Web entrepreneur Arianna Huffington slammed old media at a political conference in New York today, assailing reporters for abandoning the pursuit of truth in favor of a "fake neutrality" and quailing in the face of government intimidation.

Even when traditional news organizations do break significant investigative stories, such as the Times' Pentagon propaganda article, Huffington said reporters still rush off to the next topic. As an alternative to this "attention deficit disorder" reporting, Huffington hailed the "obsessive compulsive disorder" tendencies of new media -- picking apart stories; blending research and activism; and pressing politicians to comment and act in response to news in an autocatalytic process that creates more news. That's what happened when the blogosphere seized on the Pentagon propaganda issue, eventually forcing late responses from Congress and presidential candidates, she noted. The same dynamics animate this week's netroots effort to fight the White House surveillance bill, building on past reporting and pressure to get Barack Obama on the record against retroactive amnesty for telecom companies. And author Clay Shirky, who addressed the same Personal Democracy Forum conference after Huffington, hit a similar theme, declaring that nowadays "media is not a source of information, it's a site of action."

Huffington also discussed some dark sides of the blogosphere, such as "vile" comments from people hiding their identities. Her "Internet newspaper" site, The Huffington Post, now has 30 part-time comment editors to patrol feedback. She added that her staff and volunteer bloggers are guided by a trio of new media values: transparency, accountability and community.

-- Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, is blogging from the "Rebooting the System" conference of the Personal Democracy Forum, where he is a contributing editor and panel moderator.

Comments (12)

1. "Huffington also discussed some dark sides of the blogosphere, such as "vile" comments from people hiding their identities."

   Well, it's a good thing we don't have that he........

   uh....

   never mind!

   Posted by Mask at 06/23/2008 @ 1:02pm

2. tell you what, let's get rid of the repubs first. then we'll take a look at the dems, OK?

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/23/2008 @ 1:24pm

3. Excellent post, Ari.

   I also strongly encourage all of us to raise our voices in opposition to the latest cave-in by the Democrats as exhibited by last week's landslide passage of the surveillance bill --half the Dems cravenly bowed to the White House.

   And even though Pelosi was on the correct side on this one, she should be in the center of our cross hairs along with Hoyer, Emanuel and company.

   In the issue of privacy rights and civil liberties we have a finely sharpened tool with which to remove the most damaging termites that are actively undermining the floor boards of our Constitutional Republic --and our opposition has the added bonus of uniting forces across the political spectrum.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/23/2008 @ 1:39pm

4. Eh, I'm not that impressed with new media. Characterizing media dysfunction as ADD vs. OCD is clever, but the real problem is this: Americans continue to dumb down at a phenomenal rate, and their media along with them.

   "New media" prefers focuses on whatever is cool, hot, or cool and hot. This is its primary innovation - reestablishing currency with the young. But "new media," just like its predecessor, also favors features over news and near-fetishizes avoidance of the nontrivial. I don't blame either media subset really - it's just that there's no longer much of a market for that other stuff. You know, the stuff people find boring and depressing.

   Americans are in full-on escapist mode, which makes sense when you consider that we're spiraling into another Great Depression. The rationale I've heard goes something like this: if the party's gonna end soon anyway, what harm can there be in staying for a few more minutes? It's not like leaving early would make the next generation any less screwed.

   Life has become for so many of us 100% about money and playtime and sex, things that won't survive the grave.

   The best we can therefore hope for in the next election is that brick-dumb Americans, who've only a vague idea that something may be wrong with prices and jobs and the overseas wars, will decide to punish the party of amoral wealth and cheerful psychosis. After which U.S. corporations will refocus on bribing Dems instead of Repubs, and life will go on as before.

   - MW

   Posted by MisterWrite at 06/23/2008 @ 4:14pm

5. "half the Dems cravenly bowed to the White House."

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/23/2008

   Actually, it didn't take that much bowwing(sp). The Dems had the since enough to know picking a fight with Ma Bell ain't worth the risks.

