HuffPo is worse than Nickelback
by Mari A. Gomez
I wrote not long ago about how Huffington Post had become the Nickelback of journalism. My whole premise was playing with the idea that Nickelback, to someone who’d never really heard rock and roll or understood it’s roots, I.e without context, might appear to have good rock songs. I know, it's subjective, but to a lot of people Nickelback songs are somewhat painful and a reminder of just how far a catchy chord progression can get you, even when the music lacks depth and substance. I toyed with the idea that Nickelback fans were people that look for an easy fix, just some stupid lyric to sing along to. I suggested that somebody who listened joyfully to Nickelback was equivalent to someone that would read the Huffington Post as legitimate news.
The idea behind this comparison was that the consequences of sites like the Huffington Post were at par with the damage that Nickelback songs might cause to music in general. I was trying to find a way to explain my disdain for sites like the Huffington Post, who are at the epitome of bad writing and journalism. I don't have much against Nickelback. So, I realized, this is very unfair. It’s unfair to Nickelback, whose product, in this case their shitty music, may hurt when it comes on the radio, but it doesn’t turn people into idiots or assholes; it doesn't make people close minded to other perspectives or music. It doesn't damage the culture.
That’s more than I can say for Huff Po and their readers. HuffPo content frequently attacks and demonizes different points of view and perpetuates false narratives, oftentimes base don nothing. Given their following, HuffPo has the potential for great damage and it has been disconcerting to see their reactions to Trump’s ascension, victory, and his ever approaching inauguration.
So we all woke up a few days ago to the Meryl Streep speech wherein she completely exposed herself as just another Hollywood liberal who understands exactly nothing about what’s happening around her. Someone with the gall to refer to herself as the minority or the vilified group of people, when half the country that voted for Trump is constantly insulted, belittled, and blamed for the supposed horrors to come.
Most of us had to hold back nausea as we heard the speech. Not only did Meryl Streep play some kind of victim, or imply that her American born colleagues were ‘foreigners’, she denied the idea that mixed martial arts (which has arts in the name for a reason) is not an art form as worthy to the world as The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl Streep had zero qualms about insulting millions and millions of sports fans and athletes that love the complexity, the discipline, the tradition and history of a martial art and study it as such. No, making movies is above it all.
Anyway, there is really nothing that hasn’t been said about this, including pointing out that Trump has been recorded doing the exact same mannerisms about others including himself, and the fact that, that same week a white mentally disabled person was tortured by a bunch of black people yelling out 'Fuck Trump,' an indication that the hate they speak of so readily has been far more visible on their side, yet somehow that didn't make an impression on Meryl Streep at all; it wasn't even worth mentioning, but what’s interesting is how the liberals masturbated to her speech the whole day, posting on their social media sites with accompanying personal comments.
The left, the media, as we saw with Buzzfeed, is hungry, desperate, and resorting to violence, figuratively speaking, against those who may stray from their narratives. So in my regular perusal of the HuffPo digital wasteland I came across an article with this headline:
NICOLE KIDMAN THINKS IT’S TIME START SUPPORTING DONALD TRUMP
Oh oh. I thought. This should be interesting. It should be worth mentioning that since this story was published, so much pressure was put on Kidman about her comments that she was FORCED to clarify because the media, have nothing better to do than to report on what Nicole Kidman said. God forbid they reported on Obama's last minute debauchery.
In any case, Cole Delbyck, an entertainment writer, spends his entire piece not talking about Kidman's new film, or her character in it, or the story, which she discusses in depth in the interview. He doesn't talk about Nicole Kidman's philosophy of acting or her work as an actress. He focuses, solely on one sentence.
In the interview(and you can watch it to the right) Nicole Kidman suggests that people should support the fact that Trump is now the President. She wasn’t even referring to his policies, or him as a person. She was accepting reality, one that the Left simply refuses to accept: Trump won.
Trump won, bitches.
So since the popular media has swooned over celebrities that trash Trump, when a well loved celebrity, simply acknowledges reality she comes under vicious drone strikes. The first line of the article reads as follows:
“It sounds like Nicole Kidman is keeping her eyes wide shut when it comes to the many potential problems of a Donald Trump presidency.”
Eyes Wide Shut is the one reference this guy had to her films in the entire piece. So from the opening lines, the tone is clear: a deliberate, sarcastic, attack. Delbyck's sole purpose of this piece is to narrow in on Nicole Kidman's comments on Trump. He's not an entertainment writer here, he's like the HuffPo celebrity Police.
In the original HuffPo text the writer mentions Kidman’s dual citizenship in a very deliberate and quite frankly, suspicious, way. He writes:
First of all, since when does Hillary-loving, open border enthusiasts, the Huffington Post give a hoot about people’s citizenship status? The mention of it here is quite purposeful. It is bait. And it worked, as is evident from readers' comments below. Is this meant as a slight? Is this suggesting that this makes her a little less American maybe, a little less justified to give these comments?
Some guy took the bait and responded:
This story got over 5,000 comments.
These are intimidation tactics to attack someone for an attempt to acknowledge the results of the election. That is, of course, because most of the Left refuses to accept that Trump won a legitimate victory. Then Kidman goes on to talk about her work for women and issues such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer. This might have been worthy material for this entertainment writer. But this one sentence, this one slip up, as far as the Hollywood left is concerned, was enough to bring the media police around to her door to demand clarification.
So there is 1. The way that her comments were misinterpreted and blown way out of proportion but 2. How it exposes the media's intolerance for a celebrity of such caliber to even consider supporting Trump.
A day or two later, in a story that followed Kidman’s clarifications in the UK Independent, they mentioned her dual citizenship TWICE in the same story. Since when does any story discuss the citizenship status of a celebrity. It just seems odd.
These kinds of stories may seem rather inconsequential, after all, who cares what celebrities think right? Well liberals do and they care when one of them doesn't say it right. It shows that perhaps the very media that trembles in fear of the potential abuses of first amendment rights by Donald Trump is betraying that very principle, by attacking those that might suggest some deviation from their narrative of Trump is Hitler and we should all be afraid.
The HuffPo story ends with:
The writer suggests that Kidman, who somehow missed Streep’s message, or was perhaps too Australian to catch the complexity of it, should be questioned. Don't you want to "safeguard the truth" Nicole? This guy believes that it is Trump that is attacking the press, when many of them have done nothing but try to de-legitimize Trump from the beginning.
Media site after media site called her comments “controversial,” which means perhaps that saying one believes in Trump’s legitimacy as President is, in fact, controversial. No person with a modicum of common sense would have misconstrued Kidman’s comments as an endorsement or support for Trump, which is precisely what they were initially reported as being.
This writer, who presumably gets paid by HuffPo, unless their staff is actually a group of volunteer mentally ill patients, turned off his computer and went home feeling accomplished. His other headlines include:
SO NOW THERE IS A PICTURE OF SALENA GOMEZ IN A THONG ON INSTAGRAM
ZOE SALDANA THINKS HOLLYWOOD BULLIES WON TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE
Keep up the good fight Cole Delbyck.
I've come to accept that a Nickelback album has more human worth, more value, more integrity, than a site that promotes itself as a serious and legitimate source and publishes garbage like this. Keep doing this HuffPo, you’re headed for a beautiful self destruction that I, along with many others, will celebrate. The culture will reject you. It's already doing it. That's why you're such a joke, a fat girl in a tight dress desperate for attention. Nickelback is simply bad at what they do, but HuffPo has intentions to deceive, to demonize other points of view, so that their story, their utopian vision of a socialist America, or whatever the hell their vision is, will finally come to fruition. And they are trying so hard, one bad article at a time.