Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Picks: Understanding Matt Drudge

Regular readers of The Fix are familiar with our contention that Matt Drudge and his linkfest known as the Drudge Report are influential -- and growing more so -- in the world of presidential politics.

So, we were very interested in a recent profile of Drudge that appeared in New York magazine, which is an attempt to understand not just the power of the Drudge Report but the man behind the throne.

Although the story is long (10 pages on The Fix printer), make sure to read the whole thing as it effectively explains the new media world and how Drudge stands astride it. It also provides some fascinating insights into the personality of the notoriously press-shy Drudge thank to author Philip Weiss's analysis of Drudge's radio show. (That show is set to go off the air on Sept. 30 although there is no stated connection between that development and Weiss' story.)

Among the highlights:

* Drudge believes that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will be the next president. "That House is going pink," Drudge is quoted as saying. The piece also suggests that Drudge has a connection within the ranks of the Clinton campaign, a mole who leaks him positive information about the campaign from time to time. He also refers to Clinton as "the Senatress."

* Drudge draws kudos from an panoply of politicos including Donna Brazile, Susan Estrich and Arianna Huffington. He counts Camille Paglia and Lucianne Goldberg as friends. Brian Williams, anchor of NBC Nightly News, said of the Drudge Report: "This is America's bulletin board, and much more than that."

* Drudge says the libertarian views of Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Tex.) presidential campaign are "true to my heart....But I look at him and say 'The guy can't lead.'" Weiss notes that Drudge was a registered Republican in California but registered "no party affiliation" in his current home state of Florida. Weiss adds, however, that Drudge's audience is 60 percent Republican and just eight percent Democratic.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 12, 2007; 10:39 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: MoveOn.org: Momentum or Menace?
Next: Sen. Clinton and Iraq

Comments

his head has outgrown his talent. no way he should be arbiter of anything. you're way behind the movement on this one, he's old news.

Posted by: jett1 | September 13, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The web traffic for the Drudge Report is not as bad as one of your earlier posters suggests. The traffic always spikes in election years... big time in a Presidential election, and quite a bit for mid-terms. There are lulls between elections where traffic dips... but that would be natural.

I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that traffic at The Fix spikes when elections are on... and we all know how influential Chris is... ;)

Posted by: Antoine | September 12, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

It just sh*ts me to tears that people can make websites as ugly and hard on the eye as the drudge report.

Interesting content, sure.

But PLEASE, spring for a web designer...

Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"influential -- and growing more so" ?

Not with the public it's not. DrudgeReport.com traffic peaked in 2003 & he is on a long steady descent:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=drudgereport.com

Chris, please downgrade Mr Drudge's influence in your future calculus.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | September 12, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun--Mussolini made the trolls run on time, at least?

Droll, very droll!

Posted by: roo | September 12, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"Such an interesting contrast to the mostly positive way Drudge was portrayed in this Fix blog vs. the very negative way Moveon.org was portrayed the other day."

I told you this was nothing but a republican fishbowl. Now. Do I come here to scare you gop'ers or convert you to humanity?

Either way. Now you see what CC is about. Now you see why I pay so little attention to the blog subjects.

Posted by: rufus | September 12, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"He's not a journalist... He is an aggregator of rumors. "

Great point. When did the gop steal the judicial branch in this country? When was the "public courtroom" more powerful than actual court rooms?

He is a spreader of rumors. I still don't understand how these people are not sued for slander daily. Your a celebrity or anybody for that matter. MAtt drudge says you fired you secratery because she looked at you funny. Exapmle. But how is that not slander. How is that not a lie. What happened to the courts? what happened to the facts?

"We're gop, we don't need no stinkin facts. Give us anna nicole, give us lohan, give us paris."

Anything to take your minds off the gop downfall, I assume. But drudge and fox belong in tabloid world. They both deserve press creditials like us weekly or national enquier.

Posted by: rufus1133 | September 12, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Such an interesting contrast to the mostly positive way Drudge was portrayed in this Fix blog vs. the very negative way Moveon.org was portrayed the other day.

Posted by: J. Crozier | September 12, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Drudge links to mainstream news articles, almost exclusively anymore. His content is atrocious? Biased? Not trustworthy? Gossip? Oh puh-lease, take your complaints directly back to the mainstream news outlets he's linking to -- he's a news aggregator, rarely the originating reporter. Everything on his site has already been published by someone else -- he's just directing you to it.

Posted by: Woobie | September 12, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"That's a story line we should all hope won't be written."

If only bin Laden weren't still at large, we wouldn't have to worry about that.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Drudge is a pioneer. Although he is personally annoying, he has the pulse of the news world and the newsworld comes to him. He is hardly in a position to be able to handicap the presidential, or an elemntary school for that matter, race.

He was smart enough to have a zillion links to the world and deserves riches and celebrity for that.

Posted by: Ray | September 12, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Tin foil hats are back on the Fix today.

Posted by: Golgi | September 12, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"On April 17, 1987, Osama bin Laden led 120 of his most fierce Arab mujahedeen into battle. The attack was planned for months and billed as a major offensive for the warriors of God against the atheistic Soviet Red Army and its apostate Afghan puppets. The target: an Afghan government position on the outskirts of Khost.

Things went so poorly one wonders what "FUBAR" is in Arabic.

They were more like the Keystone Kops than battle-hardened mujahedin.

But the following month, Bin Laden helped lead the Arab Afghans in their most successful military effort: defending their mountain lair, the so-called Lion's Den. The battle was militarily successful in the sense that the already retreating Red Army was held at bay on its way out of Dodge.

"From the Soviet perspective the battle of the Lion's Den was a small moment in the tactical retreat from Afghanistan," wrote Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "The Looming Tower."

But for Bin Laden and his followers, it was divine proof that the mujahedin crushed the mighty Soviets. There was, according to Wright, "a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith. For them, the encounter at the Lion's Den became the foundation of the myth that they defeated the superpower."

