Seriously, what is your problem with Drudge?

[crcormier]

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)

I don't ridicule people for visiting Drudge, I go there a few times a week myself. It can be a useful site. But if someone were linking to one of his "developing" reports and trying to claim it as fact, then yes, I would call them on it.

 

[cardaway]

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.

Exactly, but of course this will seen as a venomous dismissal rather than an explanation on why people consider the site as nothing but a tabloid.

I guess these days some people have really lowered their standard. I wonder if the National Enquirer knows that if they leaned the right way they could attract the same demogrpahic as Drudge and be considered legit.

 

[LuvDuke]

Occasionally he does do reporting.

For instance, right now the "lead" story is headlined "Pelosi lowers the boom" and the copy reads:




It's not credited to the AP or any other news source, so this is Drudge's own reporting. I'm still searching the net to see if anyone else has reporting on it.

Newsflash: That story fell off Drudge's site last night. Nice try, however unsuccessful, Bet.

 

[helenabear]

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.

I trust some news sources as more reliable than others. However, I also double check other sites before trusting the "late breaking" news. I would rather it be 5 minutes late and accurate than just being first. I believe FOX is worst at that (from what I have seen... because of that they are the last ones I check)

Cardaway touched on why I don't even bother with drudge... and said it in a way that I didn't get to. The tabloid type news they have turns me off. That is the type of news I have been linked to there and out of all the times I have been linked to there by friends sending me links, only one was right. Some were so far off that I no longer trust it. It's not political for me at all. I just find them somewhere between the National Enquirer and any other "mainstream" news source (pick your pleasure out of the major national ones).

Please keep in mind everyone, I have no affiliations with any party. I truly don't so this has *nothing* to do with it. In the beginning my friends said it was liberal based (in their opinion) now I hear it is conservative based (in the opinion of the DIS) so who do I believe? Well it doesn't matter because it doesn't mean a thing one way or the other. I said in a PP I have no idea which is liberal and which is conservative on a national level because I do NOT care. I just want my news and I will filter out what I think is speculaton and not fact.

 

[cardaway]

Newsflash: That story fell off Drudge's site last night. Nice try, however unsuccessful, Bet.

Oh, she was successful, but not in the way I bet she intended.

I also have yet to see anything that resmebles venemous dismissal of Drudge, but after seeing only one side called hateful in the Jerry Falwell thread, I guess you have to consider the source.

 

[LuvDuke]

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)

If you're going to follow a link found on Drudge, why not just cite the link instead of Drudge?

It's no different if I read a story on Kos or the Huffington site. If they don't provide a link, I don't cite the story and if they do provide a link, I use that.

 

[cardaway]

I trust some news sources as more reliable than others. However, I also double check other sites before trusting the "late breaking" news. I would rather it be 5 minutes late and accurate than just being first. I believe FOX is worst at that (from what I have seen... because of that they are the last ones I check)

My issue with Fox (and CNN) is they don't report news. Everything is staged to become and editorial. I have never seen a story on either network simply reported and letting the facts stand alone.

 

[Galahad]

It's no different if I read a story on Kos

You found those links on KOS? I knew you were a raging freak!

 

[LuvDuke]

My issue with Fox (and CNN) is they don't report news. Everything is staged to become and editorial. I have never seen a story on either network simply reported and letting the facts stand alone.

I think that's an across the board problem with American news reporting. Everything is either an editorial or a "segment" on one topic or another.

For instance, Jose Padilla is on trial right now in Miami. This was supposed to be the first of the "terrorism" trials. I haven't seen it yet on the news and very little in the newspapers.

What happens with news today is they're in such a hurry to get their "spotlights" done, they miss the real news.

And don't even me started on Lou Dobbs.

 

[LuvDuke]

You found those links on KOS? I knew you were a raging freak!

Raging freak? I prefer junkyard philosopher.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

My issue with Drudge is that there are times when "articles" are linked to "editorials" and there is a difference. So the headline may read "Kerry is a War Criminal" but the link goes to a right-wing journalist or blog that is based on opinion pieces and not actual new content. Therefore when someone links an article to Drudge, I wonder if it is in fact an article.

