The site goes out of its way to have vulgar content, such as about female genitals. This may be "naughty talk" for adults, but is entirely inapproriate for children. Try seaching "vagina site:huffingtonpost" on google. There are more results than one would imagine possible. There is an entire section called "Celebrity Skin": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/celebrity-skin/
The site also seems to go out of its way to have gruesome content.
Facts are second-class citizens after the world view they propagate. This is an unethical news site.
1) Their reporter trapped Lisa Robertson into saying "Yes, I would" to a question asking whether she is pro-choice. Her views expressed throughout the interview are clearly pro-life, plus she expressed later she was trapped into that statement, nevertheless they made that one expression their main statement.
2) They said that "Pat Robertson told his 700 Club viewers that divocing a spouse with Alzheimer's is justifiable...".
But Pat Robertson did *not* say that it is OK to divorce your wife is she has Alzheimer's. See full interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZoDMGe5ffw
He addressed a particular question about a particular woman who did not even recognize her husband any more. Yet he did not say that the particular husband should divorce her wife, much less did he say that in general. What he said is that it is a big ethical dilemma, and you should listen to others before making such a decision, only he understood the it is a terribly difficult situation, and he would not condemn someone who made that decision.
Perhaps you disagree with Pat Robertson, meaning that you *would* condemn someone who divorced a wife who no longer recognized him. Or you are sure you would not divorce your wife, which is an honorable thing to do, and Pat Robertson did not say otherwise either. But using every possible occasion to condemn God's servants, such as Pat Robertson, quoting their sentences out of the context, is definitely not ethical.
My security found 3 BSQLI problems. Someone needs to get on it!
EDIT: So here we are years later and they FINALLY fixed their security holes. Now we are back to having a site with extremely mixed content and ethics.
On one hand you get some truly wonderful articles and on the other you get some like the anti-vaccination garbage. There still are issues like paying their writers, fact checking and at least 20 trackers to block... Plus it should be noted that many other things it wants to connect to like Youtube, AOHell, Google Video... basically are trackers too. We were much better off when these things didn't exist at all. For a few good articles this price IMO is way too high.
All-in-all I am upgrading it from light red to a generous yellow. The site could be great- but as-is it needs work. Maybe AOHell needs to sell it. Maybe some heads need to roll. Do whatever they need to do because what they are doing flat out SUCKS. The yellow rating should be considered a holiday gift.
So evidently this is a good site. Evidently people do not understand that there "journalists" are bloggers and most have no formal research skills, no formal education, and objectivity in their writing, and no factual resources to support their claims.
Just as many of the same people downgrade so-called conservative sites for religion, this site does the same by protecting Muslims who do not uphold Liberal standards. Interesting. How can we protect a religion that does not honor or acknowledge the LGBT community? Hate and discrimination, they do it too. Do not throw rocks in glass houses.
Some of the worst science reporting of any big news site. The amount of pseudoscience is astounding and is seriously misleading for the general public. It is rife with scientific misinformation which is credulously spouted by untrained writers who clearly do not have even moderate levels of science literacy. It is an incredibly untrustworthy source of information. Check their sources, because they don't.
This website steals photos around the Internet without providing the source. When asked to give their sources they refuses.