Another conundrum: whether to engage with the Huffington Post.

Good luck with that. HuffPo very strongly censors the comments in their fake science section. They moderately, but very randomly, censor comments in their other sections. This is even done at times against the wishes of the blogger to whom you're commenting.

If someone managed to get a pro-science piece posted there, the team of moderators would permit the legions of stupid, baseless, fake science, disease promoting comments to flow freely which savaging anyone who agreed with the blogger.

I say this as someone who used to frequently post there (about 2000 comments over a years time), whose comments were censored at about a 15% rate. I'm not that anal, it used to give you your post count and your censored post count. Once the pro-disease moms started deleting any comment that contained links to scientific studies I gave up.

Also worth noting that there would also be a virtual deluge of "pharma shill" being thrown out. Commenters get it thrown at them all the time, so a pro-science piece would be a nightmare in that regard. The "the only way you could disagree with me is if someone paid you" gambit is common there. In a years time I was accused of being a paid republican operative (for pointing out errors in 9/11 troofers statements), an employee of Jon Stewart (for having the audacity to ask why people think they have a right to dictate the makeup of his writers based on ethnicity) and of course, all flavors of pharma shill.

Sorry, needed to get those posts off my chest :P

Tough question.

I would say that right now, between who HuffPo has chosen to head up their "wellness" department, and the quality of what's currently being published, that a scientist publishing there would have to run a fine line to not look like they're legitimizing the gibberish being posted elsewhere on the site.

It's similar to engaging with denialists in general.
By engaging, do we make it look like these are two, equally valid points of view, or do we correct the mistakes that have been posted and set the record straight?

I'm cynical right now so I'd lean towards "don't accept"

I say that as long as complete editorial control is retained over the text of the blog entry and either a guarantee of no censorship or control of which comments get blocked then it is not just okay but essential for science/med promoters to take advantage of any opportunity if offered.

Isn't it ironic that the same folks who hated Bush's war on science are busy with their own but can't recognise it?

I think the standard should be no different for Huffington Post than for any other media (say, for example, George Will's Washington Post columns with scientific content issues). You've got to whack it down wherever it is.

I apologize for cross-posting, but you specifically asked how to engage, so I repeat a comment from elsewhere.

My Modest Proposal is someone with IT skills and appropriate infrastructure needs to create website/virtual host scientistswho.hatehuffingtonpost.{org, com, net} doctorswho.hatehuffingtonpost.{org, com, net} or similar.

First, one could create a petition drive there with lists of the scientific and medical haters-of-woo with affiliations. All the bloggers with frequency and with some care could link to the site, rather than huffpo. With the care in the pattern of linking, the site might come up second in searches if you searched google for HuffPo, Huffington Post, and other likely search terms, etc. (Amazing to me how often I see some people go to google search to go to sites they visit frequently).

It would be a nice place to "fisk" the articles or point to those that do, rather than drive traffic to the site of woo. For every article of woo, there might be a mirror with same article title and author name (again, for google purposes) that with links or text rebuts the woo. My suggestion is that all article titles have a subtitle "It Ain't Necessarily So" appended. One could even automate some of this for repeat providers of woo (e.g. all articles by DensePack Chopra have a stub entry ready. Out of the box, this could have text something like "Here are some things some scientists might want to know about other articles from this author..." But can later acquire text and links for article-specific critique, as they develop. One could even work a way to drive people to the site from comments@huffpo...it might be removed, but it seems that editing out comments is not even across articles.

Any interest?

No, I don't think any scientist, researcher or sensible doctor should attempt to engage with the HuffPost or it's readership.

Eventually this will cause them to cave in on their own nonsense just as the Republican party did when scientists in the US disengaged with them because of the sheer lack of reciprocity. They then fielded almost exclusively science-illiterate candidates with no hope of winning in the current social climate. My concern about Obama is that he's been vetted more by the media than the electorate. Instead of reforming into a highly competent critical and self-critical community, the Republicans are doing everything they can to repeat what made them so horrid in recent years.

