I stopped reading The Huffington Post over a year and a half ago. One of the reasons was the misleading headlines that lured me into clicking on a piece and then when I read it, it wasn’t anything like the screaming headline that sucked me in. I was also sick of the tabloid style gossip and “celebritainment” that polluted the site. If I wanted that crap, I would go to TMZ.
But the main reason I quit reading is because this once touted “liberal” website began a turn to the right, where Arianna started of course — working for Newt Gingrich. After the merger with AOL, my thoughts were confirmed as Arianna took to the airwaves and proclaimed that “Huffpoo” isn’t liberal or conservative and how she and Tim Armstrong, the CEO of AOL, shared a vision. Tim Armstrong calls himself a libertarian but has given a lot of money to conservatives over the years. I’m sure they shared a vision.
So you can imagine my satisfaction when I read that The Huffington Post ranks last in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). I’m not the only one who thinks that website sucks, apparently. When you build a website on the backs of liberals, trading on anger and outrage towards President George W. Bush and then turn your sights towards liberals and our Democratic president, what do you expect?. The word on the street these days is that the merger isn’t going so well and the entire deal is at risk of falling apart. I wonder what Arianna’s next scam will be?
When I first heard of the AOL/Huffington Post merger, one of my first thoughts was that Arianna was taking on a huge responsibility and wondered if her experience running Huffpo would really qualify her for the role she grabbed. As regular readers know, I am not a huge fan of Arianna and think she is just an opportunist who took advantage of the anger and hatred towards Bush to build an empire. I know I was sucked into her world back in the Bush days, but it didn’t take me too long to realize that her empire was about making money and the anger just shifted from President Bush to President Obama. Arianna and her brain trust have gradually shifted who their target audience is away from the liberal base she built her site on. She seems to be aiming at some of that Tea Party money from what I can tell. Her book is a blatant appeal to that populist crowd, lots of platitudes and describing of the problem and no solutions or realistic consideration of how to change any of it. Like how to get a bill passed in the current US legislature.
So I take some pleasure in seeing that things aren’t going so well with the AOL/Huffington Post merger. The Business Insider has an article that breaks down the troubles throughout the organization, but I’m most interested in Arianna’s role. From the Business Insider…
Fear and paranoia. Large parts of the org recognize the strategy is bad for the business but everyone is afraid to speak out. Arianna is rumored to have created an enemies list across the company and has directed her loyalists to collect dossiers on other managers across the company and report back on conversations. Her list includes several key business, sales, technology, and marketing executives she wants to eliminate and replace with her people. Anyone who disagrees, even if backed by data and clear rationale’s – goes on the enemies list. Facts don’t matter.
It sounds like she really knows how to manage a large organization and motivate people. More from the Business Insider…
Imperial over-reach. AOL will eliminate Popeater and Parentdish this month and roll them into the Huffington Post. Arianna’s people are plotting to eliminate all non huffingtonpost.com websites and redirect all traffic to the huffingtonpost.com. No one thinks consolidating to huffingtonpost.com is a good idea from a consumer or an advertiser perspective, but no one will stop Arianna.
And the last thing I’ll throw out there about this is that apparently the Huffington Post folks that came along with Arianna, Roy Sekoff and Nico Pitney are having some troubles transitioning to managing a much larger organization.
It is the Peter Principle on a grand scale. None of AOL’s senior editors (Huffington, Roy Sekoff, and Nico Pitney) have ever managed more than a few people. Now they have hundreds and lack the experience to manage a team this big. Behind the scenes, long time Huffposters say that Jai Singh’s departure has eliminated the key adult in the room. Now they need to grow HuffPost and save AOL – not possible.
I used to have the Huffington Post as my home page on my browser – years ago, before it went down hill. The only time I visit there now is if I click on a blind link or there is a story that I just have to read based on a recommendation. I clicked one too many times on a misleading headline that took me to a reposted story from some other source with an ad that pops up or plays before I can see the content. I felt so used by her. And I really don’t give a shit what Kim, Khloe or Kourtney Kardashian did last night.
Well, now she’s done it.
