To the extent that he makes some conservative content broadly available, okay, fine.
To the extent that he’s kind of a jackass, he’s a bit of an embarrassment. The fedora and the Walter Winchell pose and his self-perception of himself as a “journalist” (he’s not, he’s one of the original, and prolific, content aggregators who very occasionally gets funnelled a tip by someone with an ax to grind) were annoying from Day 1. His alarmist tendency to misinterpret everything (I remember when he was posting clips from Team America: World Police in which Middle Eastern terrorists attacked Paris as alarming proof that Stone and Parker were promoting terrorism, when in fact that was the opening setup for what turned out to be a fairly funny, pro-American, anti-Islamist, middle-right movie) is annoying. His linking of unrelated events as though they constituted a trend is stupid, especially on the topics he’s obsessed with (God forbide there be two stories involving monkeys or earthquakes halfway around the world in the same week – “Another!” will lead the headline).
But more specifically – two years into the Obama Administration, he’s routinely posting every bad political or law enforcement event that occurs in Chicago under a “Chicagoland” tag). WTF? Don’t get me wrong, Chicago’s a corrupt Hellhole of Dem machine politics. But it’s been that since long before Obama was identified with Chicago (which, technically, he didn’t represent anyhow). Is he implying that two years later routine Chicago gangsterism is still attributable to Obama (who was a federal, not city, politician)? Or somehow discredits him (don’t get me wrong, any Democratic politician in Illinois would be presumptively suspect for me, like any North Jersey Dem). Or is this an even more attenuated form of Obama attack by implying that Rahm Emanuel is the source of this corruption and he’s a proxy for national Dems/BHO?
I don’t especially like Obama. I questioned his qualifications and experience and saw him as an empty suit, and nothing in his Illinois political career did much to improve that image. I don’t think he’s done much of use in office.
But Drudge really does make Obama-dislikers look dumb by association by trying (and is there any chance this isn’t why he’s doing it?) to tar him with the municipal crappiness of Chicago government and police and the somewhat feral nature of many of its inhabitants.
It’s just stupid. There are much more accurate reasons to criticize Obama. Anyone have a reason to offer for why Drudge should not just give it a rest and move on (if he must) to other critiques of Obama?
Whether there’s any passable argument for trying to make Obama look bad by the woes of current-day Chicago? Drudge and some of his friends apparently think there is, I don’t.
If you don’t see the debate, that’s cool, plenty of other threads.
Fully agree with the OP. Eventually Drudge needs to get over the fact that Obama did indeed win the election, and no the country hasn’t collapsed (yet).
The articles he links to often don’t really say what his hyperlink “headlines” suggest they say, and I’ve found this to be most often the case with links that specifically mention Obama. But I suspect a lot of people who “read” Drudge don’t actually click the links.
In fact I suspect that what people do is notice the way he stacks his links to falsely suggest a trend, as the OP suggested, and that’s really his most annoying trait. The Obama-haters I know usually send me a copy/paste list of his links that do exactly that, and my typical response is “did you actually read the articles?” “Well, no but you see the point…”
But I give him credit for knowing what his audience wants and making sure they get it, as long as they don’t do too much actual reading.
He knows his market and his market is, to a large extent, as dumb as shit and bearing a whole bunch of racial resentments. You hit the same buttons with them again and again – race, religion, anything that confirms liberal stereotypes, etc. – and the readers click the links. The thing that Drudge is doing right now that really annoys me is he pushes any black on white violence. In the summer there was some black on white violence at a state fair, some black singer’s entourage attacked some white guy and some other incidents all happened over a couple of weeks and Drudge amplified the whole thing for as long as he could – he must have been getting the clicks. it was pointed out by somebody at the time that the Drudge front page looked similar to the news section of a white supremacist website.
Yep, I’ve been traveling to Chicago for work the past two Summers. While I couldn’t take the politics, and while my timing this Summer was particularly bad (I went during those few weeks where there was mob violence at the beaches and random street attacks), I will concede that nothing’s ever happened to me, personally, that black and white Chicagoans alike have always been very friendly to me (and, that Chicago has a few pretty great restaurants). The underclass in Chicago isn’t in a great state, but where is it, really?
As a left-leaning independent, I used to go to drudge report to get some conservative news when I wanted it. I haven’t been back in a couple years though because it was so laughably insulting to conservatives that I had to stop. I can’t believe conservative pundits constantly reference the drudge report and tout it as something great. The website is a joke, he constantly misrepresents stories in his headlines, the pictures he chooses are often sexist, racist, opportunist, etc… it’s just sad that this is like the holy grail of conservative news aggregates.
Drudge currently has a headline up reflecting the 300 point drop in the Dow, which pretty much every finance source I’m reading attributes to the serious concerns over the soundness of the Euro debt.
“Jobs Plan Tanks.”
Myself, I thought the vaunted “jobs” talk was much ado about nothing, probably did not do much to reassure the market, but that’s really not what’s driving the numbers.
Obama’s being blamed for the downturn in the market. Does that mean he gets credit for it doubling from where Bush left it? Obama must have single handedly brought it from about 7800 to over 1200.
Team America starts out mocking American foreign policy, but the tone of the movie changes considerably after the Panama Canal bombing, and the primary targets become left-leaning Hollywood types.
