Arianna removed "unacceptable," "offensive" Cheney posts, but Left still painted with broad brush

[DeepModem Mom]

Is it worth it to the few who posted these comments on Huff Post? Not only does Arianna have to deal with moderating these self-indulgent posters, but Right-Wing commentators have the next day's vitriol handed to them on a silver platter. And Arianna's site is not the only progressive site for which this is often an issue.

02.28.2007
Limbaugh, Hannity, and the Right's Faux Fury Over Anonymous Comments

On Tuesday morning, The Huffington Post linked to an AP news story on the suicide bombing at the gates of the main American base in Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney.

A miniscule portion of the people who read that story chose to take advantage of the anonymous, open forum nature of comments in our news section to express regret that the Vice President hadn't been killed in the attack.

As soon as these offensive comments came to our attention, they were deleted from the site. But that didn't stop the right-wing hit machine from seizing on the anonymous comments in an effort to prove that "Democrats and liberals" (as Rush, able to divine party affiliation and political philosophy from a username, quickly labeled the commenters) "have a hatred and a disgust for Cheney...that cannot be explained."

Before I get into how ludicrous this claim is, let me be absolutely clear: No one at HuffPost is defending these comments -- they are unacceptable and were treated as such by being removed. They were not made by me, by our editors, or by our bloggers. They were made by anonymous visitors to the site -- visitors that make up a very, very small unrepresentative portion of our readers.

Trying to balance the freedom and openness of the Internet with the desire to be responsible and avoid these kinds of outrageous comments can sometimes be challenging. But the fact remains: only a fraction of Huffington Post readers comment on news stories, and only a tiny fraction of those responded to the Cheney story in such an offensive manner....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/limbaugh-hannity-and-th_b_42333.html

[AX10]

1. And again, where are our wealthy Dems to build us an echo chamber?

That is one of two ways we can deal with these right wing fascists. The other is to break up the media conglomerates some day.

[Phredicles]

2. Hatred and disgust for Cheney is EASY to explain:

He's bloodthirsty, arrogant, mule-headed, vicious, and wrong just about every single time he opens his mouth. What's not to hate?

[rodeodance]

3. here are some of the RW comments

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/limbaugh-hannity-and-th_b_42333.html

..There was Limbaugh on Tuesday morning, reading some of the more offensive comments on the air, pretending to be suitably outraged, and declaring: "How is it that you explain visceral, literal hatred for somebody you don't know? It's one thing to disagree with somebody's policies, but this is crossing a new line... It is sick, and it resides exclusively on the left."

Exclusively on the left? He can't be serious. There are endless examples to disprove this, including the comments that appeared on Little Green Footballs (a site Rush has glowingly praised) after a UN outpost in Lebanon was blown up by an errant Israeli missile: "Too bad Kofi wasn't there too," "I'd be laughing my ass off if somebody launched one right in Kofi's office while he was groping his secretary," "4 less UN terrorist collaborators. Good Job IDF," "Maybe a couple more UN observation posts getting blown to hell would be appropriate."

Does this prove "the fury, bile and idiocy of the sub-moronic left right"? Of course not. But it does prove how wrong Rush was. And how phony was his outrage.

Same with Hannity. He led off his show Tuesday night with this non-story, his knickers in a twist over the very idea that some people had anonymously expressed regret that Cheney had escaped unharmed. He'd clearly never heard such things said before!

Trouble is, this was the same Sean Hannity who just the night before had been joyously joined by his good friend, the infamously toxic Ann Coulter. The same woman who said "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Steven's crème brulee," questioned whether it was more appropriate "to impeach or assassinate" Bill Clinton, suggested New York Times staffers be "executed," and titled a column on Lincoln Chafee, "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln." And she did so proudly, openly, and in her own name -- not in an anonymous comment.

[niyad]

4. reichwingnut trolls happily at work?

[merh]

5. here is the site most of those righties go to for their

proof that the media is liberal. "exposing and combating liberal media bias" http://newsbusters.org/

[Virginia Dare]

6. Hannity and Rush are reading anonymous troll comments...

from Huff Post and attributing them to "Democrats and Liberals". They probably posted that crap themselves.

Same shit, different day. Arianna shouldn't even bother with defending herself against these hypocritical scumbags.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. And all the comments from Drudge and Freeperville...

Where is the exposure of the vitriol and hatred expressed there? We need to immediately counter with the same outrage in response to this type of selective publicity. Why do the Publicans get away with this shit?

[DeepModem Mom]

8. Those are areas we don't have covered yet, do we? Like it or not...

Drudge is "hugh," and our talk radio has yet to take off big-time.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. Coulter, Malkin, Limpbaugls all spew hatred.

They are paid by corporate sponsors. Yet there is this outrage at solo comments on Ariana's site. The whole double-standard reeks. :mad:

[endarkenment]

10. A Look Back In History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_20_Plot

"The July 20 Plot was an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, the dictator of Germany, on July 20, 1944. It was the culmination of the efforts of the German Resistance to overthrow the Nazi regime. Its failure led to the arrest of more than 5,000 people, to the execution of about 200 people and the destruction of the resistance movement."

[Cerridwen]

11. To use anonymous posters - or even named posters - at an

internet site as indicative of anything other than, er, what posters say on internet sites, is the height (depth?) of "intellectual" depravity.

So, did anyone read what Cerridwen said over at DU the other day? Geez, she said some stuff that I just can't believe an anonymous poster at an internet site might say. Because, as we all know, Cerridwen is an example of what anonymous posters post at web sites.

Eesh!

Damn! I wish someone with enough real, honest legitimacy could point that out and start hollering it into their little echo chamber.