Comments on: Huffington Post publish 2010 nightmare story, then pulls it without explanation

By: White Refugee

White Refugee — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:15:12 +0000

It is also rather intersting that Facebook Deletes Boycott 2010 World Cup Campaign; particularly considering the media campaign against the Boycott 2010 World Cup Campaign, by various high goverment and media officials: See: » » [Pro-SA “Boycott 2010 World Cup” Campaign on Facebook] » » [Notice to IOL.co.za Technology Editor; c/o & via: Independent News & Media PLC Board of Directors: RE: Violations of Press Code Allegations]

By: White Refugee

White Refugee — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:03:25 +0000

I don't know if it was related; but shortly after I published Mr. Hoffman's post, at More Journalists Wondering: “Is the 2010 World Cup a Disaster in the Making?”; Huffington Post, pulled the story. As I said in my comment thereto: [The Post was subsequently removed by Huffington Post Editor, who stuck up the following Note: Editor's Note: Jeffrey Hoffman's post, "Could The 2010 World Cup Be A Disaster In the Making?," has been removed due to factual inaccuracy and inflammatory language. The 'Editor' does not clarify exactly which alleged facts were indeed factually inaccurate; and if so, how. Which particular facts are allegedly inacurate, and what are the allegedly accurate facts to replace them?. Or are the alleged 'inaccurate facts' those which are disobedient to the Huffington Post Editorial ideological Bias? Nor is it clear what the Huffington Post mean by 'inflammatory language'; inflammatory to whom? I mean the Pentagon considered the Pentagon Papers inflammatory language, if revealed to ignorant American citizens. The Catholic Church considered the Bible inflammatory language if revealed to the People, prior to the 'inflammatory language' of Martin Luther. So, what exactly do they mean by 'infllamatory language'?]

By: Media Watch: The Huffington Post Retracts Jeffrey Hoffman’s 2010 Disaster-Scenario Article | BOOK SA - News

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:47:10 +0000

[...] the FIFA 2010 World Cup, and sent them gently floating into South African airspace. The worst, as MarkLives pointed out a few days after it was published, was the following morsel of fact-checked journalism:“Most would agree that three of the major [...]

By: grey

grey — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:53:06 +0000

it’s still the silly season, and making it up is a great option when faced with a) doing some research or b) going to the pub.

By: Johan Swarts

Johan Swarts — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:28:48 +0000

They probably also believe that we have lions prowling in our backyards…

By: Spookstorie oor Suid-Afrika of die waarheid? | Solidariteit Blog

Spookstorie oor Suid-Afrika of die waarheid? | Solidariteit Blog — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:57:17 +0000

[...] Die vraag is gevrae of Suid-Afrika nie ‘n ramp is in wording nie? Dit het nou ander rubriekskrywers aan die gons. Dit is maklik vir Danny om persepsies in een rigting te spin. Waarin hy egter nie [...]

By: Phillip

Phillip — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:23:28 +0000

The author clearly suffers from congenital idiocy, so I wouldn’t take him too seriously. But you’re right; they’ve actually tweaked the search engine to exclude it. A search formatted as ["Johannesburg Times" site:huffingtonpost.com] on Google brings up the piece, but no combination of search terms will bring it up on the Google Custom implementation on HufPost.

An upstanding publication trying to sweep the issue under the carpet without addressing it. Nice. Real nice.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:19:09 +0000

What astonishes me about all of the negative press about South Africa’s hosting of the World Cup (whether it is RW Johnson’s rants about witchcraft in the London Review of Books, the British media searching out Afrikaners in the Limpopo Province, The Sun putting up a front page story about prostitutes or when Angola was confused with South Africa after the attack on Togolese footballers in Cabinda) is that (1) it insults South African football fans by suggesting they think the World Cup will lead to economic development (especially the creation of jobs); and (2) somehow the critics have discovered that the World Cup will be accompanied by crime. These same critics do not write about crime when the 1995 Rugby World Cup was held in South Africa (that was after all still a time when whites openly showed their racism), or the cricket World Cup, or when the lucrative Indian Premier League cricket competition was moved to South Africa after India was found to be too dangerous, or when the British Lions toured South Africa, or even now when England’s cricket’s team is here?

By: Herman Manson

Herman Manson — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:09:56 +0000

Thanks Phillip – two points. The author suggests that the piece had been pulled in his tweets and I’m unable to find the story on the Huffington Post via its internal search engine when searching for “South Africa Jeffrey Hoffman” (as an example).

So I don’t know of a way to access the post via The Huffington Post though you can access the story via search engines and other links. To me it suggests that they took steps to remove live access to the story via their publicly accessible pages. Does this really suggest they stand by the piece?

By: Phillip

Phillip — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:59:54 +0000

I’m not sure they can be said to have pulled the piece. At this point most of the traffic to that piece will surely be coming from links on other sites and search engines and so on. As long as they keep it in the back (without an editor’s comment or anything added) they’re still standing by the piece.