Arianna Huffington: New Media Outlets Must Prove Commitment to Truth

There are terabytes of strong evidence proving misinformation exists: educated people vote against their best interests, ideological think tanks brand themselves with patriotic labels, and naked lies are exposed on the internet.

On the other hand, truth and facts are more available to the masses than any time in history. Lies, disinformation, and wrongdoing have been exposed at a nearly exponential pace. Just imagine in the early twentieth century how many months or years would pass before large groups of people could be enlightened to facts which would change their perceptions? That was the Golden Era of manipulation.

Has the Information Age become an Orwellian dystopia in which we are overwhelmed with misinformation? Or, are we on the path to freedom through truth? I caught up with Arianna Huffington — Co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Huffington Post — to get her perspective as she leads her expedition across the sea of information..

Damien Hoffman: Arianna, a popular current debate is whether we live in an age of misinformation. What do you think?

Arianna: I do not think we live in an age of misinformation. Misinformation and disinformation are a part of human nature. They have always been part of communicating.

On the contrary, new media makes it easier to fact check and collect information in real-time or as close to real-time as possible. Of course, the new Information Age does not mean we can do away with editors or curating information. But it means providing information is not the prerogative of only the elite.

It is simply untrue to say that misinformation is the mission of new media. In fact, while new media was covering the run-up to the war in Iraq and the financial meltdown, the mainstream media — with few honorable exceptions — missed the key stories.

Damien: With the new excess of information, how does the average person know whether they are consuming facts or spin?

Arianna: When a new media organization appears, it is on trial until it proves its commitment to truth, fact checking, and accuracy.

Damien: As a successful businessperson in media, what is the secret to success in reaching the masses with good journalism?

Arianna: You need a commitment to the truth. The truth is not always to be found in the middle. So you have to find it no matter where the chips fall.

For example, in my case I supported Barack Obama for President. However, I have been very critical of him because we are following the facts and are committed to discovering the truth.

Damien: Arianna, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this very interesting topic.

Arianna: Thank you, Damien. I love your site. Keep up the great work.

Comments

[Dubious Bro...:]

Interviewing Arianna Huffington about misinformation in the media is as relevant as interviewing Al Gore about misinformation on "global warming" aka "climate change."

Case in point - "in my case I supported Barack Obama for President. However, I have been very critical of him because we are following the facts and are committed to discovering the truth." One would suspect that a relevant participant in the new media would seek the facts and the truth before the Presidential election. Huffington Post along with the rest of the mainstream media missed the key stories.

full disclosure - I was barred from posting on Huffington Post before my first post was accepted.

Oct 30 01:52 PM

[Tony Petroski:]

The new media is prone to spreading rumors and disinformation in the short run (say within 24 hours) due to the speed of getting the information out and the desire to be first to report.

In the long run however (say 24-48 hours), the new media tends to be self-correcting because of the sheer number of outlets and the difficulty of maintaining hoaxes and set-up jobs against multiple sources of contradiction. Just ask Dan Rather how his hit piece on George Bush worked out. Without the new media, that old dinosaur would have gotten away with it and would be on his way to joining Walter Cronkite in the Trusted Media Hall of Fame.

Oct 30 02:32 PM

[Relayer10:]

The Huffingtom Post is anything BUT a source for real information. If they would just come clean, and admit the bias....then they become legitimate. The HuffPo creates a problem for real journalists....because real journalists dig for facts, and expose it before the world...let the world decide from there. There are a lot of writers posing as journalists that get their data from the HuffPo, without checking ANYTHING. They should also call the HuffPo out for left wing spin...Like FOX, there is a chance that a writer could uncover a truely important story- a scoop- so they need to be looked at....but with extreme sceptisim...because the left spin is so prevalent.

Oct 31 08:38 PM

[Skjellifetti:]

We need both HuffPost and Fox for the simple reason that most of the mainstream journalists have become too lazy to do anything more than simply reprint whatever was in the press releases the politicians and businesses hand out. Did any of the mainstream press do any real digging about, say, the WMDs that the Bush admin claimed were in Iraq before we went to war? Where was the mainstream business press when AIG was buying and selling swaps like they were baseball cards?