Armed with this useful myth, the Arab Afghans became the core of a new global jihadist insurgency called al Qaeda.

If the Bin Laden of the late 1980s could convince himself that his motley crew delivered the death blow to the Evil Empire, leading to the formation of al Qaeda, one can only imagine what lesson he and the Bin Ladens of tomorrow would take from America's defeat in Iraq."

That's a story line we should all hope won't be written.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjM2ODk0ZmE5MjgyYzlmMWI5NzZkMDM2ZGY0N2FjNTk=

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 12, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Dude, cool! I'll have to try them, though I'm not actually in Mass. I think they ship here. I've seen 'em in bars.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

DC-
http://www.harpoonbrewery.com/

proud-
I self-medicate (see above).

Any Rs visiting St Paul should not deny themself a sampling of the products from local brewer Summit. Or any of various brewpubs, including Great Waters, mere feet from the convention site.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Try something mellowing & possibly some kind of anti-ulcer meds."

bee- Thanks, but no thanks. Maybe I'll be offering you the same advice during the R convention next year.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 12, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Harpoon? Do tell.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"see how smart I am. I can spell. I don't like hillary but will end up voting for her anyway. not that it matters, the Libs always carry the state of boston.

I am not a lawyer but pretend to be one on the blog. watch me try to make a logical conclusion. I know most Libs don't appreciate or follow this but I am special."

You can't read very well, can you? I'm not from Boston and I have never said, claimed or hinted that I was a lawyer.

As for you, I don't know you, I won't guess at your occupation, location or age. I would just say you are a boon for the democratic party. Please tell me you talk like this to every middle of the road person. You must leave a trail of new democrats in your wake.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"It's Octoberfest season!!"

The party held by the Harpoon people is a worthwhile visit. And they produce very tasty beers besides.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

...And he is a habitual liar, a sensationalist who panders to the prejudices and fears of neo-con republicans, and plays fear-monger to the under educated blue collar american. All the while he chants the nationalist and "taking care of #1 means ME" ideology that all neo-cons replace democracy and truth, logic and science with.

I bet a dollar he's under developed.

Posted by: JBE | September 12, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Why both, of course.

It's Octoberfest season!!

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, go back to Cleveland. There's no risk of undermining our troops and our foriegn policy in a time of WAR there!!!"

Is there something you can sneak yourself from behind the counter? All that anger can't be very healthy. Try something mellowing & possibly some kind of anti-ulcer meds.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"I should be soooo ashamed to be living the birthplace of Sam Adams"

The patriot or the beer?

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

So are your (sic) disingenuous, or just a liar?

see how smart I am. I can spell. I don't like hillary but will end up voting for her anyway. not that it matters, the Libs always carry the state of boston.

I am not a lawyer but pretend to be one on the blog. watch me try to make a logical conclusion. I know most Libs don't appreciate or follow this but I am special.

sure you are. especially dense.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"As long as his district likes him and thinks he represents them, I say, go Dennis."

Yeah, go back to Cleveland. There's no risk of undermining our troops and our foriegn policy in a time of WAR there!!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 12, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Drudge was the first opinion blog, not a dedicated journalism site that should be monitored for leads by the press. Drudge is just an entertaining amateur.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matthew | September 12, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"He must be in boston now as his spiral of liberalism continues downward."

Oooh, ouch, you got me there! Oooh, Boston that hippie bastion of Bunker Hill, the Boston tea party and the massacre. Boston, soooo out of touch! If I were in Boston I should be soooo ashamed to be living the birthplace of Aerosmith and Sam Adams! How un-American! How unpatriotic!

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Mark as an NC State Alumni I can assure you that the fact that UCF beat the Wolfpack this year does NOT show that they shouldn't be taken lightly. State is terrible. I am currently looking forward to Basketball season.

Posted by: Andy R | September 12, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Or maybe his arguement (sic) skills have not resulted in steady employment. He is under the delusion that Hillary is honest and doesn't regularly break the law. but he doesn't support her so that means? Yeah, I'm confused too."

You are an unbelievable IDIOT. Saying there is nothing to the Hsu case is not the same thing as saying Hillary is honest now is it? So are your disingenuous, or just a liar?

I didn't realize having been in a courtroom was a prerequisite for making an argument here. Who is the effete now?

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

clinton is an angel- Imagine the headlines if a Republican candidate for president had to give back almost a million dollars of campaign cash! This is outrageous, and Hillary Clinton tried to make the story go away by offering a paltry 23 thousand to charity. Pshaw!

Hillary had better watch out, now Obama's latest whale, Oprah, is trying to get out the vote for him. A new CBS News poll finds that Winfrey's endorsement may pay dividends for Obama.

Thirty-one percent of registered voters say that most people they know would be more likely to vote for Obama for president because Oprah has endorsed him, according to the poll.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/opinion/polls/main3244412.shtml

That may make the difference for Barack Hussein Obama if stupid libs follow Oprah into the voting booth.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 12, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Dk doesn't represent my views, but like KOZ said, he has integrity, Like Hagel and Warner.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

No Mark, that was meant for the evicted austinite. He must be in boston now as his spiral of liberalism continues downward. Imagine neither Austin nor DC was liberal enough. Try France.

Or maybe his arguement skills have not resulted in steady employment. He is under the delusion that Hillary is honest and doesn't regularly break the law. but he doesn't support her so that means? Yeah, I'm confused too.

but he took a logic course once and even passed. Of course that was way back in Austin.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

DK is a nice guy. His views are over the top and loony, but he is honest, hard working and someone has to be the most leftist. His colleagues like him and many Rs went to his wedding. He is friendly and affable and doesn't flip-flop. He was previously Mayor.
As long as his district likes him and thinks he represents them, I say, go Dennis.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 12, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

If | at 1:31P was inquiring of me, I have been in many courtrooms, trial and appellate.
If | was inquiring of someone else, I apologize, in advance, for my having thought it was all about "me".

