Monday, June 1, 2009


(1) What is Huff-Watch's beef with HuffPost?

(2) Is Huff-Watch trying to squelch HuffPost's right to free speech?

(3) What is Huff-Watch's agenda? What are your politics?

(4) Why are you doing this anonymously? Doesn't this diminish Huff-Watch's credibility?

(5) Who is funding Huff-Watch?

(1) What is Huff-Watch's beef with HuffPost?

If you peruse the table of contents on the right margin, Huff-Watch's motivations should be self-evident. If you read the content therein, our motivation will be self-validating.

On a practical level, with the exception of
the Media Research Center's September 2007 report, Huffington's House of Horrors (which focused on HuffPost's resident bloggers' hate speech), no one has been conducting in-depth, ongoing analysis of how HuffPost really operates.

This is particularly true in regards to how, despite its claims of being nonpartisan in both its news coverage and user comment moderation policy, HuffPost:
  • Generates false/misleading news headlines regarding important public affairs

  • Consistently applies an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic bias to news stories concerning the Jewish state, and to notable Jewish public figures, then reviews, approves and decides to publish user comments containing hate, libels and conspiracy theories against Israel and Jews

  • Uses its considerable influence in an arguably subversive fashion, and to advance a radically left-wing, anti-Israel, Islamist*-sympathizing agenda (*for a definition of Islamist/Islamism, see Section 3)

  • Enables and protects the most egregious, pathological violators of its Comment Policy and Terms of Service to essentially "live" on the site for 12-20 hours a day, in some cases, for years --- while censoring and banning non-violating users, on a minute-to-minute basis
    See our special report on this matter

Both nature and the free market abhor vacuums. Huff-Watch was born to help fill this particular, niche vacuum.

hope that via our exhaustive documentation of the very serious matters we address, HuffPost will follow Ms. Huffington's stated principle of not "blaming the messenger," and instead take prompt, corrective action. From her December 2, 2007 article, lambasting Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee:
"It has exposed the dissembling reality behind the charming, articulate, more-preacher-than politician facade - and has called into question both his judgment and his integrity. Huckabee's response has been to fudge the truth, point the finger at everyone in sight, and -- that old standby -- blame the messenger."

(2) Is Huff-Watch trying to squelch HuffPost's right to free speech?

his is not a matter of free speech. HuffPost and its users are free to say whatever they want.

The marketplace, however, has the right to hold HuffPost accountable for what it says and does --- especially when its acts and omissions:
  • Contradict its stated operating principles

  • Are demonstrably subversive to Americans' perceptions of important public affairs

  • Incite hatred, and may contribute to people being physically harmed

(3) What is Huff-Watch's agenda? What are your politics?

Unlike HuffPost, which has yet to make a declarative statement on its agenda and its politics*, we are proud to declare ours. [*See section A, and particularly A(4), here]

(a) We believe in America, freedom, and capitalism.

We believe that America is an exceptional nation, and that it has been and is an extraordinary force for good. We believe it will continue to be both, so long as it preserves and honors our Founders' design, primarily regarding individual rights, economic freedom, and limited constitutional government.

We believe that all people --- regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other factors --- have the same rights (but that none have special rights). We believe that the essential purpose of government is to protect these rights. We believe that every individual possesses the inherent right to determine his/her own belief and value system and to act on it; to determine with whom s/he shall interact and trade, and under what circumstances; and to freely acquire, own and dispose of property --- all so long as s/he is not harming or defrauding others, or violating others' equal rights, in the process.

Given these values, we believe that the fundamental, existential threats to the American republic are:
  • The unrestrained, uncriticized advancement of socialism and statism in our culture

  • The unrestrained, uncriticized advancement of radical Islamism* --- both on our soil, and throughout the world, particularly in Europe
(*) "Islamism" is defined as the belief among fundamentalist Muslims (1) that Islam, and their interpretations of it, are superior to all others, and that it should and will dominate the Earth; (2) that they, their beliefs and Islam shall be afforded a special, higher status, and be shielded from criticism and mockery; and (3) that their and their adherents' statements regarding current and historic events shall be automatically accepted as fact, whereas other accounts of said events --- particularly from Jews, Israelis and Americans --- should be automatically doubted or discounted.

For an overview of the threat of radical Islamism, please see the 30-minute excerpt of the documentary, "The Third Jihad," below (producer's site here):

July 20, 2009 update: A radical Islamist group met in Chicago, and openly admitted its intention is to destroy capitalism, and replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia law (the Koran), here.

Also see:
"America Alone," by Mark Steyn.

(b) We believe in the U.S. military.

We cherish the fact that despite America's relatively short history, our military has saved or liberated more individuals than all other nations combined. We honor the fact that while America could easily have followed innumerable historical examples, by declaring nations we defeated in war to be territories of the U.S., we instead helped to rebuild them, re-recognized them as sovereign entities, and whenever possible, developed strong friendships with them.

