So the answer there is that everyone lies, therefore we are not liars?
Whatever…
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 14 hours, 21 minutes and 38 seconds.
8503 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,062.99.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 35 minutes.
David B used me as a cite!*
Drudge never lies. He sometimes gets the facts wrong, as do all other media organs. In addition, Drudge sometimes reports on breaking stories that ultimately do not pan out (e.g. he accurately reported on the fact that Star Magazine was doing DNA testing on a possible Clinton “love-child”. The tests, when completed, ruled out Clinton’s paternity; a fact also reported by Drudge. Other media outlets waited to see the outcome before dignifying the story, and ultimately ignored it.)
The point is that there is no reason to decide that anything on the Drudge Report is not worthy of paying attention to, while dwelling on accounts in media that are marginally more accurate, if at all. As Andrew Sullivan writes in the New Republic article that I linked to earlier
I like the line after one of them gives Lisa a bumper sticker that says “A gay president in 2076”. He just shrugs and says, “We’re realistic.”
IzzyR, I am not saying that Matt Drudge is always wrong, and that major newspapers or magazines are always right. I am saying that for his exclusive, “ground-breaking” news, his record of accuracy is dismal and much worse than a major newspaper such as the LA Times or the NY Times. Or do you think that the LA Times has a 32% error rate (and I’m being generous by giving Matt Drudge the benefit of the doubt on another 32% of his exclusive stories) on their exclusive news items, or their articles in general?
The article in The New Republic to which you provided a link above admits as much:
That’s why, when I see a quote like the one that prompted the OP, before getting all excited about it, I wait until it’s confirmed by a source that in my eyes is more reputable, such as the SF Bay Guardian article mentioned by oldscratch. I disagree with your attempt to elevate Drudge to the same standard of accuracy as other news outlets.
Also, I forgot to mention the issue of bias. I don’t read the Matt Drudge report, so maybe you can tell me, IzzyR : what proportion of “scandals” has he unearthed involving prominent Republican politicians or the Bush campaign, as compared to his reports on “misdeeds” of Democrats? I get the impression that his dislike of the current democratic administration has a detrimental effect on his impartiality.
Arnold,
I don’t know how Drudge compares to any specific publication. I specifically qualified my statement as being “about as reliable as most other media sources”. It’s difficult to assess the claim by Brill that 32% of his stories are “untrue/never happened”. Does this mean that the whole story was fabricated, or that it contained inaccuracies? Brill’s Content is a harsh media critic, and I’d be curious to know the corresponding % that they would give to other outlets. I’ve been following his site for a while, and don’t recall any instances in which his reporting has been shown to be wrong. Generally he reports the stories that are currently being broken or about to be broken by the mainstream media.
As for his bias, he does appear to be vehemently opposed to the Clintons. But the first loyalty of every journalist is to himself, and I don’t think he lets bias get in the way of breaking any scandal anywhere. E.g., last week he was trumpeting the Bush DUI story in bold letters before most of the media picked up on it. It happens that the Clinton/Gore regime has provided more scandal over the last few years than the Republicans have. what would be significant is if he (Drudge) would turn out to have invented or misrteported details of these scandals. He has not.
A more pointed criticism of Drudge is that he is inordinately focused on scandals and symbolic issues. This is true, and he is aptly described as an “internet gossip columnist”. But everyone has his role in life, and this appears to be Drudge’s.
BTW, Drudge intends to post the exit polls to his website this afternoon. I intend to check them out, if I can access the site. Feel free to ignore it.
IzzyR: I don’t know how Drudge compares to any specific publication. I specifically qualified my statement as being “about as reliable as most other media sources”.
I guess I’m confused as to how you can justify your statement. Even the New Republic article you cited that defends Matt Drudge implies that he is less reliable.
It happens that the Clinton/Gore regime has provided more scandal over the last few years than the Republicans have. what would be significant is if he (Drudge) would turn out to have invented or misrteported details of these scandals. He has not.
Please refer again to the New Republic article cited above in which he claimed that White House aide Sidney Blumenthal was a wife-beater. That story turned out to be false.
How many of the allegations of corruption against George W. Bush that one can find at realtruth.org have been mentioned by Matt Drudge in his column?
A more pointed criticism of Drudge is that he is inordinately focused on scandals and symbolic issues. This is true, and he is aptly described as an “internet gossip columnist”.
In my mind, this is a less pointed criticism. If someone wants to report gossip, let them do so. I don’t crusade against People Magazine. But I do object to gossip-mongers trying to portray themselves as serious journalists, especially when they let their bias influence their reporting, which is more nakedly evident in Matt Drudge’s columns than in the news articles I read in my newspaper. In the LA Times most journalists attempt to reserve their opinions for the editorial page.
BTW, Drudge intends to post the exit polls to his website this afternoon. I intend to check them out, if I can access the site. Feel free to ignore it.
Thank you for the info. I have no strong argument against him doing that, though I personally will be content to wait for the NPR election special tonight and read more complete results in the paper tomorrow morning, and I am not a big proponent of trumpeting the results of the election half-way through voting day.