Has DK ever been in a courtroom? Is he a lawyer? I do not know.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Because it's not a scandal. She recieved money from a donor (legal), who committed a crime (unrelated to Hillary), and then she returned all of the money when informed (Honorable). Nothing untoward happened here at all from Hillary's side, and I'm not even a Hillary backer. "

the facts:

Hillary's campaign tried to make the story go away by stating its intentions to give to charity the $23,000 that Hsu had personally contributed to her campaign. It says it is now planning to give back all $850,000 that Hsu, who also served as a board member of former President Clinton's Clinton Global Initiative, had solicited for her campaign. The Washington Post reported that "Clinton officials said that the senator, acting out of 'an abundance of caution,' had directed the campaign to return donations from about 260 contributors tied to Hsu because of his apparent involvement in an illegal investment scheme."

The Hsu case has brought up memories of corrupt practices that the Clintons hoped had been buried. A short list includes Clinton Vice President Al Gore's fundraising calls from the White House, his "fundraiser" from Buddhist Monks at the Hsi Lai Temple, and campaign contributions from such figures as Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. R. Emmett Tyrrell did an excellent job recalling those days in a recent column that ran in Human Events.


Hillary and her cronies have expressed shock at this behavior. After all, why should they be expected to know what Hsu was like? Did anyone in the media blame the Republicans who took money from Jack Abramoff? Or just Abramoff himself? Of course they also blamed the recipients. Clearly the Republicans have had their own corruption problems, with Abramoff, Representatives Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, and other embarrassments such as Sen. Larry Craig. But the difference is in the media coverage, both in degree and intensity, and how directly the media hold each side responsible. Republicans get much tougher scrutiny and coverage.

Bill Clinton has been on TV everywhere since this Hsu scandal erupted, selling his latest book called Giving. He does not get grilled. To the contrary, the media treat him and Hillary with total deference, as if they are victims in the scandal.

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post has turned up another potential scandal involving the Clintons. In this story, an Indian American businessman, Sant Chatwal, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the senator's campaigns, "even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens."

In financial terms, a much larger scandal has virtually escaped media coverage altogether. The last week of August, the Federal Elections Commission fined the George Soros-funded group Americans Coming Together (ACT) $775,000. This was the third largest fine the FEC had ever levied on an organization or campaign. ACT's violation was that it had violated campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle. ACT said it was using the funds for nonpartisan purposes, but the FEC said the money was being used for very partisan purposes―to defeat President Bush.

That certainly sounds like a good deal for Kerry and ACT. Spending that kind of money to get their guy elected, and three years later to only have to pay a fine of less than one million dollars. Where is the outrage from the advocates of campaign finance reform?

But this scandal, too, has a Clinton connection.

Columnist John Fund pointed out that ACT's "largest donor was the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically active labor unions. Its largest non-union donor was billionaire George Soros. And who was the group's president? None other than Harold Ickes, a long-time functionary of the Clinton machine who served as Bill Clinton's deputy White House chief of staff. Mr. Ickes is now a major player in the huge fundraising apparatus of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who unsurprisingly has run into her own campaign finance scandal (Norman Hsu) this week."

Another long-running controversy has been Hillary Clinton's involvement with Peter Paul, a man who spent some $2 million on a 2000 fundraiser for Hillary's run for the Senate. He believed he had a commitment from Bill Clinton to be a rainmaker for Paul's company once Clinton left office. This case is still being fought in the courts, as Paul continues to fight to show that Hillary violated several federal campaign finance laws based on her involvement in the event, a celebrity-packed Hollywood gala, and the reporting of the donations she received. This Google video gives a detailed view of the Peter Paul story from the point of view of those convinced that Hillary is personally implicated in this scandal. It is a story that won't die.

Posted by: hillary is an angel | September 12, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

No prob, word of mouth is how i've discovered many many bands.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Never actually been in a courtroom , have you?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite, thanks for the tip!

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Loud and dumb - I knew you couldn't do it."

How about at least using the zouk random sock puppet name generator, or do you prefer gutless, ignorant, anonymous coward?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 12, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"I am in lalaland. Can't you tell?"

Nice try, but you're still an idiot. Also, everyone in here knows it, even the conservatives. Not because you're a conservative, mind you, but because your argument style is a little *ahem* subpar:

First you accused me of not reading something, and in the very same post made it clear you didn't read mine!
then, not satisfied to lick your wounds and retreat, you thought you'd play 'boy detective' with my nickname and your assumptions were off not once, but twice.
thirdly you've done everything in your power to antagonize a pro-drudge, anti-hillary person on this website, which apart from making no sense only serves to make other pro-drudge anti-hillary people think you're an idiot.

that last post is so meek I'm surprised it wasn't posted in tiny font.

Finally, your monolithic, one-size-fits-all view of the left is the same kind of mistake the left made in the 80's and 90's and look how well that worked. so keep it up!

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with Dennis Kucinich, as reported by proud. The invasion was legal under both international and American law. I have read the UN Resolutions from Gulf War I and they gave sufficient authority to the US and the UK to remove Saddam. The Congress can authrize the Prez to use the military without declaring war, and it did so.

Not everything that is lawful is wise, of course. But neither is DK, as reported by proud.
----------------------------------------
See, I never said "How come you never..."

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,
By the way, I believe 'the national' is playing ACL on the 16th. Wish I was there. I used to work SXSW in the olden days. 10 years ago. If you like kind of interpol, if sung by springsteen, check them out.

You can listen to them on www.hypem.com

Search 'the national' i would recommend 'green gloves' and 'mistaken for strangers'.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I am in lalaland. Can't you tell?

Posted by: dc_idiot | September 12, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Mark, haahha on that last line. You probably had Lyle pretty steamed up to that last line.

yes, I miss Austin and a lot of Texas. Pedernales falls, Enchanted Rock, the Biergarten in Walburg.

