That story is indicative of the fact that Drudge doesn’t really report anything himself – as it indicates, he did none of the investigation, but then he got a tipoff about a Newsweek story that was thoroughly investigated by others, then put off. Is that really “reporting?” Most of his other exclusives are similarly of a “the New York times is about to publish a story claiming that . . . .” ilk.
The guy certainly thinks he’s some sort of reporter, stalking around with the ridiculous fedora and affecting the Walter Winchell persona. He’s a content aggregator, nothing more, but he was one of the first. It didn’t hurt that his seeming conservative leanings found a welcome reception among the Right, who traditionally believe that the “MSM” isn’t telling their side of the story and who have shown a tendency to turn to alternative sources such as talk radio and now Drudge. It didn’t hurt that success breeds success: lazy journalists and talk show hosts and pundits have more or less admitted that they use Drudge to figure out what stories are hot enough to write/talk about (of course, they also use Fark and College Humor).
I’ve never been to that site before today, but you’ve got to be kidding, right? As an example, one of the links in the middle column right now says “Video…”, and I can see when I hover my mouse over it that it’s a link to youtube, but that’s it.
Organized? Usable? To me, not so much.
Yes, the Drudge Report site isn’t standards-compliant, and by definition, it’s not accessible, either. Both of those can easily be rectified by a competent coder. But Matt Drudge isn’t about accuracy and correctness, anyway.
However, as far as usability, it’s up there. As Joe Friday used to request, “Just the facts, ma’am.” That’s what Drudge provides; links to other web sites. It’s up front and in your face. I mean, so is this web site, and the only people who “complain” about it are those who want to dress it up in a Herb Tarlek suit.
You might be mistaken thinking usability is aligned with credible content. Sorry, fish and bicycles. I’m not addressing Drudge’s political leanings, nor his choice of what he posts to his site. Ask me in GD or the Pit if you want that type of opinion.
FWIW, the actual design isn’t my cup of tea, either. But from a usability standpoint, it works. As far as Drudge is concerned, that’s all that matters. He’s got the statistics to prove it.
Ok, so the Drudge Report is just a complilation of links to other news stories, chosen for their content, right? Well, so is this site (techmeme.com), and it doesn’t look so crappy, but at the same time isn’t fancy or frilly either. It’s easy on the eyes, organized and easy to digest the information. Drudge - not so much.
His site is popular because many conservatives feel that if it isn’t on Drudge, it isn’t happening. I’ve heard it so often, “Well, I dunno, sounds fishy. It’s not on drudge.”
He’s the news portal for every freeper and conservative news junkie I’ve ever ran across. Since the site auto-reloads every minute or so to inflate his hit count, they probably think everyone else reads it too.
One thing Drudge does that will probably be of interest tomorrow is releasing exit poll data before the networks do. Pretty much the only time I ever go to his site is on Election Day for that reason.
I didn’t equate usability with credibility - like I said, I’d never visited the site before. But I didn’t realize that ‘usability’ had a pretty specific definition in this context. Personally, I don’t click on links that have 0 clue as to the content, even if I can see the url it’s pointing to is safe (i.e., Youtube) – so for me personally, the site is not that usable. But I do hate a lot of the elaborate stuff done on websites nowadays – I admit Drudge is simple, and if the links were more descriptive and they did away with most of the photos, I might bookmark it. As it is – meh.
Oh, and I couldn’t figure out what the Herb Tarlek reference was with a quick wiki search – any hints?