Censorship at the Huffington Post?

This morning I posted two comments in response to this article in the Huffington Post, this one, which took 20 minutes to appear (average time on this particular thread is 3 minutes – I checked).


42 Fans

1 hour ago (12:42)

Destructive benefits? More destructive than driving sick and disabled people into penury, homelessness, starvation and suicide?

More destructive than 10,600 people dying as a result of being forced onto workfare when they were clearly too ill (which they proved by dying)?

I do wonder if the major players in this cull of sick and disabled people –  Cameron and IDS – are the most evil politicians this country has produced, or whether they are simply insane?

Then, about 40 minutes later, I posted this, about IDS’s plans to cut benefits for families with more than two kids (in the same article):-

IDS is too stupid to realise that the Swiftian advice for the poor to eat their children was satire, not a recommendation.

It was moderated out of existence.

However, at around the same time, the moderators approved a string of racist comments, and one advocating cutting IDS’s throat, a sentiment I have some sympathy with, but it has no place in a newspaper comments page.

So what the hell is going on there? Why was the first comment, which is nothing if not contentious,approved, yet the much shorter one, which at least had the virtue of being somewhat witty, get binned?

Could it be that the moderators are too stupid or poorly educated to understand it, and what they don’t understand they don’t approve?

I have no idea, but I’d love to know, and if you’re reading this, do come and explain why you allow racist and murderous comments, but bin my innocuous comment.

NB: I do know they’re not obliged to approve something just because I wrote it, but if you look at some of the moronic shit that they have approved in that thread, there can be no possible justification for not doing so.

As an afterthought, I append the following extract from Dean Swift’s satirical essay, in the hope that it might prove enlightening to the hard of thinking at the Huffington Post.

A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick, Jonathan Swift (1729)


I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

9 thoughts on “Censorship at the Huffington Post?

  1. hmmm do you know i think i need to put pages on faves just so i can go check if the post has gone in or bin deleted. i too post on there sometimes but having got out of my system, what was nagging me about some subject or other i rarely go back to see if still there. it dont happen on here as there is a link we can tick so we get replies in our emails.very useful on a busy day.but those sites without that facility i post and leave it.having had my say.

  2. I liked your comments and can’t see anything wrong at all with the comment they binned! As for some of the comments that they allowed through – I’m gobsmacked! Why oh why do they always have to go off at tangents in these things – stick to what the article said for goodness sakes! Not you Ron, you did stick to what the article said, maybe that’s the trouble?

    • Beats me. But I’ve noticed for a couple of years there’s been a longer than normal delay in approving my comments. Maybe I should use shorter words, and not confuse the poor souls! They’re probably sitting there thinking “Now who the hell is Swift Ian?”.

  3. Several of my direct, cited & unmodified quotations from Psalms, The Quran, & Das Kapital have been censored on the Huffington Post and my appeal to the editors have been ignored.

  4. I am of the opinion that papers like to have comments which are far to the extremes as possible, so as to generate anger which in turn will generate more comments and page-views.
    Sane, rational or witty replies are just not in a newspapers interest. After all, as far as I can tell from experience, their prescribed job is to entertain the public, not reliably inform them.

    • Well, they’ve certainly got insanity and controversy on that thread – they’re publishing crap that would never see the light of day in a mainstream paper. Might generate comments but it just encourages the fruitcakes and psychos.

Comments are closed.