I don't take UCF for granted, not after just beating Ark st. Though the second half of the TCU game made me feel better about things. Is it just me, or is parity really growing in college football?

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Loud and dumb - I knew you couldn't do it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Hollywood is far removed from the world of ABC, NBC, CBS. They are also allowed to make or lose money promoting films with a political agenda. So, by the way, is anyone. Murdoch has more money than coesus and a decidely right bent and a film company, so why isn't he making movies with a right lean to them? Surely you can't complain a conspiracy is out to get Rupert Murdoch and prevent him from doing what he wants. The man just bought the Wall Street Journal. So tell me, why isn't Rupert Making the movies you promise me millions in the midwest want to see? Sounds like a sure thing

Posted by: Right wing films | September 12, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"the left (including prominent Senators like Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich and John Kerry) has been pushing the idea of a re-imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine""

Dennis Kucinich, that traiterous b*stard who took a jaunt over to Syria last week to confer with the terrorist-sponsoring Assad, has some nerve trying to silence conservatives. He said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

The troops are no doubt grateful for that at least, Dennis.

While they wear the uniform of the US military to uphold and protect your rights and freedom to travel the world (on the taxpayers' dime I might add) and meet with our sworn enemies -feel free to sympathize with genocidal murderers who also help kill Americans, and to criticize the USA for your selfish partisan reasons, Congressman Kucinich you worm.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 12, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Drudge is the National Enquirer of the political world... perfect example is the story about Karl Rove's last days in the White House when his car was trashed... Drudge's headline was something like "Obama stickers plastered on Rove's car"... but in reality if you bothered to read the story it was White House staffers who were playing a joke on Rove... but you certainly wouldn't have guessed that by Drudge's headline.

Posted by: Rob | September 12, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

My city is a great place. The Cactus Cafe is a great place. I do not know the Cactus Canteen. ACL Fest starts Friday.

DCAustinite, wherever you are, I know you wish you were here.

Saturday the Horns are in Orlando to christen the new stadium of UCF, a college that I learned existed only three days before I learned that Drudge is a person, not a made-up name. DCAustinite, UCF beat NC St. so they cannot be total dogmeat.

Because DCAustinite says Drudge is entertaining, i am adding the web address to my bookmarks. Next year I may be able to contribute to this conversation.

Sometimes this blog sounds like a day at the marriage counselor: "The trouble with you is...", "How come you never...", "Why don't you ever...", If you would just move a little to the left/right...".
The counselor says "drop never and ever from your vocabulary" and own your own thoughts and feelings. When you disagree,
learn to do so respectfully, like John Warner. Example: "I disagree. I think Hsu's money will turn out to be tainted by his importation of slave labor from Hong Kong in containers and that HRC kept the containers from being inspected at the port of embarkation in Hong Kong." MikeB, was that not a great example? lyle, I made that up.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"LOUD and Dumb - I challenge you to offer one intelligent thing on this blog today."

Sorry, ace, but challenges from ignorant, anonymous sock puppets are cheerfully ignored.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 12, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Only an idiot conflates ABC, and CBS, publicly traded companies in New york whose predominant source of income is ADVERTISING with Hollywood, whose major source of income is DVD and ticket sales.

I mean that's just a fundamental error, one that invalidates any argument.

The second a major advertiser pulls the plug, a project is done. And if the reasons are the on the DVD, they won't release it. Why? Because the people who watch 'the path to 9/11' or 'Reagan' aren't going to run out and buy a Ford, but the people who are against it will certainly NOT buy a Ford.

Basically, though, what you're failing to recognize because you have an axe to grind about the path to 9/11 (and oddly, not about Reagan, which if was released on dvd, I never saw it), is that ABC and CBS (separate of their news divisions, which are separate entities) are in the business of Entertainment, not Politics. They're in it to make money. The second something becomes a liability, it's done. From a boardroom viewpoint, there's just nothing good that can come from releasing that movie on dvd. Even politics aside, look how poorly flight 93 is doing on dvd. And that's as apolitical as it comes.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

LOUD and Dumb - I challenge you to offer one intelligent thing on this blog today.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I was talking about the DVD release. It has no advertisers.

No serious observer still could credit the stupid cliché that the show business elite is motivated only by financial greed. In fact, this line of reasoning has long provided a silly, shabby excuse by which embarrassed executives and creative personnel excuse both their shabbiest work and their obvious political bias. By insisting "we just give the public what it wants" they not only justify their own obsessions but also show a typical socialist contempt for the profit motive: the contention that "the market made me do it" has proven far more convenient than the old joke that "the devil made me do it," but it should count as no more persuasive

Leave aside the insanely one-sided movie treatment of issues like gun control, gay identity, corporate greed, Bush's stupidity, global warming, and so forth. Even the most isolated, hermetically-sealed LaLaLand Lefty must understand that "flyover country" is teeming with tens of millions of potential movie-goers who (gasp!) actually identify as conservatives and Republicans. Nevertheless, the movie machine avoids and even shuns any effort to appeal to such people, while churning out no end of "progressive" message movies. The recent crop includes the bitterly anti-Iraq War screed "In the Valley of Elah" (with Tommy Lee Jones and Susan Sarandon), Leonardo di Caprio's global warming scare story "The 11th Hour," and the veterans-are-crazy-losers melodrama "Home of the Brave" with Samuel L. Jackson. No one green-lighted such projects out of eagerness to turn a profit--and the sparse or non-existent audience response should provide evidence that no, it's not all about making money among prominent stars and filmmakers.

Moreover, there's an even more glaring example of Hollywood ignoring its own self-interest for the sake of political correctness. Starting 18 years ago, I took part in efforts to persuade studio executives to release "family friendly" PG versions of major box-office hits when they appeared on video (and later on DVD). The edited editions already existed (they had been trimmed and cleaned up for airline viewing) so the cost of providing such alternatives would have been zero - and the monetary returns would have been huge. One market study suggested that the major film companies could add a minimum of $300 million of new revenue by appealing to wary audiences with DVD choices of specially edited versions of R-rated releases to supplement, not replace, the originals.


