Considering that one of the top stories on the site is "Fitness Star Proves There's Nothing Wrong With Stomach Rolls", I have a hard time taking this article seriously. Are we not better than HuffPo?
The Huffington Post not only has a Pulitzer [0] -- which is rare for an online-only outlet -- it regularly does serious journalism [1], even if it runs clickbait to help pay the bills. As I explained in another comment downthread, I'm not strongly convinced by the OP's claims, but I didn't dismiss the OP simply because of where it was originally published.
That's a bit misleading. David Wood was awarded the Pulitzer prize for a story that was published by the Huffington Post.
Just because the merit of David Wood's work was recognized by Pulitzer's board members it doesn't automatically mean everything posted by the Huffington Post is a Pulitzer contender.
> it regularly does serious journalism [1]
I believe you meant that some authors who host their work in Huffington Post do serious journalism. That's not exactly the same thing at all.
You argued that the Huffington Post won a Pulitzer to try to refute the fact that their top content is clickbait trash such as "Fitness Star Proves There's Nothing Wrong With Stomach Rolls". Stating that the Huffington Post won a Pulitzer to refute that its content is mostly clickbait trash and suggest that the amount of Pulitzer-worthy material is the norm is disingenuous at best.
The comment I responded to suggested that the OP was not credible because it appears on a website in which the top story is "Fitness Star Proves There's Nothing Wrong With Stomach Rolls".
I brought up the Pulitzer example because, under the commenter's reasoning, that story too should be dismissed because of the clickbait links that are published along side of it.
In fact, you can check this for yourself. Here's the direct link to the lead story in the Pulitzer series:
As you can see, the top trending story is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years". So here's a remix of u/boona's argument:
> Considering that one of the top stories on the site is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years", I have a hard time taking this anti-American-military article seriously. Are we not better than HuffPo?
I read over my comment. Still don't see where I said claimed that the Huffington Post's Pulitzer Prize meant that Pulitzer-level (or even just "serious") journalism was the "norm". My argument was that an article being on Huffington Post was not itself a decisive reason for dismissing the article. You are the one who interpreted that as a glowing endorsement of all of Huffington Post's editorial content. Somehow you missed the part where I said, "even if it runs clickbait to help pay the bills." (though to be fair, I could have said, "even though clickbait probably pays most of the bills"...but I honestly don't have access to their analytics to make that an assertion)