We believe in the U.S. military's leadership and training, and cherish the fact that it has the highest standards for honor, accountability and decency of any fighting force in the world, and in history.

We acknowledge that in some isolated cases in our post-9/11 actions, there were breakdowns and outright betrayals of this code of conduct and honor --- as there are in every military in existence, and in history. We further believe that those who violated their oaths or the law should be held accountable, and punished appropriately, if convicted.

But we are deeply opposed to the American radical left's claims that detainee abuse allegations and photos are endemic; that the breaches and crimes that a tiny minority of our soldiers committed are actually part of their culture, training and mission. (See this special report on how HuffPost enabled and protected one of its radical leftist users to propagate the blood libel that American soldiers routinely engage in the sexual torture and murder of Muslim women and children, as "standard operating procedure" --- while censoring, then banning a user who attempted to expose these lies.)

We are vehemently opposed to the radical left's work to unfairly denigrate our military, from top to bottom (often using propaganda created by documented liars), thus providing an endless stream of fodder that radical Islamists and jihadists use to morally justify their attacks on our soldiers. (For more info, see "Unholy Alliance.")

The radical left's claims, on whole, are not only untrue and clearly subversive, they may well prove deadly. Because unlike the hatred with which soldiers returning from the Vietnam conflict were treated by America's radical leftists, the acidic campaign in which they are now engaged --- particularly on the Internet --- may well end up getting our active-duty soldiers killed (if it hasn't already).

We stand four-square against these subversives, and anyone who enables or supports them, or protects them from being exposed for who and what they are.

(c) We believe in Israel.

We are advocates for and defenders of Israel, and the Jewish people in general. We believe that Israel has the right to exist within secure borders, and that its citizens have the right to not have to live in a state of constant fear of terrorism --- or annihilation.

We are horrified by, and viscerally opposed to the global resurgence in vicious propaganda and age-old blood libels being directed at Jews in general, and Israel in specific --- especially in "legitimate" media and venues. More here.

Beyond that, we believe that Israel and the Islamic states and peoples on its borders can and must find a way to coexist in peace --- and that the only way that outcome can be achieved will be through the presentation and discussion of verifiable facts, placed in an accurate context.

(d) We believe those who claim to "report" on Israeli and Middle Eastern affairs must be held to a high standard, and be held accountable for their acts and omissions.

Today, accurate information and blatant falsehoods (not to mention blood libels) travel in tandem, worldwide, at the speed of light. Global perceptions of contentious events and issues can, and often are, formed by one entity's "framing" of them. Nowhere is this more important than than in relation to issues concerning the Middle East in general, and Israel in particular.

We stand against anyone who compares Israel's targeted, defensive actions today to the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. This goes double for those who know the truth --- or, via their occupations (e.g."journalists") are obligated to know know the truth --- yet deliberately incite such perceptions, then fail to account for, whitewash, or even legitimize the acts that precipitated Israel's defensive actions.

We believe that those who profess to explain and provide forums for discussion regarding cultural, political, economic affairs, particularly regarding events in the Middle East and Israel --- such as HuffPost --- have a responsibility to accurately identify their agendas, and ensure that they operate in a responsible fashion.

We believe this is particularly the case regarding HuffPost, as it is the most widely-read blog in the world, the only political blogsite that has been granted "legitimacy" as a "news" source by the President of the United States, leaders in the U.S. Senate (details here), major advertisers (Section 7 here) and influential people and institutions around the world.

Given all this, we believe that HuffPost has a near-sacred responsibility to:
  • Ensure that it "frames" its coverage of Israeli, Middle Eastern and related issues (e.g. U.S. military operations in the region) in an accurate, verifiable and contextual fashion

  • Promptly correct and publish its errors

  • Promptly publish credible rebuttals to stories it ran that are later found to be false or decontextualized, or which did not feature a balanced presentation

According to one think tank that is dedicated to analyzing media in this regard (CAMERA), HuffPost is failing to operate according to these standards, in a variety of ways (here, here).

We share this view, and have gone to great lengths to document how HuffPost fails to live up to this standard:
Archive of anti-Israel, ant-Semitic bias, libels and hate at HuffPost

We will continue to do this work, as often as HuffPost provides the raw material that necessitates our work.

(e) We believe in open, honest, civilized debate.

We believe in HuffPost's originally-articulated standards of user conduct, and its operations (here). Or, as Andrew Breitbart, HuffPost's co-developer and first News Editor, declared at its inception, that it will be "the ultimate level playing field," and "May the best ideas win." (See A[1], here)
Note: At some point in 2007, Breitbart left HuffPost, and became one of the most vocal critics (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of its acting as a vehicle for leftist hatred. In early 2009, and in addition to operating, Breitbart opened his own blogsite, BigHollywood (1, 2), to lure Hollywood conservatives and libertarians out of "the closet," and give them a public voice. Most recently, Breitbart created BigGovernment, which has been breaking the ACORN corruption stories.

(f) We believe in the Internet.