The stubborn, illogical refusal to offer this sort of "freedom of choice" to consumers, like the politically-motivated censorship of "The Path to 9/11" indicates that the entertainment establishment often cares more about political correctness and advancing their "progressive" agenda than about making more money for corporations and their stock holders.

We are Dems, we only see what we want to see. no facts needed here.

Posted by: we be dems - censor that | September 12, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

*yawn*

Posted by: Manifestos and polemics are boring. | September 12, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

drooling doug mewls: "Probably in 1972 when they nominated George McGovern."

Typical rightwingnut scum, slandering an honorable war veteran. You'd crap your pants if you even got within 100 feet of the plane McGovern flew over Germany in, scumbag.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 12, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Conventional wisdom maintains that all good liberals believe in unfettered free expression, while it's conservatives who want to control what the public sees or reads or hears. In fact, the furious leftist assault on "The Path to 9/11" shows that purportedly enlightened "progressives" are, in fact, today's most fervent and shameless advocates of censorship. At the time of the program's original broadcast, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and four of his Democratic colleagues (none of whom had seen the mini-series) signed a threatening letter to ABC Chief Executive Bob Iger demanding that he cancel the scheduled broadcast. Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee launched a furious petition campaign and promised "consequences" if ABC went ahead with its plans to show "Path."

The refusal to release the project on DVD shows the long-term impact of such political pressure. Controversial lefty releases (like the slanderous CBS mini-series "The Reagans" and the collected works of the sainted Michael "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore) got well-publicized release on DVD; only "Path to 9/11" remains, apparently, too hot to handle.

By the same token, the left (including prominent Senators like Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich and John Kerry) has been pushing the idea of a re-imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" to try to stifle conservative media like talk radio and Fox News--trusting government bureaucrats more than consumers to make "balanced" choices of their broadcast offerings. During all the decades of liberal media bias the right has most certainly complained about Dan Rather or the New York Times or Time Magazine, but no prominent conservative ever suggested that government regulation or interference provided the right means to respond.

The unfortunate effort to deny eager viewers a chance to see a hugely informative, first-class TV production about the emergence of al-Qaeda and the inadequate American response (under both Clinton and the pre-9/11 George W. Bush) may end up enlightening the public in another way: highlighting the liberal tendency to put political correctness above the profit motive, and the left's dangerous instinct to stifle, rather than answer, viewpoints it dislikes.

Posted by: we be dems - censor that | September 12, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Mussolini would have loved zouk. This troll and his sock puppets show up every day, right at 12 noon.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 12, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The free market spoke and killed the 9/11 movie. the same free market that killed the Reagan movie. Both ABC and CBS, after being pressured by citizens who thought both movies would be offensive and innaccurate, decided as businesses that it wasn't in their best monetary interest to show those films. Totally a free market decision.

Advertisers pulled their ads from the slots. Are Ford, GM, Post and General Mills socialists?

So why do you hate the free market?

Posted by: The free market | September 12, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Considering the simultaneous commercial and critical success of this five-hour epic (including seven Emmy nominations and an impressive audience of more than 25 million viewers) one might reasonably expect a major DVD release to coincide with 9/11 observances this year. Major television specials or mini-series will result in a DVD release an average of four months after the initial broadcast, but a year after the national airing of "Path to 9/11" ABC will say only that the company "has no release date at this time." The network (and its parent, the Disney Company) also declined the opportunity to re-broadcast the beautifully crafted and sweeping mini-series to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks - no doubt missing a chance to attract millions of new and repeat viewers.

Why the reluctance to draw additional revenue from a project in which the corporation initially invested some $30 million dollars? According to Cyrus Nowrasteh, the series lead writer-producer, a top executive at ABC studios explained that the decision to effectively censor "The Path to 9/11" stemmed from a desire to protect the Bill Clinton Presidential legacy and to avoid damage to Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign.

Posted by: so that's why | September 12, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Strike three! I have connections to DC and Austin, and I used to live in DC when I created my name, but that was a long time ago. I keep the name because I like having political discussions with people who don't post anonymously from both sides of the spectrum.

You sir, are a grade-A IDIOT. And the simple fact that you're criticizing what my name is, on an online post, shows that you are a desperate idiot.

Now, onto the topic of this post, I would just say that apart from the politics (and I swear he does post negative things about both sides) he also posts really fun news-of-the-weird type stuff. That alone would keep me going back to Drudge.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow, mention the slouch-hat idiot, and the lemmings come flocking in.

Posted by: huh | September 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Six years after the most spectacular terrorist attack in human history, the Hollywood establishment still hasn't come to terms with the event - and even managed to censor the most serious cinematic effort to place September 11th in a meaningful historical context.

Path to 9/11 censored by Libs. What's the matter, can't handle the truth? why always taking the easy way out and trying to squash debate? why Libs?

Posted by: Dems stifle dissent | September 12, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Do I hate Drudge? Yes. But there's no denying that the lazy slobs of the media rely on him to an unhealthy extent.

Don;t blame him, though. Blame the clowns at CNN, etc.

Am I the only one who is confused to see that Drudge has a source in Hillaryland for POSITIVE stuff. Hillary and positive...those are two words I don;t think Drudge knows how to use in the same sentence.

Posted by: Ugh | September 12, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Osama bin Laden makes liberal journalists uncomfortable because he sounds just like a typical blogger for the cause.

Posted by: james | September 12, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Zookeeper is right. The best advice I ever received was "Never argue with an idiot on his own level."

Posted by: fudd | September 12, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Well then you live in DC. and still your vote doesn't matter.(it is a good thing that many liberals can't vote). no wonder you left TX with that loony tunes liberal outlook on life. I am sure you fit right in in the banana republic of DC.

how's that trash pickup working out for ya? do your rats pay rent?

