Seriously, what is your problem with Drudge?

[DISUNC]

ETA, I had no idea that Drudge was an actual person, let alone what the "sexual orientation" is

I thought the same thing! Does MSNBC have a sexual orientation too?

 

[wvrevy]

Yeah...he leans so far left that they had him sit in for Rush during one of his absences.

The guy is about as non-biased as Keith Olbermann. The difference is...Keith is funny. Drudge's idea of funny is referring to the kids victimized by Mark Foley as "beasts".

The guy's a Republican shill, and about as credible as Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, and the rest of the far right wing media.

 

[KariC]

I've never understood it.

Drudge is mostly a compilation of links to other news sites. Very rarely does he have news stories that are his own, original reporting.

And his accuracy doesn't seem any different than that of the major news organizations.

I was thinking the same thing. Most of the stories I've read off his site, are links to others (including the "major" news sites).

 

[helenabear]

Just to ask, am I the only one who doesn't care if a sight has a political leaning or not. I go to Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS all about equally for information. I just go and read several different sites for different articles on the same subject. When I first read drudge I thought they were more liberal (again years ago)... I couldn't tell you which way any news source leans. I know locally we are conservative, but nationally I couldn't begin to guess

 

[RadioNate]

Drudge first broke the story of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I don't think the left ever got over it. I certainly hope that their negative feelings have nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

Funny you mention that because that is kind of my problem with Drudge. I feel like since he has become a GOP darling he hides his sexuality whereas 10 years ago before the success of the Drudge Report he spoke out a lot about gay rights.

I just feel he could do a lot of good.

I actually don't have much issue with his reporting. He's no more biased left or right than anyone else. He was definitely a pioneer in the world of internet journalism and really broke the mold of waiting until the nightly news or next edition for 'breaking news.' He had a big part in changing the way America looks for news. ETA: he isn't always accurate and leans toward sensationalism (and gossip) but that is what sells in this day and age.

I really just wish he'd step back up to the plate in regards to his sexuality.

 

[beattyfamily]

My DH loves Drudge.

I use many sources for my news.

I don't get it either, OP. Most of his stories are links to other websites.

Those that hate Drudge, who laugh it off and shake their heads if you dare to have a link to a story that came from Drudge, feel the exact same way about Fox News.

I don't feel that way about CNN or NBC and they certainly lean left.

I never understood the hatered for it.

 

[Keli]

I have to admit that I rarely go to his site but when I do I don't notice any difference in reliability than CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News, which are all sites I go to frequently.
I've often wondered why people go nuts when you mention him or his site.

 

[DawnCt1]

I may be wrong but I don't think that is accurate. I believe it was the Washington Post who first had the story.

Newsweek had the story but spiked it. Drudge was the first to report it.

 

[cardaway]

I consider those sites the National Enquirer of the political media.

Drudge IS an internet tabloid. Unless it's now become the norm to quote tabloids as legit news, I find the this questioning of others about Drudge to be disingenous at best.

 

[bsnyder]

Drudge IS an internet tabloid. Unless it's now become the norm to quote tabloids as legit news, I find the this questioning of others about Drudge to be disingenous at best.

Are you talking about the exclusive news that Drudge occasionally posts, or the links to other news sites. Or is there no difference?

 

[lyeag]

Drudge IS an internet tabloid. Unless it's now become the norm to quote tabloids as legit news, I find the this questioning of others about Drudge to be disingenous at best.

So, when he links to CNN, FOX, stories run by the AP in general, local newspapers and tv stations they are also tabloids?

I just looked at the site, and there were links to many varied news outlets. Granted, SOME of them might not be what you would consider valid news sources, but many are.

Disingenuous? Really? I never understood the hatred toward Drudge either. As I posted earlier, I have not listened to him, but I love the website.

 

[cardaway]

Are you talking about the exclusive news that Drudge occasionally posts, or the links to other news sites. Or is there no difference?

Obviously links to valid news sources are just that, a collection of links.

If that was all he had nobody would have a problem with his site. It's the "exclusive" content and links to questionable sources that draws in the target demogrphic and keeps the rest from considering him anything but a tabloid.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Obviously links to valid news sources are just that, a collection of links.

If that was all he had nobody would have a problem with his site. It's the "exclusive" content and links to questionable sources that draws in the target demogrphic and keeps the rest from considering him anything but a tabloid.

That's cool... I mostly just see a bunch of links when I go there. Yet any reference to him on these boards is met with venomous dismissal.

This thread has been quite helpful for me! I won't feel so dirty for going over there to his site any more.

 

[NewJersey]

nevermind!

 

[Mugg Mann]

Obviously links to valid news sources are just that, a collection of links.

If that was all he had nobody would have a problem with his site. It's the "exclusive" content and links to questionable sources that draws in the target demogrphic and keeps the rest from considering him anything but a tabloid.

That's basically the gist of it, but let me amplify this.

I have no problem with Drudge in the case of most linked sources. Acting as the de-facto editor, Drudge (or whoever operates the site on a day-to-day basis) chooses which stories are linked to the site. The stories themselves may be legitimate, but one way that an editor (in this case Drudge) can influence opinion by choosing which links will be run and which will not see the light of day. Drudge frequently chooses stories that favor the viewpoint of one side over the other.