Nov 02 02:09 PM

[joebaggadonuts:]

HP does what no other news organization did before it. It publishes facts and opinion as they develop.

Googling or Binging or Alta-Vista-ing have brought fact checking to the public within their own window on the electronic world. The truth is out there now like it never was before.

For those of you showing clear bias against HuffingtonPost, please check your freedom fries at the keyboard and take another look. HP publishes a lot of crap, but it's biased in every direction. The comments by individuals are moderated, but I have seen all viewpoints published, for and against positions.

As it has grown, it keeps me up to date faster and better than any other news organization on line and lets me see what others think about news and opinion pieces immediately. It links to best sources and first sources (which are sometimes not so good), and it often gets the headlines wrong, but it's solidly good information.

Nov 02 02:24 PM

[spald_fr:]

AH suffers from chronic observational discrepancy.

She was a rabid right-winger during the Clinton Impeachment proceedings and then, somehow, swerved severely left after she discovered her husband was a closet homosexual (who then took up with his lover). And AH's heritage is Greek!

Nov 02 03:11 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

Why Is "Truth" Not An Indelible Factor In Media?

Nov 02 08:36 PM

[Mafeking:]

Interviewing AH about misinformation is like interviewing a frog on the temperature of the water. The frog cannot tell temperature; AH cannot see misinformation. She simply sees all facts and views that are not aligned with Hufpost's left wing bias as propaganda (try getting anything not far left of center published on the site).

The boring thing about Hufpost and AH is that they never surprise. All their thought comes from the same left wing place.

Nov 02 09:09 PM

[Jeff Nielson:]

Obviously both the author AND the people making comments have things TOTALLY backwards. The "new media", located primarily on the internet, are the ONLY source for FACTS, and HONEST analysis.

It is the MAINSTREAM media sources which have been totally discredited. It is these shills who were still "pumping" U.S. markets AFTER the crash had already started. And their current pumping, in the face of glaring fundamentals which again demonstrate they are DEAD WRONG with their "information" proves they have learned nothing.

It is the "new media" which was RIGHT about the "War on Terror", RIGHT about the coming crash of the U.S. economy, and RIGHT (again) that there has been no "U.S. economic recovery".

If not for the internet and the "new media" we would be LIVING the "1984" nightmare - as there are no few if ANY credible, mainstream media sources in Western societies.

Nov 03 10:07 AM

[Graham and ...:]

Dear Mafeking:

Is your handle a reference to the place that Lord Robert Baden-Powell defended for 217 days during the Boer War?


On Nov 02 09:09 PM Mafeking wrote:

> Interviewing AH about misinformation is like interviewing a frog
> on the temperature of the water. The frog cannot tell temperature;
> AH cannot see misinformation. She simply sees all facts and views
> that are not aligned with Hufpost's left wing bias as propaganda
> (try getting anything not far left of center published on the site).
>
>
> The boring thing about Hufpost and AH is that they never surprise.
> All their thought comes from the same left wing place.

Nov 03 10:50 AM

[Gaucho:]

OHH it goes much, much deeper than that. Look at Deepcapture where they state the mafia is deeply involved in the markets. Not a peep from the media.

Look at 911. The American conservative has an article called "Who is afraid of Sibel Edmonds" an FBI translator who says we were in a three way negotiation with Britain and Turkey on how to carve up Iraq in June 2001. She goes on to state that Bin Laden was in constant contact with the US up till the day of 911. www.amconmag.com/artic.../ Not a peep about the ramifications.

Amateur pilots fly a 767 at speeds 150 miles above the maximum speed that the 767 can do a sea level. Where the plane should have broken up much less have the power with the thick sea level air density to even achieve those speeds. Yet the plane was precisely controlled and hit the twin towers with just 25 feet to either side of its wings at 550 MPH. It is like parking in your garage at 90mph. Yet, NOT a peep from the mainstream media.

This is much worse than just lazy it is a deliberate effort to deceive.