I check Drudge on a daily basis. But Drudge is not a "news" site because it is blatantly biased in what he chooses to run as headlines. And it is his site so he has every right to do that.

The truth of the matter is no media outlet has actually been held responsible for what they report and taking their bias out of it. And I doubt we will see that come anytime soon now that big corporations own them. It is all about the mighty dollar and not neccessarily quality of journalistic reporting.

~Amanda

 

[eclectics]

I don't ridicule people for visiting Drudge, I go there a few times a week myself. It can be a useful site. But if someone were linking to one of his "developing" reports and trying to claim it as fact, then yes, I would call them on it.

As Dawn was called out a few weeks back. If a factual link is provided, even if it's Fox , I have no problem. However, Drudge posts a lot of op ed pieces and if someone posts one of these as fact, then I have a problem. And that goes for any website, not just Drudge.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

If you're going to follow a link found on Drudge, why not just cite the link instead of Drudge?

It's no different if I read a story on Kos or the Huffington site. If they don't provide a link, I don't cite the story and if they do provide a link, I use that.

I have no problem with doing that. I know in the past there have been time where in the interest of honesty I've said something like "I saw this linked on Drudge..." and then provide the link to the other source.
That's probably just me being too uptight about citation.

 

[yeartolate]

Here is a thread Dawn posted

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1405986&referrerid=&highlight=

Even after the report was proven false (by video and audio) Drudge did not retract his statement. I kept clicking on the link for a week or so and the bad information was still there. I searched the site for a retraction. I got no response to my email asking for retraction.

That is an example of why I roll my eyes up when I hear "Drudge".

 

[Mugg Mann]

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)

And no accusation taken! We're having a good conversation here.

It would be absolutely legit to say "I found it on Drudge" if the story is a link to a mainstream news outlet.

I think I safely speak for many people here when I say that what gets my ire up is when someone assigns the same legitimacy to a non-linked "exclusive" that can't be found elsewhere, or when someone makes the ridiculous claim as Dawn recently did that Drudge is more accurate than the New York Times and tries to pass it off as fact.

As the "newspaper of record", The New York Times publishes corrections when warranted in order to set the record straight. To my knowledge, I don't believe that Drudge ever has, and I would welcome a verifiable cite from someone who can prove otherwise. On the day that you can find a "corrections" link on Drudge's front page, I would be happy to upgrade my overall opinion of the site.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

I don't ridicule people for visiting Drudge, I go there a few times a week myself. It can be a useful site. But if someone were linking to one of his "developing" reports and trying to claim it as fact, then yes, I would call them on it.

I agree with this as well! Any of his 'developing news' stuff should be backed up by another source. I hold all media to that standard.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Oh, she was successful, but not in the way I bet she intended.

I also have yet to see anything that resmebles venemous dismissal of Drudge, but after seeing only one side called hateful in the Jerry Falwell thread, I guess you have to consider the source.

As for the dismissal... good grief, look around, man. I won't be going off to chase down links right now because I've got a million other things I need to be doing. What I was referring to in that post was a fairly consistent sentiment about anything drudgian that hits a post on the DIS. I think this thread has been a civil way of having a common ground discussion about sources/debates on the CB. It's enlightened me any way.

As for the Falwell comment, that thread is located elsewhere on the CB for your posting enjoyment.

 

[cardaway]

As for the dismissal... good grief, look around, man. I won't be going off to chase down links right now because I've got a million other things I need to be doing.

I thought posts worthy of calling "venomous dismissals" would be memorable. Guess not.

 

[Bob Slydell]

However, Drudge posts a lot of op ed pieces and if someone posts one of these as fact, then I have a problem. And that goes for any website, not just Drudge.

ITA Both "sides" can be guilty of this at times and it bugs me in all cases.

 

[wvrevy]

Again, Matt Drudge has filled in for Rush Limbaugh on occasion, and has his own very right-leaning radio show. Anyone who knows those two facts and still can't understand how he could be dismissed as a partisan hack just isn't being honest.