DK, and DU.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 10:05 AM

You’re still not even attempting to explain why certain words are worse than others, and you’re being dishonest by attempting to bring it back in to the realm of bodily functions, when as I said that was simply an example, so I provided you with a non-bodily function one instead.

How many times do I have to ask for a simple answer?

RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Minor point but ‘cache’ is pronounced with a short a.

cache |ka sh |

digitalintrigue on March 31, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Well, RightWinged, I might suggest that if one wishes to initiate a discussion pertaining to linguistics and the history of cuss words, it might be wise to learn that ad hominem attacks, especially those that are completely off-the-wall, are probably not the best way to get one what one desires.

Whether such words are derived from bodily functions or religious terms really is unimportant. What is important is that the decision about what is acceptable and what is not is made by society. Some non-cuss words have roots that remain intact, but over the years have developed a specific meaning. In recent years, some words have developed into phrases (went missing, for example). Some nouns are being used as verbs. Syntax is near impossible to figure out anymore. There used to be rules. Anything goes society is working to get rid of rules. From structure to chaos?

Some individuals have a higher level of verbal self-control, and other than uttering a loud, unintelligible noise when stubbing toes, do not rely on darn, dang, or even ow or ouch. If someone shoots you in the gut, your response would more likely be ugh or arghh, unless, of course, four-letter words have a tendency to be your initial response to any situation. But if that is the case, then four-letter words would probably be the initial gleeful response to an especially beautiful fireworks display, as well.

Shock and awe for the brain? Keep it creative? If you’re not cussing, you’re not putting in enough effort?

If “experts” find that swearing among close friends seems to denote trust, then does swearing at strangers threaten their space? Is swearing therapeutic? If DUers are more likely to swear, does that mean they are less likely to be violent? Or more likely?

But, I digress from words to usage thereof. If you want to study why certain words devolve (or evolve) into curse words, all you have to do is study the history of the word “liberal” (my favorite curse word) or even the fairly brief history of the term “neo-con.”

Has the Internet permanently changed the spelling, and thus the pronunciation, of the “b” word? Does the meaning change in the same way “bad” can mean “good” or depending on with whom you’re talking? “Yo, b****!” ?

Do we have any obligation to change our manner of speaking depending upon whom we’re with or is it “all about me?”

Our current “list” of potty words may change, but the reasons we find it necessary or unnecessary to use them probably will not. Language may have continued to “evolve,” but I’ve noticed no corresponding evolution in modern man.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

The measured eloquence of a conservative blogger against the shrieking blubbering of a leftist one.

Yet people still can’t appreciate the glory of conservatism.

Black Adam on April 1, 2007 at 4:11 AM

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Good analysis. People who can consistently communicate without using vulgar or crude language demonstrate a high level of intelligence, class, and dignity.

Bradky on April 1, 2007 at 10:09 AM

The funniest comment by the HuffPo guy was “a few posts.”

Nearly fell off my chair about that one…

Nice arse whuppin’ MM.

Malpaso on April 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

Well, RightWinged, I might suggest that if one wishes to initiate a discussion pertaining to linguistics and the history of cuss words, it might be wise to learn that ad hominem attacks, especially those that are completely off-the-wall, are probably not the best way to get one what one desires.

Whether such words are derived from bodily functions or religious terms really is unimportant. What is important is that the decision about what is acceptable and what is not is made by society. Some non-cuss words have roots that remain intact, but over the years have developed a specific meaning. In recent years, some words have developed into phrases (went missing, for example). Some nouns are being used as verbs. Syntax is near impossible to figure out anymore. There used to be rules. Anything goes society is working to get rid of rules. From structure to chaos?

Some individuals have a higher level of verbal self-control, and other than uttering a loud, unintelligible noise when stubbing toes, do not rely on darn, dang, or even ow or ouch. If someone shoots you in the gut, your response would more likely be ugh or arghh, unless, of course, four-letter words have a tendency to be your initial response to any situation. But if that is the case, then four-letter words would probably be the initial gleeful response to an especially beautiful fireworks display, as well.

Shock and awe for the brain? Keep it creative? If you’re not cussing, you’re not putting in enough effort?

If “experts” find that swearing among close friends seems to denote trust, then does swearing at strangers threaten their space? Is swearing therapeutic? If DUers are more likely to swear, does that mean they are less likely to be violent? Or more likely?

But, I digress from words to usage thereof. If you want to study why certain words devolve (or evolve) into curse words, all you have to do is study the history of the word “liberal” (my favorite curse word) or even the fairly brief history of the term “neo-con.”

Has the Internet permanently changed the spelling, and thus the pronunciation, of the “b” word? Does the meaning change in the same way “bad” can mean “good” or depending on with whom you’re talking? “Yo, b****!” ?

Do we have any obligation to change our manner of speaking depending upon whom we’re with or is it “all about me?”

Our current “list” of potty words may change, but the reasons we find it necessary or unnecessary to use them probably will not. Language may have continued to “evolve,” but I’ve noticed no corresponding evolution in modern man.

Connie on March 31, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Connie, where did I attack you? I repeatedly asked you a VERY simple question which you refused to answer. You finally at least made an attempt, but also went off on so many tangents the answer was tough to follow, but at least you attempted finally.

If it comes down to what society has dictated, then we’re in trouble. Society has dictated a lot of things I think most of us here don’t agree with.

I would answer one thing regarding your mention of saying things like “argh” when being shot, etc. Let’s stick with stubbing toe, because bullets vary quite a bit from eachother.

If you were a home schooled person who hadn’t heard “swears” hardly at all for your entire life, you might say “argh” or something (though I still think you’d likely say “shoot”, which according to you is somehow much better than saying “sh**”). But if you grew up in school where kids say these things out of rebellion, you heard them regularly to the point where they can easily become normal to you, even though you can completely control usage around teachers, parents and grandparents, etc.

I just find it dumb that anyone would be offended at me saying “sh**” but wouldn’t even notice if I said “shoot”… You may think this is perfectly fine because of “society”, but you can’t honestly tell me that makes any sense.

As for “Yo, b****”, that’s entirely different. “B****” is a term used to refer to female dogs in addition to being a derogatory term referring to women. I know at first glance this sounds like I’m then conceding your point, but it’s not and it’s tough to put this in to words. This word has a definition, which is why it was taken to be used to be derogatory towards women. It doesn’t mean “women”. But “sh**” means “crap” or “poop”, and “ass” means “butt” or “rear end” or…. This is where I totally lost interest in explaining this

RightWinged on April 4, 2007 at 7:50 AM