That's a straw man argument I never made.
I brought up the Pulitzer example because, under the commenter's reasoning, that story too should be dismissed because of the clickbait links that are published along side of it.
In fact, you can check this for yourself. Here's the direct link to the lead story in the Pulitzer series:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/beyond-the-battlefi...
I've taken a screenshot to preserve what it looks like for me at the moment:
As you can see, the top trending story is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years". So here's a remix of u/boona's argument:
> Considering that one of the top stories on the site is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years", I have a hard time taking this anti-American-military article seriously. Are we not better than HuffPo?
I read over my comment. Still don't see where I said claimed that the Huffington Post's Pulitzer Prize meant that Pulitzer-level (or even just "serious") journalism was the "norm". My argument was that an article being on Huffington Post was not itself a decisive reason for dismissing the article. You are the one who interpreted that as a glowing endorsement of all of Huffington Post's editorial content. Somehow you missed the part where I said, "even if it runs clickbait to help pay the bills." (though to be fair, I could have said, "even though clickbait probably pays most of the bills"...but I honestly don't have access to their analytics to make that an assertion)
That's a bit misleading. David Wood was awarded the Pulitzer prize for a story that was published by the Huffington Post.
Just because the merit of David Wood's work was recognized by Pulitzer's board members it doesn't automatically mean everything posted by the Huffington Post is a Pulitzer contender.
> it regularly does serious journalism [1]
I believe you meant that some authors who host their work in Huffington Post do serious journalism. That's not exactly the same thing at all.