Bottom line on this specific point; In this day and age, hopefully no one is relying on merely one source for their news gathering for that specific reason.

The second point; It's up to the discerning reader to understand what the difference is between a "linked" story in Drudge and one which gives no verifiable cite for its source. Very often, Drudge will run an unlinked story which is nothing more than a planned political attack.

As a rule of thumb when reading any internet media source, if there's no link and it's not an established media player, take the contents with a rather large grain of salt. Drudge's "scoops" are far more often than not nothing more than someone using the site (with Drudge's consent) as a means of targeting a political opponent. For every "scoop" that Drudge gets right (such as Lewinsky), there are many that turn out to be untrue. (A recent example is the fictituous 'heckling' of McCain by a CNN reporter that turned out to be blatantly untrue when video of the incident was revealed)

Unfortunately, many readers are not media savvy to understand the difference between the use of sources, and Drudge deliberately uses that fact to his advantage to give those stories the same appearance of legitimacy on his site as legitimate linked ones.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[Disney Doll]

Or it could be that when a few people first heard of the drudge and gave me links, it had stories listed that weren't entirely true. I found it to be ureliable and full of misinformation. Granted this was a LOOOOOONG time ago, so maybe things have changed. I just didn't trust it. When I first found it I didn't realize it was politically affiliated with anything. Just a place that friends linked to "smutt" on anyone famous.

and this has nothing to do with politics

It has even less to do with Monica Lewinsky... I couldn't have cared less about that whole bunch of crap.

I've not trusted them as a reliable source of actual NEWS since.

ETA, I had no idea that Drudge was an actual person, let alone what the "sexual orientation" is

Do oyu actually trust any news source as reliable? I don't. I htink they all spin the news the way they want us to believe, which is usually based on the beliefs of their largest investor.

I don't think Drudge is any better or worse than any of the news sources.

 

[bsnyder]

That's basically the gist of it, but let me amplify this.

The stories themselves may be legitimate, but one way that an editor (in this case Drudge) can influence opinion by choosing which links will be run and which will not see the light of day. Drudge frequently chooses stories that favor the viewpoint of one side over the other.

No different than what has gone on at all the major news outlets, print and broadcast, since the beginning of time. The only thing that has changed is that with the internet age and cable news, we finally have a few places (Drudge and Fox are the obvious ones) where the bias tilts right. The Left had a iron clad monopoly for years, and yet, they begrudge the right a few measly outlets!

Bottom line on this specific point; In this day and age, hopefully no one is relying on merely one source for their news gathering for that specific reason.

I couldn't agree more, except that I'm not hopeful. I think a huge number of people get their news in sound bites in the evening, or by scanning the newspaper headlines and that's about it.

Very often, Drudge will run an unlinked story which is nothing more than a planned political attack.

Very often? Hmmm. Granted, I don't look at Drudge religiously - there are only so many surfing hours in a day, and there are much better sites with more hard news links than his - but my experience is that more often than not he has no exclusive news, just the links.

As a rule of thumb when reading any internet media source, if there's no link and it's not an established media player, take the contents with a rather large grain of salt. Drudge's "scoops" are far more often than not nothing more than someone using the site (with Drudge's consent) as a means of targeting a political opponent. For every "scoop" that Drudge gets right (such as Lewinsky), there are many that turn out to be untrue. (A recent example is the fictituous 'heckling' of McCain by a CNN reporter that turned out to be blatantly untrue when video of the incident was revealed)

Why only internet media sources and established media players? Remember the Dan Rather forgeries? Do you have any other examples, besides the Michael Ware heckling story, where Drudge was flat out wrong on one of his exclusive scoops?

 

[RadioNate]

Why only internet media sources and established media players? Remember the Dan Rather forgeries? Do you have any other examples, besides the Michael Ware heckling story, where Drudge was flat out wrong on one of his exclusive scoops?

How bout when he reported that Sidney Blumenthal was beating his wife?? Though it wasn't proved to be 100% false, Drudge didn't prove it was 100% true either.

Like I said before, I really have no huge issue with his site or Drudge himself. But I don't love that people think he is the be all - end all of political news when he does report gossip as fact. Considering his 'reports' started on the old alt.showbiz.gossip usenet group, I don't know why he is considered a serious journalist.

I don't think he is always wrong but even Perez Hilton gets it right a good chunk of the time. Same brand of 'news' in my book.

 

[Ticket Man]

The Anti-Drudge senti-ment is entirely ridiculous. Go to his site right now, you'll see probably 50+ links to other news articles, none of which are written by him. I go there for the variety, I can get news on the President, a hurricane, Paris Hilton, American Idol, ocassionally sports, or development on the Vegas strip. His site is by far my favorite news site, not because of any bias, but because he covers pretty much all of my interests. Tonight I visited links from his site for about 25 minutes, not a single one had to do with politics.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Bottom line on this specific point; In this day and age, hopefully no one is As a rule of thumb when reading any internet media source, if there's no link and it's not an established media player, take the contents with a rather large grain of salt.
Caveat Emptor.

Fair enough... I agree. So it would be legit to say in a DIS post "I found this linked on Drudge..." and not expect to be ridiculed for having visited Drudge? (BTW, I'm not in any way accusing you or anyone else in particular)