As if many of us haven’t been saying for years that Huffington is a fake Progressive, an opportunist in it for the money and fame, she had to go and prove us right, or at least make us feel like we were dead on right.
Arianna Huffington, formerly the Queen of the Liberal Political Kingdom online, has hired Conservative ideologue Andrew Breitbart, the same guy who spends so much of his time colluding with known con artist James O’Keefe, worked as an editor for the notorious Matt Drudge, worked for Ms. Huffington previously as a researcher, and helped her to launch The Huffington Post.
Go read the whole story at Political Ruminations.
Arianna with her buddy Newt Gingrich
Politico has a long piece up about a lawsuit brought by two Democratic consultants, Peter Daou and James Boyce which claims that the idea for The Huffington Post was stolen from them. A while back, I did some research into Arianna Huffington and came across some rather revealing things about Arianna and her MO. The most glaring of these was her teaming up with Newt Gingrich in the early 90’s to help bring about Gingrich’s Republican Revolution, oh and apparently she’s still hanging with him. I’m old enough to remember that bullshit and have always been skeptical of Huffington and see her as an opportunist. Her new book, no plug here, attempts to play on people’s fears about the economic crisis. I hope to find time to write about that soon, she’s been not so subtly appealing to the angry people in the country….there’s money to be made on that anger, you know? From the Politico piece…
The complaint is a direct challenge to the left’s most important media property from two stalwarts of the progressive movement. And it challenges Huffington’s own oft-told story of coming up with the idea in conversation with Lerer and other friends.
“Huffington has styled herself as a ‘new media’ maven and an expert on the effective deployment of news and celebrity on the Internet in the service of political ends,” says the complaint. “As will be shown at trial, Huffington’s and Lerer’s image with respect to the Huffington Post is founded on false impressions and inaccuracies: They presented the ‘new media’ ideas and plans of Peter Daou and James Boyce as their own in order to raise money for the website and enhance their image, and breached their promises to work with Peter and James to develop the site together.”
It certainly doesn’t surprise me to read this, that’s what Republicans are all about, making money on the backs of other people. It completely fits with her opportunistic MO. She is the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Every time I hear her introduced as a liberal, I do a spit take with my coffee or Lipton Diet Green Tea…and we all know how painful that can be. She is no liberal, she just shifted her “mark” to liberals. She saw the pendulum swinging away from conservatism with the election of George W. Bush and saw a great opportunity to capitalize on it. Recently, it seems she is jealous of all the money Glenn Beck and his sorts are making off the anger on the right. I see her book as a blatant appeal to those people, she want’s some of that money too. More from Politico…
Lerer, a former AOL executive who once worked as a spokesman for junk bond king Michael Milken, later involved other Internet gurus – the marketing expert Jonah Perretti, and Drudge collaborator Andrew Breitbart – in their launch, and Daou and Boyce aren’t the first to contest the Huffington Post’s lineage.
“I created the Huffington Post,” Breitbart told Wired in March, prompting Huffington to reply that he “wasn’t present” for the initial 2004 meeting.
Can you even fucking believe it, Breitbart was there at the start of The Huffington Post. Now that speaks volumes in my mind. Andrew Fucking Breitbart working with Arianna, and of course this is after she supposedly saw the light and became more progressive….cough, spit. I remember seeing her talk on C-SPAN in the early 2000’s and thinking, wow, a conservative who’s seen the light and grown. As I continued to watch her speak, I had a sense about her that she was slippery. She talked around a lot of issues, was very slick in her appeal to liberals, playing on their dislike for George W. Bush, using clever put downs of him to gain acceptance. I have to admit, I was digging what she was saying, I disliked ole’ W. about as much as anyone. But even then, I was cautious because of her slickness. It was only after I started getting pissed off at the misleading headlines on her site that I started doing some digging and discovered the above links.
Booman, who was the source of the Politico link above, wonders why The Huffington Post is considered left…
Is the Huffington Post the “left’s most important media property”? Really? Because I have never opened the Huffington Post unless directed there by someone else. I have almost never linked to them (probably less than a dozen times in six years). I don’t think I’ve ever been to their home-page. I think if they were really so important, I’d find I couldn’t blog effectively without knowing what was going on there. But, for the most part, the Huffington Post doesn’t even exist for me. It’s like the Drudge Report. I know it exists, and occasionally someone points out to me that they have some interesting material, but that’s it. And why is the Huffington Post considered a left-leaning site? I don’t consider Arianna Huffington to be left-leaning. She’s a critic of President Bush and the current brand of know-nothing politics of the right. But she’s certainly no liberal. Above all, she’s a business woman and a celebrity. She’s not a part of any movement I am aware of. I’m not knocking her, but I just don’t get why her site is supposed to be important to the left. For what?
I used to frequent her website until I noticed a change in course and their turning on the President. I was often sucked into the misleading headlines which many times didn’t reflect was in the actual article, a blatant bait and switch of sorts. She is very good at making money off people’s emotions, I suspect she will continue to do well in that regard. I just won’t be a part of it.
I periodically go over to Huffington Post just to see what sort of bullshit they are pushing on any given day and to get stuff for my two widgets on the right of the main page. I saw this stupid ass post by Dan Collins which I won’t link to, because I don’t want to give those assholes any more clicks than they already get. But here is a bit from his post…
Obama Does New York No Favors
People who don’t know New York City often make the mistake of assuming that because we’re so wildly diverse, we’re wildly tolerant.
Add Barack Obama to the list.
Last week, the president made a stupendously unhelpful entry into the controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque.
So by giving a speech where he talks about being tolerant of other religions and spelling out very eloquently what our founding fathers had in mind when it comes to religious freedom, he is being “stupendously unhelpful”. And backing up a little on that quote, he says that New Yorkers aren’t tolerant, they are diverse, but not tolerant? Really? It’s a New York thing, man, you wouldn’t understand. It’s amazing the extent to which people will contort themselves to try and blame every goddamn little thing on President Obama. This has to be one of the worst examples of the type of horseshit that shows up on Huffington Post and “Fire”bag”lake” multiple times in a day. He goes on with more…
But the issue had been decided legally in favor of the Muslim cultural center. The roar was dying down until the president put it front in center in the national political debate. At a dinner commemorating the Muslim Ramadan, Obama spoke out for freedom of religion and the right “to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
The issue wasn’t dying down, if anything it was ramping up and someone had to step up and defend the principles our country was founded on, you putz. And almost everyone with a brain was able to realize that if he hadn’t said anything at the Iftar dinner, people would have said he was dodging the issue. I’m sure the author of the bullshit, Dan Collins, would have wrote a slimy piece about the president not stepping up to the plate. Even more of his crap…
Then he backtracked. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Obama said after he had turned the issue into a national, radioactive debate.
“After he turned the issue into a national, radioactive debate”, give me a break. Newt comparing it to Nazi symbols or Peter King going on any cable news show that would put him on….that didn’t have anything to do with this “radioactive” debate? Nah, the president talking about tolerance and then clarifying that it is a local issue, but in America, people have religious freedom….that is what made it radioactive? What in the hell is wrong with some people? Like I said before, this is a perfect example of how normally thinking people can twist and contort their own beliefs when they hate someone enough. President Obama didn’t backtrack at all, he was asked a question at a rope line that was very specific and he answered it. His speech at the Iftar dinner was perfect, go read it here if you haven’t already. Nothing he said on the rope line backtracked from anything he said at the dinner. Backtracking would entail taking something back or changing something he said, he didn’t do that and thus, there was no “backtracking”. He actually reiterated what he had said at the dinner right after the comment that Collins quoted, he kind of did a Breitbart and conveniently didn’t print the whole quote because that would interfere with his real motive, to bash the President.
STOP READING THE HUFFINGTON POST – THEY SUCK ASS
This is a critique of a column in the right-wing Huffington Post by Dan Froomkin and could qualify for “Misleading Headline of the Day” (located on the bottom right of your browser window). But it entails too much ‘splaining, so I’ve bumped it up to a post. David Patraeus is making the rounds to the media to give an update on the Afghanistan War and of course it has brought out the obvious criticism that can be made of any war, it sucks. But in reading Froomkin’s piece, I was amazed at how flimsy the support was for his bold statements. He even refers to his own reporting as if it were now chiseled in stone and a known fact. His column appeared even before Patraeus made his appearance on Meet the Press this weekend. Froomkin starts out with these bold pronouncements…
As Gen. David Petraeus kicks off an extended media blitz intended to make Americans feel better about the war in Afghanistan — or at least give him some more time to fight it — he faces a foe more implacable than al Qaeda, or even the Taliban: Reality.
That reality, increasingly obvious to national security experts and the general public alike, is that no amount of good intentions or firepower is going to advance our fundamental interests in Afghanistan — and that as much as Petraeus might be able to achieve in the next six months, or a year, little to none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even worse, counterproductive.
I have to wonder how he defines “fundamental interests” and whether our military really is relying on the snarky “good intentions” and “firepower”. Our fundamental interests as defined by the Obama defense department is to stabilize the country, diminish Al Qaeda and get the hell out, in a nutshell. By all accounts, the increased drone attacks have been working to weaken Al Qaeda and in watching Rachel Maddow and Richard Engel’s reports from Afghanistan, the goal of stabilizing the country is proceeding on pace, with a hell of a lot to go. By setting up a false target of “good intentions and firepower”, he makes it easy on himself to shoot them down. Go read President Obama’s speech, which is here, and then comeback and tell me that the plan is “good intentions and firepower”. Is Froomkin a Republicans now or is he just taking a page from their playbook?
Froomkin also makes the bold prophetic statement that “none of it is sustainable and most of it is, even counterproductive.” Now you would think that as a writer, if you make that kind of bold prophetic statement you better be able to back it up. How does he back it up? He tells us how “Patraeus can’t say with any confidence that this ‘progress’ can be sustained.” So, because Patraeus can’t see the future, like apparently Dan Froomkin can, it becomes “little to none of it is sustainable”. That is one huge freaking leap from lacking confidence — to little to none can be sustained.
Rachel Maddow has some great reporting about how the mission really has changed and in many parts of Afghanistan, these changes are taking hold.
Of course our obsessive, negative, ratings-whore media have been focusing on the areas that are taking longer and give the impression of doom and gloom. The anti-war people, who I love and support, are doing what everyone seems to do, spinning things to their benefit. I saw General Patraeus on Meet the Press yesterday and as usual, I was very impressed with him. He didn’t say anything different than what the administration has said since the new strategy was formed. I just went back and read the President’s speech when he announced the new strategy and contrary to the spinners, it was a well reasoned, flexible plan that weighed all the potential pitfalls ahead and ways to respond to them. Some on the anti-war left and right are trying hard to rewrite history and to be honest, pronounced the strategy dead before it even began. They all seem to focus on this deadline for “beginning” to bring the troops home next summer. Their small-brain obsessiveness on this one point completely distracts them from weighing anything else. When I heard the strategy explained, I heard them say that they intended to begin withdrawing troops by July of 2011 but would re-access as things progressed. Everyone seems to want to make it a date-certain and are using that as the only benchmark in determining whether the new strategy is working or not. Watch the Rachel clip and others, she and Richard Engel did some amazing work and I trust that they are being truthful.
Here is where Froomkin cites himself as the source for – himself. He is of course obsessing over that date or “deadline” and mixing and matching “significant troop withdrawal” with the Administrations date to begin withdrawing troops. When the new strategy was announced, it was clear that the July 2011 date was for beginning troop withdrawal, no one said “significant” troop withdrawal, that’s just another straw dog that Froomkin sets up so he can shoot it down. Check this out…
Petraeus is said the be starting to hedge on President Obama’s promised deadline of July 2011 for withdrawing American troops.
That’s hardly surprising. As I reported two weeks ago, the timeline for an American troop withdrawal has steadily been growing longer for some time, with Obama’s deadline looking more and more hollow, and the real timeline for significant troop withdrawal — barring a change in course — now extending at least to 2014, if not far beyond.
