Katherine Mangu-Ward | September 22, 2009
Google Trends shows the readership of online news and blog site The Huffington Post doubling to meet up with the halving online readership of the old-style Washington Post.

Notice that the moment the various sources synced up was the 2008 election. One possible interpretation: When the country suddenly developed a voracious appetite for news, they gave all three sources an equal chance. But it was HuffPo, not WaPo, that gave people what they were looking for—super-speedy coverage of the political story-of-the-second, followed by a bikini babe chaser.
You'd need age breakdowns and a few other things to know if that explanation of the trends is right, but President Obama might want to take a gander at this chart before he repeats his recent mention that he might not be 100 percent opposed to a newspaper bailout.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Huff n Puff is nothing but a circle-jerk meeting ground for
Leftists where they can have their retarded fetus logic
affirmed.
They are also comment Nazis and if you post something disagreeing
with their warped views, they will delete your account.
I usually make a quick stop at the PuffyHo for a good morning chuckle. Perhaps, more people are doing the same.
Eight Symptoms of Groupthink
Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take
extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away
warnings contrary to group thinking.
Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally
correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their
decisions.
Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative sterotypes of
rivals outside the group.
Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who
express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or
commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and
counter-arguments.
Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone
agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of
protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten
group complacency.
Also, I highly recommend reading the comments on there!!! Select
your favorite user that spews the most vile nonsense repeatedly. If
they have a really unique name, then you are in luck. Google that
username with some progressive/liberal/propaganda keywords, and
then bam, a slice of life. Female, erotic novel author, who enjoys
frequently ripping into DirectTV because she doesn't understand her
TOS, and buys crazy soaps from Amazon.com.
Now you can "empathize" with her!!!
John,
I can only read asinine comments from so long before I ask myself,
"What kind of person says this?". Thanks to the Google, I can get a
much better idea.
John, either you must be hip to this or you post comments on
a lot, and I mean a lot, of
sites!
What I got out of this article is that the WaPo needs to introduce Page 3 girls like the UK tabloids have.
Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that
everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as
consent.
Let's try this out.
...ahem.....
SugarFree is warm, generous, perspicacious, indefatigable, genuine,
clean, handsome, wise, sagacious, pleasant smelling, likable, long,
thick (where it counts),
They are also comment Nazis and if you post something
disagreeing with their warped views, they will delete your
account.
So, they're like DailyKOS and Little Green Footballs?
-jcr
"SugarFree is warm, generous, perspicacious, indefatigable,
genuine, clean, handsome, wise, sagacious, pleasant smelling,
likable, long, thick (where it counts),"
Suge in a nutshell, baby!
"So, they're like DailyKOS and Little Green Footballs?"
I was banned by reason over the Louis Gates issue. When the
banhammer hit's it knocks out all opf your comments.
Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and
counter-arguments.
Got us nailed on this one. We never argue about anything.
Geoff,
I never look up anyone who comments on the internet. I guess I am
too afraid of what I will find.
I was banned by reason over the Louis Gates
issue.
What the hell do you have to do to get banned by Reason? And if
they do ban people, who has the job of reading all the posts? Can I
have that job? I know how to reed and right.
We never argue about anything.
Right! We are one big happy family. Where is my huggy munch
Warty?
"What the hell do you have to do to get banned by Reason?"
Insult Kerry Howley or question her sexual morality. They get very
defensive about their womenfolk.
I've insulted Kerry Howley, but I guess whoever bans everybody who does that didn't get it. And I called the other one "hypheny" once. Maybe always being a jerk buys a pass.
"[Obama] might not be 100 percent opposed to a newspaper
bailout."
You got to pay the 'service provider' when they're finished sucking
you off. It's just one of those universal rules.
What the hell do you have to do to get banned by Reason?
Create a top-shelf racist sockpuppet that pisses off someone on the
staff.
"You got to pay the 'service provider' when they're finished
sucking you off. It's just one of those universal rules."
My girls get paid in advance. No exceptions.
I think if Chicago wins the Olympic bid there should be a new
event: throwing people under the bus.
The messiah is a shoe-in for gold!
I once made a comment comparing a reason staffer unfavorably to women I've urinated inside of, but didn't get banned, they just deleted the comment.
It does require quick reflexes, though, as by definition one's vulnerable parts are in harm's way when the jig is up. No time for the "final jiggle".
Well, both of mine were accidental. One was a dead fuck and I tried too hard to come and get it over with and the other was the result of way too much beer. It took us a while to figure out what was going on. We thought we had punctured the water bed.
"We thought we had punctured the water bed."
You fill your water bed with piss!???
(keep shredding, Deshawn, keep shredding)
Technical considerations also affect the site popularities. The WSJ online is very slow to download, because it has way too many pointless graphics.
We don't need a media bailout; if newspapers want to survive in
the "internet age" they should wise up and charge for online
content instead of giving it all away for free. Why would I buy a
newspaper when I can pick and choose my articles online, reading
them whenever and where ever I want.
Furthermore, the media industry doesn't need a bailout, especially
not one fostered by the president. What it needs is to not be
controlled by five corporations that recycle content over and
over.
Something's not right with the numbers in that graph. Are you
sure this is daily traffic data -- and not data based on
searches?
You get different trend lines if you look at results provided by
alexa.com. The 3 sites still merge -- but there's no significant
drop off in traffic for either washingtonpost or wsj.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245