At its root, the Internet is nothing more than a tool, which, like all other tools, can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. For example, an axe can be used to cut down trees with which to make a home, or a violin --- or to savagely murder a child because he happened to be Jewish.

Similarly, the Internet can be used to enlighten, entertain, and enable people in disparate regions to engage in political discourse. Or, it can be to globally disseminate inflammatory lies about Israeli soldiers, or outrageous blood libels against Jews in general. This is especially important when this dissemination occurs on a website such as HuffPost, where an estimated 135,000 of its unique monthly visitors originate from the two nations that are most responsible for fermenting and exporting Islamist terror: Iran and Pakistan (see Section 4.3 here).

We believe that those who claim to be global sources of news on the Internet must accept the responsibility that comes from publishing their wares, and exercise enormous caution to ensure that the "global village" clearly understands who they are and what they're about, so they may exercise due diligence and critical analysis.

Specifically relating to HuffPost, we believe that given its political access, "legitimacy" and global readership, it must be constantly vigilant that it is not being used by Internet jihadists to further spread their hateful ideology --- which is one of their most urgent priorities:
Global Islamic Media Front Instructs Islamists to Infiltrate Popular Non-Islamic Forums to Spread Pro-Islamic State Propaganda, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), June 14, 2007.

The Use Of The Internet By Islamic Extremists, testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives' Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by Bruce Hoffman, RAND Corporation, May 2006.

“E-Qaeda”: Jihadist Use Of The Internet, by Tim Pippard, Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services, April 16, 2009.

Terrorists Turn To The Web as Base Of Operations, by Steve Coll and Susan B. Glasser, The Washington Post, August 7, 2005.

Islam in America Series: Internet Jihad, by Kathy Shaidle, RightSideNews, March 22, 2009.

Al Qaeda: ‘Kicking Butt’ Online, by Leela Jacinto, France24, February 29, 2008.

* * *

The above should be sufficient information with which to categorize Huff-Watch's politics and agenda.

If the above makes us "neocons" in the eyes of some, "patriots" in the eyes of others, and "capitalist warmongers" in the eyes of still others, so be it.

At least we're willing to explicitly state what we stand for and against, and why --- something HuffPost has failed (or refused) to do, to this day
[see Section A(4), here].

(4) Why are you doing this anonymously? Doesn't this diminish your credibility?

The individuals who develop content for us have the choice of whether or not to use their actual identities.
Readers are urged to let the facts we document speak for themselves, independent of personality-type distractions.

There are very good reasons why some critics of HuffPost keep their identities confidential. The facts and proof concerning this admittedly-troubling assertion may well be revealed, at some point in the future.

(5) Who is funding Huff-Watch?

No one.

This website is a project of principle and necessity, run by volunteers.


Send tips, inquiries and (polite) feedback to huffwatcher1 (at)



  1. I'll believe you're legitimate go back to the Summer of 2008, research, reference, and post all racist, bigoted, disrespectful, violent and approved comments posted over at HP during the campaign, through the election, after January 20, 2009 up to and including today.

    And, I might add, if you want to be credible, don't pick and choose quotes, comments, and posts to fit your agenda. In other words, don't use someone's words out of context. Makes you hard to believe.

  2. Were your hands, eyes or computer non-functional during the past few years?

    If not, why did you not "post all racist, bigoted, disrespectful, violent and approved comments posted over at HP during the campaign, through the election, after January 20, 2009 up to and including today" that you found offensive?

    The content you see here is the result of several individuals paying attention, capturing what we saw, and compiling it into this blog. Were you unable to do so? What prevented you from writing a brief article about what you saw at HuffPost that you found objectionable?

    "Don't use someone's words out of context. Makes you hard to believe."

    Indeed, that would be the case, were it true. Can you provide a single example in which any of the articles at Huff-Watch have done so? Just one.

    Is there a way to take a screen full of swastikas "out of context"? How about explaining why President Bush should be murdered --- then bragging about being interviewed in one's home by the Secret Service, and others cheering? How about the everyday occurrence of users being approved to call Sarah Palin and her children "white trash," "a whore," "a trailer park tramp," especially on threads having absolutely nothing to do with her?

    Have you ever voiced an objection to any of these widely-viewable things?

    Here's a clue for you:

    If you want to be believable, when you write in to complain about something, your case is served when you provide examples of what you describe, and rely on facts rather than insinuation and smears.

    Furthermore, your credibility suffers greatly when you are able to dismiss the explicit threats, libels, racism, anti-Semitism of what I assume are your "friends," and attack the exposer of such facts with none of your own.

  3. I hope you're addressing the fact that if Huffington Post doesn't like your politics, you're too pro-Israel, pro-Jew, or pro-zionism, they'll ban you without warning and don't give you a reason why .

    Heaven forbid you should mention the truth about islam, that's enough to get you banned too.

  4. @ ib:

    Thanks for your comment. You are exactly correct, as HUFF-WATCH has proven in several instances: