Huffington Post adds science section

Discuss

21 Responses to “Huffington Post adds science section”

  1. Mike Adamson says:

    “woo-filled”…as in pitching woo?

  2. HuffPo could hardly get worse on science, so almost any step would have to be a step in the right direction, but this piece Freeman wrote for Men’s Health — the first piece of his writing I found — doesn’t exactly fill me with hope: http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/cancer_fighting_foods/printer.php

  3. I don’t really follow HuffPost…what would be considered “woo” science?

  4. What is a “Huffington Post” anyway? It sounds more like an architectural element than a news source. Huffpo is more like a megablog than an actual news source, and until now the accuracy of their science reporting has been abysmal. I hope this hiring will help rather than just lending credibility.

  5. lafave says:

    I judge people who get their news from HuffPo

    • niktemadur says:

      Maybe the same people who get their history from the History Channel.

      A shame, really, because the Huffington Post could have been so much more, at the beginning I thought it would be an anti-Drudge Report, instead it’s just a mirror image, give or take.

  6. Lobster says:

    It’ll either clean up their woo, or codify it.

  7. phil koltko says:

    Judging by HuffPo’s other forays, it’ll be a combination of woo, press releases and real tidbits that BoingBoing linked to days before…

  8. oldtaku says:

    First up, the science of why homeopathy works! It’s all the quantums resonating in the crystal energy fields imprinting on the water’s ethical compass. I just vomited that out off the top of my head, but Poe’s Law applies here.
     

  9. travtastic says:

    I’ll finally be able to publish my thesis on the connection between vaccines and brain worms. I bet they won’t pay me either!

Leave a Reply