If all you can retort is your childhood nickname, I suppose you can get back to not answering the phone now.

Posted by: dc_idiot | September 12, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

score one for JEP:

"It is bad enough there's a Drudgehead hanging out here all the time, but when they come over on a link, it's like someone loosed a boxful of stupid."

Sir, you are the last comic standing.
Well done.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 12, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

By the way, if this is how the conservative base treats Drudge-supporting people who are no fan of Hillary Clinton, you're in trouble.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

boko - I am simply saying that the "truth" lies not only in the left wing media and that fox and drudge provide a valuable service by exposing the other side.

I don't fault the NYT or the networks for doing what they do, I find the claim to be the owners of the "truth" to be ludicrous. so let them shout their truths to the sky and then allow the ratings to sort out the appeal of their brand of the truth.

so far the conservative truth seems to be more poular. why is that? you say flashy graphics. I say water to a thirsty man.

the left seems very angry that their monopoly on the media is fading. Is it that the actual "truth" is not beneifical to their aims? If your viewsa are so strong and brilliant, display them and shoot down the opposition and expose them. mostly I just see pinhead insults instead.

I have brought up Hillary's burgeoning corruption. no one wants to defend her. I wouldn't either.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 12, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Again, I'm FROM Austin. I don't live there.

IDIOT.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

idiot in austin - guess what - you live in TX. that means your vote doesn't matter, so feel free to use up all your wasted breath on this blog. Or you and the other 4 liberals from Texas could go down to the Cactus Canteen and watch Olbermann (you would double his audience) and mope over the hopelessness of your situation - winning in Iraq (losing in your case) and losing the white house again because you didn't support the candidate (if that makes you feel better).

Posted by: we are the weak | September 12, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, if you "want the truth," you won't get it from Fox or Drudge. Drudge, as I recall, made his bones during the Lewinsky scandal - at least, that's when I first started to hear his name a lot - and he has continued in that vein, along with Fox. Hell, I will readily admit that politicians of both parties are responsible for moral lapses. We all know that you can recite a list of Democrats who have been found guilty or have been placed under suspicion for the past 40+ years (dude - get a hobby!), and many of us could match you name for name from the GOP side of the aisle. Some of these are more relevant and some less, but it is my considered opinion that Drudge - and Fox - have made a career of tawdry expose TV at the expense of news, NOT as an addition to it or an elaboration on it. You have also said many times that the ratings victories of Fox and Drudge prove the quality of their reporting - I believe that these ratings are due to flashy graphics, lurid scandals and gossipy chatter, and the oversimplification of the news that is presented.
Do you want the truth? The sad fact is that "the truth" is never uncomplicated and rarely zippy and easy to follow. Even after the longest, best-researched, most thoughtfully presented story, "the truth" is something you have to think about in order to decide what role it will play in your life and how you should understand it. Soundbites and graphics are great advertising, but they do not give you the truth. For Fox - and, to be fair, many other news sources - to pretend that they do is to disrespect the ability of their listeners to process complicated data and draw their own conclusions from it. It's as if they were saying to the listener:

You can't handle the truth.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 12, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"he wept listening to Kelly Clarkson's new record" -of course he did!

Posted by: kwamesnani | September 12, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Yeah zookeeper, I mean ignorant coward, just ignore the facts, ignore the opposition and keep to your own loony left world. wouldn't want FOx news or drudge or any one else spoiling your little party with the truth.

and that is why you can't win the white house. anything you don't like you discount or call a lie. even a sitting general doing his job, which you equate to a pol lying to get into office.

moveon has revealed you for the buffoons you are now. you are toast. I would start worrying about the down ticket now if I were you. a sure win in the Senate is slipping away and the house seems to be going R too. go hillary!

Posted by: we be Dems | September 12, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"DCAustinite - I guess you didn't read the article. Keep your fingers in your ears. you're going to need sound cancelling headphones once hillary gets the nomination. One of the most corrupt pols in our history."

I guess you didn't read my post, i don't support Hillary.

IDIOT.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite - I guess you didn't read the article. Keep your fingers in your ears. you're going to need sound cancelling headphones once hillary gets the nomination. One of the most corrupt pols in our history.

Posted by: I can't hear you, thanks bose | September 12, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

People, don't feed the trolls. We've got people posting here that large portions of America support OBL, clearly they just want a fight and aren't interested in discussing politics. They're just throwing rhetorical hate-bombs. Ignore them, do not rise to the bait and they will crawl back under the hole from whence they came.

Posted by: Zookepper | September 12, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The rambling bin Laden denounces not only "major corporations" and "neoconservatives," he delivers a queerly disjointed history of the Vietnam War, promotes conspiracy theories and blasphemes Christianity -- sound familiar? But the most common goal of both al Qaeda and Democrats remains defeating George W. Bush. Don't forget the video released by bin Laden right before the elections, in October 2004. In clear defiance of U.S. campaign finance reform laws, he managed to spew gems worthy of Chuck Schumer:


It never occurred to us that the Commander-in-Chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important....Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.
Media reaction? Well, try this from Walter Cronkite: "So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

The lesson is, that the lies and distortions of anyone will be tolerated by much of the media, if they are in the service of left-wing causes. Yet, both congressional Democrats and bin Laden, although prone to using similar methods, might soon be facing opposite horns of the same dilemma: victory in Iraq. The difference is that although it would be a big defeat for both of them, some of them will technically be on the "winning" side.

Posted by: why we need Fox | September 12, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

So he's back, I suppose; Osama bin Laden. And boy, do we need him for many reasons, not the least being that he helps us draw some interesting comparisons. Many have pointed out the similarity between bin Laden's comments and those of certain members of the Democratic left, but there's more to it than mere words. They have a commonality as regards methodology as well.