If you click on that link where he sources himself and read it, you will see a paragraph that reads like this.
“All of these benchmarks are designed to pacify onlookers on the Hill, help to justify our presence in the country, and set unrealistic goals that everyone knows are not going to be met,” said retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, a respected military strategist and author. “You’re never going to achieve them. None of this is aimed at extricating American power and forces from anywhere.”
So I thought to myself, respected military strategist, let me investigate. This “respected” military strategist was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. In fact, he consulted with ole’ Donald Rumsfeld in 2002 about an invasion of Iraq. Uh, he doesn’t have my respect, but apparently Dan Froomkin has a lot of respect for him…at least when it is convenient to bash President Obama.
In observing the reactions from mostly the Obama haters on the left, I see all sorts of playing loose with the facts, stretching things, exaggerating things, setting up false equivalencies and using Republican sources when it’s convenient for them…they sure can channel Republicans when they want to.
This one is subtle, because it doesn’t necessarily equate it with the president, but of course we all know that he is taking the blame for everything these days and has the responsibility to try to fix things. Here is the headline.
Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but the article it links to is a New York Times piece that says this…..(emphasis is mine)
Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.
Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.
Ok, so the passage they get their headline from says “Economists fear…”, well economists might fear a lot of things but it doesn’t make it come true. And then the last sentence “potentially for years to come”. So that is the basis for this headline that is ominous, fear based (Bushlike), and has no qualifiers….it’s a bold statement “Millions Of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs”. Now the reason why this is so bad in my opinion is that it is playing on people’s fears, making a definitive statement that isn’t even backed up in the actual article that it links to. The New York Times is guilty of this too. The editors at the Huffington Post just love doing that shit. I don’t know how many times I clicked on one of their slanted headlines only to find out that the article inside often doesn’t have anything to do with the headline. They seem to use their screaming headlines to further their anti-Obama agenda. I think they also count on people not really reading what’s inside, because they probably skip over these economic type stories and go to the latest “nipple slip” of some celebrity.
It all adds up over time and has the impact of lessening support for this president who is trying to bring American back from the brink of the Bush/Cheney years. How does misleading people help to accomplish that? It’s obvious that Arianna and the gang in her syndicate (Hamsher and all her minions, Uygur) really don’t care about progressive progress, they want to take down this president. Why, I really don’t understand except to say that Arianna used to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich and his “Contract on America” and the rumors have it that Newt is prepping to run for President. Hmmmm, is Arianna setting the stage to support her buddy Newt again?
Sometimes I feel like I’m the only person left on the planet who is patient. I certainly have moments when I am not, but I’ve had a lot of opportunity to practice it over the years. Ugh! As the health care debate has gone on over the last year, I’ve been holding my fire, watching to see what would come to be.
When the Obama Administration signaled, a while ago, that it might be flexible on the public option – oh my god, the outcry was deafening, the freakin sky was falling in on some of these folks. I always like to name them….the Arianna Huffington-Jane Hamsher syndicate, Cenk Uygur, who is also aligned with the syndicate…Howard Dean (who I still love though), he’s the most reasonable one in the “sky is falling crowd.” , I’m not sure about Aravosis because he is dead to me. :) I won’t grace his piece of shit blog ever again, unless it is to attack his traitorous, bitchy ass. Oh, sorry….I lost it for a second, I was treated by him and a few of his whiners like scum. Onward!
So I saw a few stories about an effort by a group of Senators to bring back the public option through reconciliation and the number was growing throughout the day. It looks like they all want us to shut up about it….shhhhh, don’t tell the Republicans and Joe Lieberman. The White House isn’t commenting. So maybe I’ve jumped the gun and I should be more patient. Shit. Too late.
My previous post about LGBT getting some change and now a possibility of the return of the public option, I think some folks need to apologize and get back on-board this movement to repair the damages of the “Idiot Years” as I hope the history books will call them, you know from the day George W. Bush was inaugurated to the time we all waived goodbye to them.
Isn’t that a lovely photo, what could possibly be their reason for showing such a nasty photo of our president? Here are a few I took in Grand Rapids, Michigan…..to cleanse the pallet after Arianna’s smear photo.