On Nov 03 10:07 AM Jeff Nielson wrote:

> Obviously both the author AND the people making comments have things
> TOTALLY backwards. The "new media", located primarily on the internet,
> are the ONLY source for FACTS, and HONEST analysis.
>
> It is the MAINSTREAM media sources which have been totally discredited.
> It is these shills who were still "pumping" U.S. markets AFTER the
> crash had already started. And their current pumping, in the face
> of glaring fundamentals which again demonstrate they are DEAD WRONG
> with their "information" proves they have learned nothing.
>
> It is the "new media" which was RIGHT about the "War on Terror",
> RIGHT about the coming crash of the U.S. economy, and RIGHT (again)
> that there has been no "U.S. economic recovery".
>
> If not for the internet and the "new media" we would be LIVING the
> "1984" nightmare - as there are no few if ANY credible, mainstream
> media sources in Western societies.

Nov 03 10:55 AM

[robert.b.fe...:]

Old media or main stream media (MSM) has shown a propensity recently to ignore news stories that don't fit the agenda of it's masters. I have posted here before that all one needs to do is follow the money and you will find the Soros group on the other side. Ariana has the dubious distinction of criticizing team Obama because they aren't living up to the radical agenda of the far left. Remaking America has evidently proven harder than team Obama had anticipated. Especially since they didn't get it done before those pesky American voters began figuring out what was happening. Now things have seemingly stalled in the Senate and Dingy Harry has admitted that Health care reform likely will not happen this year. Given the mood of the electorate it may not happen at all. Knee cap our trade is also facing major hurdles in the senate and will hopefully face the same fate.

Nov 03 05:13 PM

[akapital:]

The fundamental distinction which underlies the article is that between a culturization/educative process and mere ideology. The problem is that such a distinction cannot be made, whether it be in mass media or otherwise.

The very effort to label news or media as truth or objective is the most eggregious example of spin/ideology (e.g. Fox News).

Of course culture and ideology at its most eggregious examples are easily distinguished but the majority of situations are gray...the modus operandi of any observer/reader should be guarded. A critical education seems inocuous (sic) in this regard.

The problem is not that we believe everything we read/watch, but rather, for the most part and on the whole we mostly read what we believe.

The distinction between mainstream and peripheral sources itself may be a sort of referendum of votes on versions of the truth.

But don't take my word for it...

Nov 03 05:19 PM

[Albertarocks:]

On Nov 03 05:13 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:

> Old media or main stream media (MSM) has shown a propensity recently to ignore news stories that don't fit the agenda of it's masters. I have posted here before that all one needs to do is follow the money and you will find the Soros group on the other side. <

Bingo! Almost all MSM in the English speaking world, including television, newspapers, magazines, radio, smoke signals and messenger pigeons are owned by only 6 corporations, all of whom are inbred cousins. You bet they spew the garbage they're told to spew. Truth or accuracy be damned.

Nov 03 05:33 PM

[robert.b.fe...:]

Since it has become virtually (Pun intended) impossible to maintain a fabrication for more than a couple of hours they (MSM) rely on silence to get them past things they would rather not report. Like Charlie Gibson at ABC saying he didn't know any thing about ACORN or the preaching's of Reverend Wright. Exactly what school of journalism did he attend that taught him not to investigate the obvious and just leave it to cable?


On Nov 03 05:19 PM akapital wrote:

> The fundamental distinction which underlies the article is that between
> a culturization/educative process and mere ideology. The problem
> is that such a distinction cannot be made, whether it be in mass
> media or otherwise.
>
> The very effort to label news or media as truth or objective is the
> most eggregious example of spin/ideology (e.g. Fox News).
>
> Of course culture and ideology at its most eggregious examples are
> easily distinguished but the majority of situations are gray...the
> modus operandi of any observer/reader should be guarded. A critical
> education seems inocuous (sic) in this regard.
>
> The problem is not that we believe everything we read/watch, but
> rather, for the most part and on the whole we mostly read what we
> believe.
>
> The distinction between mainstream and peripheral sources itself
> may be a sort of referendum of votes on versions of the truth.<br/>
>
> But don't take my word for it...

Nov 03 05:42 PM

[Swashbuckler:]

If you depend on the Huffington Post for reliable news information, you may as well get a subscription to the National Enquirer, or rely on toilet partition graffiti.

Nov 03 06:09 PM