Huff Post refuses to publish anti-flotilla article

Why are you so obsessed with this? David Harris has had 50 articles published, many of them critical of Palestine. Here's an example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/to-a-gaza-flotilla-partic_b_862736.html

The fact that he's published so many articles critical of Israel actually works in HP's favor. The simple answer to your question is that his article wasnt good enough for them and they didnt see it worthy of being published...move on.

 

Should have said Palestinian groups and Palestinian activist movements.

 

oh lawd.

You're so good at interpreting what other people think.

Fox News--->"We're afraid of being sued, because according to us, this whole piece is full of factual errors, even though it's actually full of verified facts by Health Canada, the Lancet, the dean of a prestigious medical school etc."

Huffington Post--->"It's not for us. We censor every right-wing viewpoint ever. It's not for us not due to sloppy writing, or to emotional sandbagging, but because we're lefties united."

now, huffington is biased leftwards, but I find it hilarious how so much of what you're talking about is based on what you believe others believe.

 

You are making inferences and assuming the HuffingtonPost is implying something when they declined to publish a horribly written article full of inaccuracies and shoddy journalism. You may think that is perfectly fine for Fox News, but most reasonable people do not.

The article has very little to do with the actual flotilla. All it is doing is using guilt by association to equate the activists on the ships with Hamas:

The flotilla participants, whether they acknowledge it or not, are handmaidens of a terrorist regime.

And then this:

Israel has only one concern, which is to ensure that Hamas, a declared enemy of Israel, does not get additional means to threaten its neighbor.

Why does the author not mention that Israel's "one concern" is actually to push Gaza's economy to the brink of collapse? Why does the author not mention that the blockade has done nothing to stop Hamas or other militant groups' capabilities to fire rockets/mortars? Why does the author not mention that the blockade is a form of collective punishment?

You can go back in your hole now.

 

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uRMvdY1KR04" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

only on the internet can you get away with this.

but good luck in a doctoral defense, school project, work assignment, court of law...

"yes, your honor, I think he's guilty because I assumed his fidgeting was because of his nervousness over his guilt."

---Fox News - "we won't run this tory because we don;t want to get sued"

Nowhere ever is that said. There is only a letter that warns of dire consequences and possible lawsuits. Libel or defamation is never mentioned. How you could even sue for these is beyond me, since all of the facts are verifiable as the truth...and nowhere were these claims mentioned to be defamatory in nature. In fact, you completely conjured this reason out of thin air by assuming there would be a lawsuit and it would be libel and defamation, and this was the reason why Fox dropped the story, despite the fact that the pressure of advertising dollars was also mentioned as well, and the train of thought behind the Fox executives' decision is never made clear; it is just a matter of conjuncture by you.

Huffington Post - "it's not for us" - my assumption - factual errors weren't the issue.

That could mean "It's not for us because of the factual errors."
"It's not for us because of the over-emotional appeals."

etc. etc.

This is of course a lost cause, but do you happen to have the famous Fox News attacks on Reagen? The numerous, vicious ones you claimed you had?

 

No they didn't. I'm basing it off of their statement, the article in question, and your rationale that their statement requires some further explanation.

 

Dude, just give it up.

I've worked with a number of major newspapers (mainly the NY Times and Wash Post) on stories and have regularly seen exactly what you're describing...someone spends time on an article, and has it rejected without much elaboration. The understanding is usually clear- your article didnt make the cut, move on, do better the next time.

I'm not a journalist, but was once assigned an article for a large syndicated magazine, spent lots of time on it, and at the end it didnt get published. I received no explanation as to why, but I believe it was because the article's topic wasnt a compelling read (lol).

David Harris' article getting rejected is not unique, not something thats never been done before, there's no evidence that it was motivated by a desire to present only one side of an issue....I dont get why you're still arguing it.

 

wut.

my head explode.

don't bring me and the unsubstantiated arguments you had with me to this issue. If vaids wanted to engage me about this, he would have.

Huff Post has an ideological bias, but it may not have even applied in this case. Regardless, this has gone back to hilarity. "NS disagrees with you! Argue with him!"

well, at least I'll take it as a token of internet victory...hoorah.

 

OMG, wtf, liberals are distinct individuals who sometimes disagree with one another? Us "liberals" sure are crafty.

If vaids wanted to argue with me about that, he would have. He chose to argue with you. Do not attempt to deflect his arguments away onto mine.

I actually, given the evidence, am somewhat of a concurrence that in this case at least, political censorship should not be alleged, unless more facts can be brought to the table.

However, as for political bias in general, yes, it is well known the Huffington Post swings left. If you think it is such a terrible thing to have a politically or ideologically biased news, then you are terribly naive to defend Fox News and other mainstream media. At this point, I've given up trying to get you to engage me on that topic, so I'll just assume you're ignoring the evidence that Fox News is biased, or you've stowed it away, somewhere, and it's broken your naive assumption of a free and objective press. Hopefully.

 

The discussion so far as I can see it is you ignoring everyone else and their points, then asking questions that lead to nowhere, and finally, faced with the fact that you cannot answer for anything I have said, or vaids has said, you try to get us to argue against each other instead...without even bothering to address any of the points of contention we brought up with you.

 

I have long since abandoned any prospect of a reasonable discussion with you.

Nevertheless, my point was---do not drag me into your debate with vaids. Do not cite me as evidence in your assumptions when you do not know what I am currently thinking on the case (a position which I have hopefully clarified for you). You may well get away with assuming what Fox News and Huff Post were thinking, but you won't get away with assuming I hold the same position dogmatically, and that I do not consider new evidence, and the obvious tendency of the original poster (in this case, you) of being unable to substantiate any of his claims.

Do not misrepresent my position.

I want no party to a discussion where the other person constantly conjures bulls*** and has nothing to back it up with. I also want no party to my name being used as a phantom to reconcile your obvious need to see liberals as a conformist blob of one or to help deflect attention from your woeful inability to respond back to other people's points.

Be a man and just counter the points, or fess up that you can't counter the points, or that you're puling a Colbert. Don't play games and divert around it. Are we clear?