While it's true that the words of the head of al Qaeda read like a socialist manifesto -- dire warnings regarding global warming, the evils of corporate interests and the dreary invocation of the Vietnam War -- the most amazing similarity is bin Laden's near-total disregard for the truth combined with an almost eerie confidence that this will be ignored by America's leftist media.

Like a Democratic congressman trying to reconcile his "support" for our troops while regaling his listeners with tales of their barbarity and failures, bin Laden's latest is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Yet, typical of the media coverage was CBS shouting, "Bin Laden Expert: He's Winning," while the unbiased folks over at AP chose to focus, not on the ravings of a cold, calculating killer, but on the "taunting" and "provocative" manner in which the Bush White House dealt with the issue.

Of course, there are reports that it is not the real bin Laden on the video, but an imposter who is dreadfully in need of some tonsorial advice. Maybe he and the former junior senator from North Carolina can exchange tips on hair coloring and "the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives."

Posted by: why we need drudge | September 12, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

JEP -is that a black helicopter hovering outside your window? quick, activate the tin foil hat.

I keep forgetting you guys are so smart you've won how many presidential elections? so smart Bush fooled you into voting for a war? so smart you couldn't count ballots properly? so smart you still can't get a grip on reality?

Posted by: loony conspiracy guys | September 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"Osama bin Laden embodies everything liberal Democrats love in a leader."

Jep: I thought intractable religious fundamentalism, even at the cost of human life, was a Republican Party requirement?


PURE GOLD.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"The New York papers, even the Times, are giving the Hsu story significant coverage, since it involves a home-state senator. But the scandal is getting very little TV coverage, and the other stories even less. "

Because it's not a scandal. She recieved money from a donor (legal), who committed a crime (unrelated to Hillary), and then she returned all of the money when informed (Honorable). Nothing untoward happened here at all from Hillary's side, and I'm not even a Hillary backer.

Now, why we need drudge is because he's linking to foreign press artiles we never see here, like today, where it turns out that syria might have a nuclear weapon site. I think that's pretty important and apolitical to boot.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Will Hillary Go Down in Corruption Scandals?
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5741_0_3_0_C/

there is hope for Barack Obama. He will need the help of the NYT. will he get it? the clinton corruption is bubbling to the surface. Drudge, get to work.

Posted by: corrupt clintons | September 12, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I think all these pro-Drudge posts are coming from the source...

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"Osama bin Laden embodies everything liberal Democrats love in a leader."

I thought intractable religious fundamentalism, even at the cost of human life, was a Republican Party requirement?

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Drudge posts from the 1990s | September 12, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Is your lock on the news media so important that you can't win an elction without it? Seems so. all the vitriol for fox news is now aimed at Drudge. you all are a bunch of weaklings. why are the ratings so high and the Lib ratings sinking like a stone. think about it. you are not a majority. the rest of us want the truth."

If that's the case, then why do you consult Drudge?

The only reason Drudge might be considered influential is because the MSM has made him so.

He's not a journalist... He is an aggregator of rumors.

Posted by: b | September 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

The strange story of Democratic fat cat donor Norman Hsu is rich and revealing, but it certainly isn't the only controversy that puts the lie to the Democratic claim to have ended the culture of corruption. Other embarrassing developments include the fine assessed to Americans Coming Together, the group backed by Democratic donor George Soros; the New Jersey corruption scandal that has cast a wide net over state Democrats; and Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton's legal troubles with former donor Peter Paul.

The New York papers, even the Times, are giving the Hsu story significant coverage, since it involves a home-state senator. But the scandal is getting very little TV coverage, and the other stories even less.

By one count, each of the big three broadcast networks did one in depth story about the strange case of Hsu, and one follow-up. But nothing is being done so far in the major media to suggest this is a scandal that reflects badly on the Clintons.

Posted by: why we need drudge | September 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"when Matt Drudge links to a Fix topic the average IQ around here drops by at least 30 points."

I would guess it is actually triple digits, considering the usual crowd, (with one exception,) is probably one of the smartest on the blogs.

Add some Drudgeheads, and that changes it all precipitously... It is bad enough there's a Drudgehead hanging out here all the time, but when they come over on a link, it's like someone loosed a boxful of stupid.

Also, from what I have observed, Drudge has a "personal moment" coming very soon, he's so clearly conflicted between his two selves, one of them will have to take over or there's an emotional disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Many Americans still believe that the Democratic Party is filled with patriots who simply view the world and the solutions to its problems from a different vantage point. It is difficult to say when this ceased to be the case. Probably in 1972 when they nominated George McGovern.
Certainly, there are registered Democrats who love their country and a handful of Democrat elected officials who still support our nation's best interests. But the core, the heart, the base of the Democratic Party has become a loony gaggle of special interest groups on the fringes of American civilization.
They are driven by far-left ideology, and they are represented by the likes of paranoid billionaire George Soros and the organizations he supports. MoveOn.org, a web site originally founded to defend Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has morphed into a collection of political crazies, as has the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and a number of others.
These hateful organizations represent the views of the hardcore voters who participate in Democrat primaries, and many of them are not happy with today's crop of Democrats. Hillary Clinton, who has spent the last forty years of her life devoted to a left-wing ideology, is not liberal enough for many of these people. Her realization that she cannot win a general election without offending them has given some in her campaign heartburn.

Barrack Obama is too militaristic for them after his threat to invade Pakistan. Recently, even the traditional idols of the left, the Kennedys, have run afoul of some in the blogosphere's hate machine. It seems that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and his Uncle Ted are opposed to the construction of a wind farm on Nantucket Sound because it would be visible from the area where they sail their yachts.

So who can a leftist wacko really love these days? It has to be someone who, first and foremost, hates George Bush. That's a given. Then there is the requirement that the United States surrender to al-Qaida and leave Iraq immediately.

Of course, this person has to view America as a blight on the rest of the world, especially on all the wonderful, peaceful people of the planet, from Native Americans to the North Vietnamese to the Iraqis. Blaming America first for virtually everything is an absolute requirement.