Back on-topic, when the HuffPost realises it is in worse leagues than even the most uninformative trash tabloid, it will want to reinvent itself only to find it's alienated any rational market. The concessions should be satisfyingly painful before any credible academic graces it with an article.

Engaging with it now just gives it an undeserved image of legitimacy which it will exploit to the fullest in the same way Fox News does.

Huffington post must be confronted with as much vigor as possible. They are becoming (if not have become) a large and recognized outlet for (at least on some subjects) respectable opinion. Somehow it needs to be made clear that they are hosting something that is as far from 'respectable opinion' as it appears to be possible to be.

Their readership is quite large, and some of their political positions are read and accepted by many. the association of such medical idiocy to the rest of the huffington post lends it a credibility among people who don't pay too much direct attention to science. The louder and better any arguments that are made among the bloggers here at Seed, the better. but somehow the messages sent from here have to make it to the people who read HuffPo.

some time ago there was a fairly successful concerted effort to google bomb the term 'expelled' by using that word to link to the expelled exposed website. if nothing else, you might try starting something like that for 'homeopathy', 'vaccination', whatever...

this website as a whole is generally recognized by page ranking a source of good information. as such links to and from here are ranked highly. so if as a group you use care in what words are wrapped in a link to certain places, you can begin to redirect traffic about certain subjects relatively quickly. it only took a week or so for the expelled exposed link to be in the top 5 results for 'expelled'

On the other hand, if you as a group approach Huffington and maybe do something similar to what you have done with the new york times over there on the right, you might succeed on landing some of the HP visitors. Does anyone know if someone has approached the editorial staff of HP directly to discuss the quality of their science 'reporting'?

or indirectly, an appeal to someone in national media who appears to be actually curious about the subjects they report on might be worth while. granted there aren't many, but pointing out to some of the more strident political speakers of the day that their words are being tainted by a relationship to a fount a medical quackery might be the easiest way to sway the editorial board of the Huffington Post. I don't think they would want to be seen as losing any of their credibility (which they do have in fields other than science...)

If the bloggers on HuffPo's health section were writing these pieces on their own blogs and were not affiliated with HuffPo, I would not give them the time of day. However, as HuffPo is a legitimate outlet for other types of information, scientists and doctors contributing their own articles to the site will not significantly increase the legitimacy of those currently posting, but will instead infuse much needed rationality.

Since they are widely read, it is likely that there are people who wander into the health section from other parts of HuffPo that are not firmly in the CAM camp, but slowly drift there due to exposure and lack of alternative viewpoints present in their main news outlet. It is these people we need to reach.

Never argue with an idiot: people won't be able to tell the difference. People who resort to ad hominem attacks are not interested in the truth â they're only interested in confirmation. Let's face it: the readers of the site want entertainment and will not let inconvenient truths or complicated reasoning get in the way.

While it might satisfying to think that you can correct the arrant nonsense coming from FOX-TV, you would be better off yelling at the TV.

As long as HuffPo would not treat you any differently than the woomeisters, I say do it. Having the correct information in HuffPo is never a bad idea. Sure, the comments would suck, but who cares. Just ignore them. It's what I do. Read article, skip comments. Raises the overall IQ there by 50 points.

When I wanted to improve the science coverage on Liberal Conspiracy, a UK politics site, I went to them and asked if I could write some stuff for them. They happily agreed, and now I can try and improve it from the inside. I'm just wondering if ScienceBlog writers have actually tried approached HuffPo and offering articles?

Ja's got a good idea. I suggest calling it Puffington Host -- something that could tempt people away from there by writing to the topics that are popular there, but doing it with a higher standard, with your own footnotes and discussion.

Once you've got that working, then maybe offering the material to them might work, along the lines Martin suggests. (Martin, can you point to examples of what you've written there? I searched 'science' -- didn't find much.)

I don't see how you can ever get complete editorial control, unless you own the blog; else they'll bury you in blather if they can't stand to think about what you're writing.

