Originally Posted By alexbook <rant> There's a headline going viral on the web today: >>Jeff Sessions: Saying Millionaires Should Share Pain Is 'Rather Pathetic'<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/millionaire-jeff-sessions_n_890766.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...766.html</a> Only problem is that it's a complete distortion of what Sessions actually said. The Democrats in the Senate want to pass a non-binding resolution endorsing the idea of rich people paying more taxes. It's a meaningless sop thrown to Democratic voters. Its only purpose is to save the Democrats' faces when they ultimately agree to a budget deal which doesn't include increased taxes on the rich. They'll be able to say, "We wanted to pass those taxes. We even passed a resolution in favor of them!" I agree with Sessions when he says it's pathetic: >>Sessions and his colleagues found expression of such ideas of little use, and said it only delays getting around to major cuts. "It's a sense of the Senate," Sessions scoffed. "We're supposed to have legislation in place by Aug. 2 to deal with raising the debt limit -- and that's got to be real numbers and real figures." "So I guess we can say we're beginning to talk about something with this rather pathetic response from the majority leader," he said. "I'm not happy about that."<< ----- And before people get all bent out of shape about what Sessions might have meant and whether or not taxing the rich is truly a pathetic idea, my real point is that it drives me up the wall when a headline or an intro makes a claim that isn't borne out by the story. TV and radio news programs, newspapers, magazines, and web sites all do it, all the time. The biggest newspapers and magazines seem a little less prone to it, but they're not immune. Local TV news shows and gossip magazines seem to be the worst. I really wish there were something to be done about it, but for now all I can do is steam. Anyway, I'm calmer now that I've got that out of my system. Thanks. </rant>
Originally Posted By velo HuffPo headlines are, in general, often major distortions of what's really going on. Although I'll go there to get quick updates on what's going on (in general), I've really decreased my reading of the site articles.
Originally Posted By alexbook I don't generally read the Huffington Post, but a couple of friends have sent me links, one to this article and one to an article on another web site that cites this one as a source. Trying to figure out what's really going on with Google led to lots of articles taking off from this one, either defending or attacking it based solely on the headline. Seems like hardly anyone (including my friends) had actually read the whole article; they just took the headline and ran with it.
Originally Posted By velo I've found that since AOL took over HuffPo it's really become more "sensational" - but like you've said it's a good jumping-off point.
Originally Posted By mawnck <------- stopped following the Huffington Post. Cold turkey. Life improved tremendously.
Originally Posted By mele I usually just read the comedy and entertainment section...but even that is getting awful. They seem to be obsessed with the Kardashians. (Gag)
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- has a bit of a crush on Ariana Huffington. Wife knows it. Understands it.