Environmental extremism is an important part of the agenda, so this political savior would have to spout the PC line on global warming. And, of course, capitalism must be regarded as a bane that has brought misery to all who have ever suffered under it.

But what leader could possibly fill the bill for American lefties? Why, Osama bin Laden, of course. The world's most famous terrorist has delivered a new message, via videotape, much of it to the American people.

Bin Laden rambles through his latest screed reciting the same kind of nonsense made famous by America haters across the Internet and even in public life. He blathers on about how Donald Rumsfeld was somehow responsible for killing two million people in Vietnam. He tells us how concerned he is about America's sub-prime mortgage "crisis." He blames the U.S. for global warming. He criticizes congressional Democrats for continuing the war in Iraq and warns that America will lose. He invites us all to embrace Islam. And most important, he excoriates the American people for electing George W. Bush to a second term, telling us that we are "not innocent."

Osama bin Laden embodies everything liberal Democrats love in a leader. In fact, if he were standing on the stage at one of their presidential debates, spouting the same ideas he put forth in his latest video, he would be a bona fide hit among their base.
Yes, the loony left has finally found their candidate.

Posted by: doug | September 12, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Lib and I go to Drudge daily. He has a republican tilt, yes, which he's entitled to, but he doesn't just smear the left. If you'd bother to go you'd see he's always breaking another republican coke-prostitution-illegal contract scandal. He's a muckraker. He rakes both sides.

Watch out, a lot of that growing base will be dems. His content is getting more and more balanced as time goes on. Thanks in part because people like me view it, and send tips about stories he's missed, like the murder-suicide of the florida republican pollster.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 12, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I actually used to get the Drudge Report way back in the days before the Web, when the Internet was just all ASCII text. It used to come as an e-mail, and it was almost entirely Hollywood focused -- almost no politics. Interestingly, if you search groups.google.com and isolate just like the mid-1990s (i.e., 1993-199), you can find several posting to him. He was obsessed with Barbara Streisand and Madonna in a way that only a good gay man would be.

Posted by: Back in the Day | September 12, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Jake Tapper at ABC News reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page anti-war advocacy sliming of General David Petraeus. /snip/ MoveOn.org received a $102,000 discount on the standard political advocacy rate that is advertised at $167,157.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Why are all you Libs afraid of another voice? what happened to debate and let the chips fall where they may? Are your stances so weak they can't stand up to the light of day?

Of course news that is reported within minutes has errors. Even the NYT, WaPo and networks commit this flaw.

Is your lock on the news media so important that you can't win an elction without it? Seems so. all the vitriol for fox news is now aimed at Drudge. you all are a bunch of weaklings. why are the ratings so high and the Lib ratings sinking like a stone. think about it. you are not a majority. the rest of us want the truth.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 12, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Regular readers of The Fix are familiar with our contention that Matt Drudge and his linkfest known as the Drudge Report are influential..."

Regular readers of The Fix's COMMENT section are familiar with the contention that when Matt Drudge links to a Fix topic the average IQ around here drops by at least 30 points.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 12, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The real story here isn't just Drudge but the connection between Drudge and politico.com, which Chris won't touch because his former colleagues from the Post work there. Drudge's screaming headlines and politico's alerts match daily, and are even taken down from their sites in tandem.

Why anyone thinks Drudge is an increasing influence is beyond me. Why Cillizza chose to "profile" him and amplify the New York magazine article, only Chris can say. Why Drudge supports those right-wingers who would put his people in boxcars if they had their way, only Matt can say.

Posted by: TeddySanFran | September 12, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I for one read Drudge everyday. His site represents what is possible in the new media. No longer are stories filtered through the East Coast Newsrooms but instead Drudge provides information to all who are interested. Sure sometimes it is wrong but then a lot of Mainstream media get it wrong as well. And I would like to think that as an intelligent reader I can decide what to believe and what not believe. The only reason liberals don't like Drudge is because they know how powerful he is and that they cannot control him.

Posted by: fetzer | September 12, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The Drudge Report does act as a "bulletin board" and its uniqueness stems from the fact that it is constantly updated with current news.
Nevertheless Drudge has become influential because it has become a source for lazy talking heads on cable tv and radio. Need a topic other than Anna Nicole Smith, Lindsay Lohan or Britnet Spears? Hmmmm...lets see what Drudge has.

Posted by: ASL3676 | September 12, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I used to call the DRUDGE REPORT the SLUDGE REPORT due to its obvious tilt towards anything proposed by the GOP. Is Matt just another highly paid GOP huckster or the real item? Hard to say. Lots of rumors abound about his personal life which is really no one's business except Matt's.

Posted by: Jim Guinnessey | September 12, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I have never read "Drudge" and was only aware that the name came up as a "source" in conventional media. Thus I have learned something here, CC, from you, and from Andy R. I understand the college BB analogy.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

"and growing more so"

Not hardly. This hack is on a downward spiral, as his credibility gap continues to grow.

Talk about a poundit!

"Drudgery" (with a capital D) is the new internet term for partisan political conspiracy bewtween right wing poundits.

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Drudge is that the MSM use it as a source. Thereby repeating "stories" that are many times not true, or haven't been verified by a second source. The MSM doesn't have to worry about getting sued since they add on their broadcasts or in print "as reported by the Drudge report."

Brian Williams may be right that it is 'America's bulletin board', but if you have ever seen a bulletin board on a college campus you know that 95% of it is full of it. The same goes for Drudge.

Posted by: Andy R | September 12, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Drudge - The Walter Winchell of the 21st Century. Facts and accuracy don't matter to him either. Drudge should not be called a journalist.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

dRUDGE IS a propogating fascist. He regularly leaves out news unfavorable to the gop, daily. his, is a site for republcians war-mongers, period.

Go after his advertisers. I'm calling Mercury today. And asking why they are doing this to us.

Posted by: RUFUS | September 12, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company