The legal adage is that bad cases produce bad law. Huffington Post is not reputable because it has good content, it is considered reputable because it attracted a large following thanks to Yahoo! supporting it in its inception. HP struck a nerve with a disaffected populace and as such developed a substantial following. It was not the quality of the content, it was that the content reverberated with the viewpoints of the readers.
That said, HP has, IMO, no redeeming qualities. Millard Fillmore's Bathtub has a story up about an Eagle Scout who was lost in the wilderness. When I first read the story, I questioned the judgment of the hiker. I have since recanted that position upon learning that the hiker was given bad advice by "experts." The hiker was told to take a trail that no knowledgeable or reputable docent should recommend given the conditions. It was only by the wits of the hiker that he was able to survive.
HP is much the same. The deliberately give space to people who should not be allowed to speak as authorities on subjects that they have no understanding. (Chopra, RFKjr, and so on.) The resulting pollution taints the entire operation. How is one expected to recognize what data are "true" and what are fraudulent. At least traditional news outlets make an effort at fact-checking and veracity; HP makes no such effort.
I am an absolutist in this regard, once proven to be unreliable and untrustworthy, then no quarter, no deference should be given. HP should be eviscerated at every opportunity by the SB community. They should not be acknowledged as authoritative in any subject. HP had an opportunity to earn trust and social capital and instead chose to forgo those qualities for the other capital. For that HP deserves nothing more than disdain and failure. Engaging HP infers upon them an air of credibility they do not deserve. A pox on their house and all who support them.

Hey, you combine crap politics with science and you get crap science. Why all the surprise and shock and outrage. This sort of intellectual insanity was implicit on Huffpos very first day.

In the final analyis the Huffington Post is all about making money. Any submission that further engages their readership in reading the HP regularly is likely to be welcomed by the editors, and this issue has all the makings of a good, maybe even regularly featured, controversy with the potential to do just that.

Perhaps this isn't the way to introduce it, though. However, rather than just refuting the stupidity on a case by case basis, I think it might be profitable (in terms of generating reader interest) to use some particular stupidity as a jumping off point to address the issue of stupidity in general, perhaps offering as further examples in that article past stupidities.

Then wrap up with an expression of willingness to entertain any stupidity offered as an alternative to the more scientifically based expression, pointing out that in the end, of couse, only results which can be verified scientifically can be accepted - although they themselves remain conditional should some amazingly stupid answer be shown experimentally to explain the results better.

It might not hurt to try explain a little statistics, and this should be done in the most intuitive way possiblel, using illustrations and perhaps even flash or some other video based medium.

It wouldn't hurt to mention how Einstein was flummoxed by quantum theory, and didn't want to accept it because it made no sense to him, but in the end he did because he couldnn't deny the evidence (see, even smart guys can get fooled by what seems like it can be true).

Might be good to get a little quantum mechanics in there anyway - it's always a crowd pleaser with the mystic crowd, though they do tend to start running around trying to predict the future and read minds with it. Stil it's good bait for the new age gang, and it may make the article a little less "dry."

Hopefully this will generate comments, lots of comments. Comments are an index of interest, and after the initial article and maybe some followup the HP editors could be approached with an offer to do a continuing 'scientist's response' to whatever the stupidity of the week is. This could be done as an alternative to whatever the astrologer, or homeopathist of the week has offered, with the specific weaknesses of the alchemist's answer put forth, and the scientist's answer, with justification. All should be done in a tone which conveys the scientific answer as an alternative, and not as an attempt to discredit and crush the charlatan, because this just plays to the stereotypes that the charlatans have already indoctinated the crowd with.

As long as it continues to generate interest, i.e. comments, the editors will probably love it. And of course comments have to be answered, so somehow time has to be made for that, although in many cases they will be a variation on "I respectfully disagree, based on the evidence I've put forth, but of course ultimately you will have to decide which explanation makes the most sense and is the most useful for you."