Funny stuff this morning on Morning Joe when Scarborough tried to spin the bonuses story while talking to Maria Bartiromo. Joe was trying to spin it to damage the president on his left while Maria kept spinning it back in his face that the president is anti-business. It was quite the spin job, back and forth, almost like playing tether ball, remember that game? So once again, we find Joe Scarborough, that flaming liberal, siding with the Arianna crowd. Joe will put on sheep’s clothing any time of the day if it means he can hurt the president.
Now he has Elizabeth Warren on who is very smart and very far to the left when it comes to how to reign in Wall Street, she is a champion of the left these days for her views. She’s making a new career out of her outrage at Wall Street, which is really well deserved, but until we switch from capitalism to socialism, yeah right, most of this outrage and populism on the left is a lot of wasted energy. If these folks who are screaming and yelling would just come right out and say they are socialists, then we can have that debate. Even though I am an extreme liberal, I don’t think socialism in the extreme works.
Up until about 30 years ago, America had a pretty well balanced system of capitalism with controls, regulations to help the common man when big businesses overreached. With the Reagan revolution in the 1980’s, the balance in our system tilted in the other direction and then of course in the last administration, it was taken to a whole different level. That’s why the pendulum has swung so far back to the left and there is so much hatred for corporations and businesses in general. It’s almost like the far left (and some are just posers, Huffington and Hamsher, I’m looking at you) thinks that the general population has all of a sudden become socialist. Or at least in their fantasy world, they believe that. Sometimes I think the whiners and haters want Obama to fall on his sword for the movement. Go balls to the wall to the left, even if it means not passing anything, not getting reelected in 2012 and a return to Republicans controlling the government. That will show them.
I’m very pissed, so this post isn’t for the family to gather around and read. :) I’m calling for a massive boycott of The Huffington Post. As massive as I can muster, anyway. Spread the word. They have crossed over to the dark side and are “playing” progressives, returning to Arianna’s Newt Gingrich roots. If you think you know who she is, I bet you would be surprised to learn more. Coming soon to this blog.
The folks over at The Huffington Post did it again, it’s a daily thing for them…sometimes multiple times per day. They had a screaming, misleading headline slamming President Obama, which set off a tidal wave of others who believed their bullshit headline and perpetuated it. A Bloomberg story was the catalyst, they paraphrased and pulled words out of context from an interview Obama did for the magazine which implied that he’s fine with the big bonuses on Wall Street. This is the exact opposite of what he said as you will see in the full quote from the interview. I wonder if Bloomberg’s people intentionally mislead in their first story just to set off these “anti-corporatists”, which is so fucking ironic when you look at the massive operation The Huffington Post has with all their side “non-profits” and PAC’s and Arianna’s extravagant lifestyle….spit. Anti corporatist, my ass. The Huffington Post is great at making their screaming headlines disappear once someone calls them out on it, which apparently the White House sent them several messages about. There was probably a different screaming headline earlier that I missed, but look at this one that was there when I clicked over to see what was going on. It’s gone now, of course. And the story is buried now, they did their smear and got out.
Look at the photo, WTF. Do you suppose they have a supply of unflattering photos of him laying around just for these occasions. And the headline, President Obama said the exact same thing he’s been saying for the last 6 months, Bloomberg just spun it to their liking, probably to set off these assholes like Arianna and her editors. More than likely it’s Roy Sekoff who’s writing that shit. If you can see the smaller headlines below, “White House Moves Swiftly to Stem Fallout From Interview”….uh, fallout from your bullshit misleading interpretation of the interview. They start the bullshit and then write a story about how the White House corrects their bullshit and the bullshit parade continues at the piece of shit rag that The Huffington Post has become. Here is the full exchange, I for one, think President Obama nailed it.
QUESTION: Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.
QUESTION: Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay.
The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.
The Huffington Post is on to their next smear job, please, stop clicking over to them. They are the real corporate whores who want your clicks so Arianna can fly around on private jets and be the west coast Sally Quinn.