Personality Cafe banner

HuffPost "Hate Speech Editor" Resigns

252 views 0 replies 1 participant last post by  Wiz 
#1 ·

Her resignation follows the release of the findings of the press ombudsman that a blog published on the site was "malicious" and "discriminatory".
Another article shows the reasons for the ruling, and the ombudsman Johan Retief rebuking Pillay for trivialising the hate speech article as "standard feminist theory". HuffPost SA editor Verashni Pillay resigns after damning ombud ruling

Retief rebuked Huffington Post SA editor-in-chief Verashni Pillay for initially defending the blog following the public outcry. Pillay claimed the blog was “pretty standard for feminist theory” and that there was “nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody”.
So one of the editors of a media company who's web-page are currently ranked at #221 in the world thus influencing hundreds of millions of readers every month doesn't seem to care one bit about sharing racist ideas. However, it seems like people are distancing themselves from these ideas, considering they have lost almost 100.000.000 readers the last year.

..Anyway. To further pinpoint the horrific ethics within the Huffington Post culture, they didn't only publish the article, it was wilfully shared on their Facebook page as well. It was multiple complaints from this very Facebook post that caused the ombudsman to rule the post as racist and discriminatory. His comment about the content of the article is as follows:

To disenfranchise a section of the population once again would indeed represent a huge step backwards – one that may have some serious unforeseen consequences.” The finding follows multiple complaints lodged since the blog appeared on the Facebook page of the Huffington Post website on April 13 under the headline “Could it be time to deny white men the franchise?

Are HuffPost blind to their own form of racism?

Does it seem like Huffington post regrets publishing the article? Nope. Not once do they express any form of disdain about the (and I feel the need to repeat myself) content that calls for the blunt removal of the rights of a group because of their race. This is their official explanation of why they removed the post.

We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.
They published it, shared it on Facebook, and didn't even address the hate speech it conveyed. Rather, they explain that the removal of the post was because the user was "fake". In other words not because they disagree with the content of the article.

The closest thing their obstinate reply could come to something that started to look like human decency was:

Huffington Post SA stands aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: "We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity."
So basically the most caring statement they managed to construct was that they are fans of supporting the constitution of their country.

Isn't that strange coming from a left-wing newspaper that regularly preaches of acceptance, understanding and diversity?


Who wrote the article?


The "fake" writer of the article, was revealed to be Marius Roodt (37), a white male researcher at the Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE) in a prestigious think-tank in Parktown, Johannesburg, posted the blog post under the pseudonym Shelley Garland.

Roodt – who likes sci-fi and had pictures of the movie franchise Star Trek on his Facebook page – classifies himself as liberal, "with a hint of being a left-of-centre, social democrat".
..shocking!

I just thought you can say almost anything you want . . . not necessarily attacking white men. I think there is a lack of fact-checking in South African journalism. I thought, would it work? And it worked.
It did work, and thanks for exposing the unprofessional culture of HuffPo, Marius.

I said in my piece that whites own 90% of land in South Africa. That isn't true. And 97% of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange isn't owned by whites . . . . uhm . . . all that kind of thing.
These were the fake facts that was uncritically overlooked by the HuffPost staff. Of course that isn't true. Roodt cites the following to be factually correct:

Roodt cites the figures he believes to be true: whites own 22% of the JSE, blacks 23% and direct black ownership amounts to 10% and direct white ownership is 13%, with most of the securities exchange owned by foreign shareholders.

Final thoughts


So, all in all. Just another episode of how the left manages to lower their credibility completely on their own. My suggestion for the right wingers that wishes to expose the left is to just let them be, because their ever growing amount of ridiculousness and scandalous stunts like this will be their demise.
 
See less See more
1
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top