Imagine my surprise upon hearing that AOL/Huffpo’s editorial policy is the following:
Andrew Brietbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page.
He is welcome to continue publishing his work on HuffPost provided it adheres to our editorial guidelines, as the two posts he published on HuffPost did — guidelines that include a strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks. Our decision today recognizes that placing posts on the front page is an editorial call that elevates some posts over others, and is an indication of how seriously we take these judgment calls.
Good enough. As a website editor myself, I appreciate the idea of wanting to elevate the debate. Admittedly, I do find it more than a little creepy and totalitarian for AOL to include in that “ad hominem standard” what someone says or does elsewhere. But when you’ve been studying the Left for as long as I have, you come to expect the default setting of them wanting to control what people say. (See: Jon Stewart.) What I don’t understand, however, is what Arianna Huffington and AOL are going to do now. I can’t imagine AOL intends to take the actionable position of singling out Andrew Breitbart — discriminating against him because he’s Andrew Breitbart or conservative or something.
But herein lies AOL’s problem…
It’s just a fact that the same Bill Maher who just last week called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat” on national television is also a front page AOL/HuffPo contributor. It’s just a fact that Alec Baldwin, who once called for the death of a sitting congressman’s children is a front page AOL/HuffPo contributor. And who will ever forget Sean Penn’s desire to see his critics get “rectal cancer?” Will AOL/HuffPo allow Penn to continue to enjoy his front page status?
As Mr. Maher himself might say: New Rules!
But the most confusing part of this AOL/HuffPo editorial rule (that no one knew about until now), is Mr. Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin is infamous for smearing Sarah Palin, but unlike the various ad hominem attacks unleashed by Baldwin, Maher, and Penn — Sorkin unleashed one of his most famous ad hominem attacks against Palin on — wait for it, wait for it — the Huffington Post! But wait, it gets better. Sorkin’s ad hominem attack was published on HuffPo’s — wait for it, wait for it — front page (if memory serves)!
Who will ever forget AOL’s own HuffPo gracing its storied front page with the following… [emphasis mine]
The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who’ve come before her) her Facebook page[.] …
I can’t make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I’m able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face. …
So I don’t think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I’m in film and television, Cruella[.] …
And you didn’t just do it for fun and you didn’t just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there’d be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. …
I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged[.]
Those are just pull quotes. If you read the whole thing it is in total a flaming piece of ad hominem. And so we are now left to wonder…
Does AOL have a different definition of ad hominem than, say, the rest of the planet?. Or do they have some explaining to do as to why a foul mouthed, ad hominem flame-throwing 9/11 truther like Van Jones is dictating their editorial policy?
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.