   You wanna talk about disruptions to communications, let Congress lob the first grenade and see what happens.

   Besides, anything outside of Washington, and Congress won't know how to run squat.

   Posted by ACook at 06/23/2008 @ 5:39pm

6. The huffpo is an internet version of a supermarket tabloid and is a good place to find out if your favorite celebrity has cellulite,but arianna lied about their censoring vile comments.They censor comments they don't like and frequently don't censor vile comments.It is an authoritarian site that censors views they disagree with and is a site for people who are anti freedom and only want one voice heard.It does serve one good purpose,however.It provides unemployed kids a place to play and call each other names.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 06/24/2008 @ 02:33am

7. Ms. Huffington made her money the old fashion way. She married a rich conservative. Then, after trying to run for office as a Republican and failing, she decided to become a progressive.

   Her first cause was the evils of SUVs. She failed to comprehend the favorite vehicle of soccer moms actually burns less fuel than her private jet.

   Now it seems she has decided prognosticate on the foibles of media outlets. One can only assume she has never taken the time to peruse her own web site. The Huffington Post exemplifies every low point she touched on.

   Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 12:23pm

8. -- sorry, but ad hominem arguments don't count. it's hard for ideologues (right or left) to realize that their diatribes are not facts. and the only relationship between two diatribes is the idiot who imagines otherwise.

   bipolar2

   Posted by bipolar2 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:46pm

9. Some of the points she makes are valid points but it is the hight of hypocrisy coming from Ariana Huffington whose blog huffingtonpost.com is one of the sleaziest, ripe with fake headlines, ad hominon perosnal attacks, and censorship of the those who dare to disagree. I have criticized corporate media every chance I get, but I would not trust Ariana running the mainstream media. If her blog is any model, i would argue that mainstream media is relatively less biased. She can run her slimy blog and make millions.

   Posted by kevin99999 at 06/25/2008 @ 01:28am

10. My, my, the accusations of dishonesty on the part of Arianna Huffington are proliferating like the creeping charlie on my lawn! But do I see any evidence? Or even a single example? No. I'm expected to take the word of a commentator who identifies himself or herself as "I'm nobody."

    For my part, I get uneasy whenever anybody, even Huffington, insinuates that we have no need for neutrality, a. k. a. objectivity.

    Oh, yes, we do! Otherwise, Huffington's obsessive-compulsive analysts will have nothing to analyze but groundless opinions, mostly skewed in the direction of each medium's corporate sponsors.

    The only remedies against this are FACTS, and in order to discover these, we need either to do research ourselves or to support the research of others.

    To the degree that some people who publish on the Internet do research, they are as valuable as the journalists of traditional print media. But the legions of opinion-slingers who do no research at all - and most web commentators, including me most of the time, belong to this lazy category - are not journalists, which is not surprising, since we are generally not paid to be.

    Let's be obsessive-compulsive about RESEARCH. In other words, try hunting down some EVIDENCE before you accuse somebody of lying.

    And let's support those journalists in both print and digital media who do all the research that we amateurs don't have the time to do.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 10:19am

11. jakobFabian-I have seen tons and tons and tons of proof that she is lying when she said that they only censor vile comments.It is,of course,impossible to prove that a non vile post was censored since it was censored and was no longer there,but if you go on the site you will discover that censorship of non vile posts happens all the time while vile posts remain..In fact,a 12 year old could see it quickly if they venture on that site.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 11:19am

12. Regular MSM 'news' programs - network hireling throws out a 'timely' news item to a bunch of political wonks and/or experts in something who then have one minute each to opine on the subject at hand. Cut to next 'topic.'

    This an ideal setup for the straw-man scam. Interpret the 'timely' news item, knock down your interpretation and sit back satisfied that you've knocked down the substance of the news item.

    The viewer is left with a few people's take on the news item, the substance be damned - not to mention a bunch of prone straw-men.

    Posted by felicity at 06/25/2008 @ 1:09pm