I don’t mean to rip another blog, especially Huffington Pos which I read every day and enjoy alongside Drudge (the two fill in the holes of the other) but I did want to comment on something. Right now if you visit the page you see this headline:

It reads “Exclusive Caught on Tape: Clinton Rips Murdoch WSJ Deal”

The problem? The actual article it points to says no such thing. Bill Clinton actually rips the WSJ Editorial Board, thats true, but he actually says he told a friend he would support the deal as long as Murdoch doesn’t turn the non-editorial board part of the paper into a right-leaning machine. His premise was that the WSJ editorial board was even more right-wing than Murdoch alone could ever make it, so there would be no difference, just that the actual reporters themselves always did a good job of being fair and Clinton wants that tradition to continue.

Huffington Post has had an obvious slant toward Barack Obama for the last few months digging as far as they can to portray Clinton as poorly as possible and Obama as favorably as possible. Which is really odd as Drudge, whom in many ways was largely responsible for the evolution of the coverage of the Lewinsky scandal, is pretty balanced on Clinton printing a fairly even mix of positive and negative news (though not so positive about Obama.)

I personally have been tuff on Obama because frankly he keeps making some pretty large errors and has made more in the last few months that the media seemed to give him a pass on because he was starting. It is one thing to point out flaws and it is also one thing to pick a side and want to fight for it. It is a whole other thing when you mislead ESPECIALLY about an article dealing with keeping the news accurate and fair.

I just thought that headline in particular was blatantly misleading and was worth pointing out.