So what's in it for Drudge?

I guess anyone who follows the intarweb knows the Drudge site. And knows that it’s not particularly unbiased – witness his harping on global warming every time some place in Oshkosh gets an unseasonably chilly day. But he’s really plummeted into tabloid territory lately in his treatment of the Obama campaign. Witness his relentless plugging of the Ashley Todd hoax even though one glance at the picture would have lead any responsible or even intelligent journalist to raise a skeptical eyebrow – even * Michelle Malkin * was dubious. Witness today’s “Share the Wealth” banner in 40 point type, even though apparently he’s completely missed the point of Obama’s original quote. Witness his plugging of any poll that’s favorable to McCain even though it’s an obvious outlier.

My question is, what’s in it for Drudge? Given that credibility is the journalist’s stock in trade, isn’t this doing his site irreparable harm? Does he actually think he can benefit McCain’s campaign? Is he just cynically trying to drive traffic to his site? Or is he just OK with being the National Enquirer of news aggregation sites?

No different from Daily Kos, Huffington, MoveOn, etc. (er, no different in what he’s trying to accomplish, not comparing credibility).

He is supported by/supporting the Republican marketing campaign of us-against-them media, so “reporting” on non-events and whatnot helps his cause. By having such a wide range of otherwise innocuous links (or those that accurately match his headline), he has the aura of a legitimate news source, so, like Fox News, the pretense at credibility stands up to casual scrutiny.

But what’s in it for him? Perhaps swaying the electorate? Helping get a talking point out there and giving it a thin veneer of credibility ensures that he’ll be someone party insiders can rely on to help out – thereby ensuring the likelihood he’ll continue to get inside information when it is mutually suitable.

His site makes a fortune. He is preaching to his peeps and they love it. Huffington started hers to balance the net a bit.

Huffington seems more analysis and opinion rather than a collection of news links. Is there anything similar to Drudge out there that doesn’t have his slant?

What would the legality be of mirroring Drudge’s site but using just the source’s headlines?

A campaign whose veracity is admitted to in this column on ABC News’ website. (Readers might want to note, however, that this uncharacteristic act of noblesse oblige on the part of ABC News has been relegated to the lowly business section.)

Its veracity has been admitted? :rolleyes:
I’m not sure you understand the words’ meaning.

Pronunciation: \və-ˈra-sə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ve·rac·i·ties
Date: circa 1623
1 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness
2 : power of conveying or perceiving truth
3 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy
4 : something true <makes lies sound like veracities>

So, yes, the veracity (truthfulness) of Republican claims of media bias has been admitted in that column. (A column that you seem to have chosen not to comment on, btw, preferring instead to question the words I used to point to it.)


I’m not sure you understand the word’s punctuation.

Gaudere strikes again. :shakes fist: Oh cruel, cruel fate!

Sorry Gaudere – I was referring to both veracity and admitted. Words’: plural possessive.

A columnist agreeing with you does not add truth to the lie, nor is it tantamount to an admission.

I’m sure four out of five dentists somewhere did recommend Trident, but marketing hype is still marketing hype.

Didn’t you once try and claim that Drudge was leftish?

If I may be so bold, when a member of the mainstream media tells me that the mainstream media is not to be trusted, why should I trust him? He’s a reporter-- He shouldn’t be lamenting the lack of interviews of William Ayers; if he thinks the lack is a problem, then he should be going out and interviewing him himself.

Drudge doesn’t even consider himself a journalist, so he’d say interviewing William Ayers isn’t his job.


So we start with the opinion (and that’s all it is) that media bias is a lie, and then discount perfectly obvious examples of it as being in support of that lie? Gotcha. :rolleyes:

I agree that it’s not tantamount to an admission: it is an admission.

Not that I recall.

Perhaps because no one is willing to pay him to do so, nor interested in publishing the result?

But that’s really beside the point, anyway. He’s talking about the national media, and whatever he could or couldn’t accomplish by himself would have no impact on the way the nation’s media behaves.

Chronos was referring to the author of the article linked to by Starving Artist, not Drudge.

Eh? That’s an opinion column. What’s more, it’s a column whose outlandish thesis is that editors * all across the country * are pimping for Obama in the hopes that electing him will somehow reverse the slide of mainstream media by reinstating the fairness doctrine which will somehow crush the alternative media and bring back the heydays of the newspaper. Yeah, right.

I agree that he’s wrong about that. Newspapers are going the way of buggy-whip makers no matter what they do.

The way he describes how the two candidates are covered, however, is right on the money.

And the thing that boosts his description to “confession” from “opinion” is…

Here’s what I use:

Thanks. Great aggregation, but it misses what I think is the essence of the Drudge report (for me, at least): Cleanliness. Rather than sidetrack, see here.

I said:

To which SA said:

S/he is correct, it was my error. In the Liberal Mass Media myththread, a different poster[sup]*[/sup] relied on and supported a study that suggested Drudge was left of center.

*Details are not germane to this retraction, and it wouldn’t be fair to discuss another poster’s comments here without notification, etc. I linked to the thread for the curious.

Yes yes, so you think, and obviously so does he. You haven’t explained why this isn’t just some tech writer’s opinion though.

SA, since you are endorsing this article, perhaps you can answer the questions it raises that the author believes are suggestive of media bias.

  1. Which years exactly are the “entire years” missing from Obama’s biography? High school, college, law school, community organizer, state senate, U.S. Senate?

  2. Obama’s grad school drug dealer, if such a person even exists - given that Obama has admitted to drug use at some point in his past (as have Clinton and W.), why would this be relevant?

  3. McCain hasn’t seemed to play up Tony Rezko’s alleged association with Obama anywhere near as much as he has with Ayers. Given that some investigatory journalism has already gone into the claim of Obama’s “palling” relationship with Ayers, what would an interview with Ayers show? And why is the lack of any interview with him (by somebody other than a fringe site as a yahoo search shows) evidence of bias if a close relationship claim has already been debunked?

  4. Haven’t the phony voter registrations submitted by ACORN already been scrutinized? Former ACORN employees have already admitted they forged some phony registrations because of their expected daily/weekly quota of new registrations. There hasn’t been any confession or evidence tying this to a much grander scheme to rig the election - primarily because phony voter registrations would need phony voters actually voting to make a difference.

  5. Haven’t Biden’s more glaring gaffes (Obama would have a problem if he wanted to take Biden’s guns, Obama will be tested more than McCain, FDR was on television for the Great Depression) already been covered? They certainly indicate a tendency to misspeak and not to fully grasp the logical endpoint of whatever point he makes from time to time, but they don’t portray a fundamental lack of knowledge about an issue. Are Biden’s gaffes the same gaffes or the same kind of gaffes as Palin’s? If not, why should they be equated in terms of press coverage?