The success of the enterprise depends on not alienating and driving off readers, because the moment that happens, the editor's profit motivation will cause them to shut it down quick

I've been censored in my comments at Huffington Post too, usually when I post about the hypocrisy of the Aspen Institute. I used to get their full blog feed, but now I'm more selective--I subscribe to just six of their bloggers, and none of them blog about science. But my viewpoint is that we should still definitely TRY and we should KEEP trying. Blogs are incestuous things. I subscribe to World of Psychology. Recently they added a blogger, Therese Borchard, whose posts were one of the reasons I stopped the full Huffington Post blog feed. It seems that I can't get away from her (although I delete her posts unread). Huffington Post generally throws in a little science with the nonsense, but wading through it is tricky.

I'm constantly censored there, but then again, I offer facts with a heavy dose of humor and mockery as my primary weapons. Huffpo is, if nothing else, utterly irony impaired. I can't say the same for its founder. I've met Ms. Huffington and found her intellect and wit formidable, but she is a living, breathing cautionary tale of how susceptibility to woo has so very little to do with intelligence, and everything to do with emotional neediness.

I like the content on HuffPo, I'm a total liberal, and except for my extreme dislike of some right-wing figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I rarely write anything offensive.
But I'd say at least 25% of the time my comments are censored, with no rhyme or reason.
It is very annoying.

I returned to the Huffington Post and I discovered I was censored. Never used a curse word ever. Did positive posts on Hillary Clinton in the past. I guess that was enough to flag my account. When I returned to post thoughtful comments that was about a writer's article on mommies posting their baby's picture on Facebook as their profile picture (and how obnoxious that is), I discovered I was totally censored. Again, never used a curse word. Just posted arguments against the writer's position. I think people should go to another news aggregator, because the censorship of responses are not around being a troll or cursing, it's around anytime you provide arguments against their editorial position. Hushing their readers is totally hypocritical of their "open" and "new" journalism.

I found your article today while looking for others who had been censored on Huffpost, and had no idea that scientists were grappling with the idea of posting retorts to false statements on the site - and the problems therein.

I just want to say that I signed up with Huffpost from day one, and have almost 2,000 posts registered. But the past year or two have been incredibly frustrating in that inexplicably my posts first were censored, then I was banned, then I was reinstated, and now currently, my posts are tagged for "comment awaiting approval" with "approval" hit and miss.

I don't have a good idea as to why other than due to the whims and politics of the intern(s) who have tagged me. Like previous comments here, I do not use profanity (nor hide it with clever use of spacing as some do) and I am indeed a liberal.

And yet, especially lately, I see that my comments are held up, and often never posted, while literally thousands of other truly distasteful, obscene, name-calling, idiot-ranting posts just flow through without a problem.

I don't think there is any rationality to this "policy." I think it's the youthful staff who like to feel some power over those THEY disagree with. It's like dealing with petulant children.

I try to think back as to what I posted that so upset the staff as to flag my IP address. Was it, like a previous comment posted above suggested, my defense of Hilary Clinton when Huffpost was allowing the most vile, obscene and horrific comments to slide on past? I wasn't even a Hilary supporter! I simply tired of the endless sickening name-calling by posters.

Or was it when I posted a thoughtful response to a well-known author/writer/director who had written a column against Hilary that took my breath away with its duplicity? And no, my comment didn't make into her responses either.

It seems that it all goes back to my defense of Hilary Clinton.

Not long ago, another humor columnist who blogs regularly at Huffpost was getting slammed up-side his head about his column. The comments were borderline crazy. I made a comment in his defense, reminding the readers that he wrote the column in jest, as in, "comedy writer."

Did my comment get posted? NO. But the litany of nasty comments against their own guest blogger continued.

I simply don't get it.

Additionally, forget trying to point out an incorrect or misleading headline. My posts, simple as they may be when I point this out, are never allowed past the "comment awaiting approval" stage.

As an experiment, I decided to use another IP address and open up a new Huffpost account. Guess what? All of my posts, which are similar to all my previous posts at Huffpost, are miraculously posted immediately. All of them.

I appreciate you allowing me to vent my frustration. I assumed that Huffpost was a liberal blog site when I first signed on in 2005. Now, I am not sure what it is other than a place where a young, inexperienced staff can take out their petty issues on members with whom they personally disagree.

Nothing would make me happier than to see Huffpost become replaced with another site.