Al Zaqawi arrested - Drudge

Re: drudge

nightwind said:
Well drudge report mainly tries to break stories first, I have noticed that they many times they are not concerned with the accuracy, but just say developing...... It can then develop into a hoax or a factual story. If they get it right, then they crow about it, if wrong, it is just dropped, and folks forget.

But you can use it as a kind of tip sheet, and then further research to see if there is any truth. You just have to see it for what it is.

Many times I have noticed that news organizations over do it in trying to sensationalize things to just grab you to watch, and then the story turns out to be bogus.

I was watching some newscasters on fox last night talking about what sounded like "hoards of pedophiles" invading the tsunami stricken area snatching up kids at every opportunity. This was based up sighting of one missing boy being seen walking off with a man, and some unsubstantiated reports of rapes in some village somewhere.

It seems to me that to have credibility, the news organizations need to report the facts, and stop trying to sensationalize and make a story into something it is not.

But again, use drudge to just maybe tip you off to look for more information and not for facts.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. That's why the thread mentions the Drudge source in its title, I immediately invoked the 48 hour rule and qualified each and every applicable statement thereafter with variations of, "if this turns out to be true."

Apparently these were not enough red flags for the Danish Dipsh*t and the Australian A$$hole. But since everyone else seemed to get the point, I figure I'll still be able to sleep at night in spite of their confusion.

Drudge breaks news . He doesn't check it out thoroughly. Everyone knows this, or should. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. And as noted above, he addresses the misses as much as the hits. So while Manifesto and Claus wait for something to make it into the friggin' encyclopedia before they'll consider it, I'll stick to the 21st century.
 
Re: Re: drudge

Jocko said:
I couldn't agree more. That's why the thread mentions the Drudge source in its title, I immediately invoked the 48 hour rule and qualified each and every applicable statement thereafter with variations of, "if this turns out to be true."

Apparently these were not enough red flags for the Danish Dipsh*t and the Australian A$$hole. But since everyone else seemed to get the point, I figure I'll still be able to sleep at night in spite of their confusion.

Drudge breaks news . He doesn't check it out thoroughly. Everyone knows this, or should. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong. And as noted above, he addresses the misses as much as the hits. So while Manifesto and Claus wait for something to make it into the friggin' encyclopedia before they'll consider it, I'll stick to the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't recall saying anything one way or another about whether you were personally responsible for what Drudge said. In fact, I could have sworn I said something like, "I hope it doesn't turn out to be true, imagine how much trouble it would cause finding another Goldstien". Obviously, though, I'm much mistaken. Tell you what, Jocko, would you go to page 1 for me and tell me what I did write?

PS- your monomania towards me is getting a little unsettling. Can't you just get a girlfriend or something?
 
Re: Re: Re: drudge

Mr Manifesto said:

PS- your monomania towards me is getting a little unsettling. Can't you just get a girlfriend or something?
Click to expand...

Boy, what an ego. I'm still waiting for you to send your mom to my door with a rolling pin. Although I do appreciate that you're finally connecting "Manifesto" with "A$$hole" with less prompting. You college kids are SO malleable.
 
Re: Re: drudge

Jocko said:

Drudge breaks news . He doesn't check it out thoroughly. Everyone knows this, or should. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
Click to expand...

I think there is a big difference between printing every unsubstantiated rumour that comes your way because there aren't any Replicans giving you the records from Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony any more, and actually presenting news that has a good chance it might be true.
 
Re: Re: Re: drudge

a_unique_person said:
I think there is a big difference between printing every unsubstantiated rumour that comes your way because there aren't any Replicans giving you the records from Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony any more, and actually presenting news that has a good chance it might be true.
Click to expand...

I think the caveats posted in the title and OP would be enough... unless you are too blind to see them. I suggest you find a good opthamologist.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: drudge

a_unique_person said:
I was commenting on Drudge, his glory days are over, he has served his purpose.
Click to expand...

Point taken, which is why I include the caveats. Still, when he hits, it's usually a big one. And when he misses, he cops to it. That's more journalistic integrity than you'll see from CBS.
 
I used to scan Drudge daily, until the day a few years ago when he revealed the end of the movie "The Planet of the Apes," before it was released.

He did this like it was some kind of breaking news headline, when in reality, almost any Hollywood insider knew or had ready access to this information. All he does is pick up rumor that his contacts tell him on the phone, and if it seems sufficiently interesting, and screams it out like it's some kind of big, important headline. In the case that made him famous, he caught wind of a story that Newsweek had long been working on through hard news investigation, and then, without benefit of research or verification, beat them to their own punch. (That was the Lewinsky story.)

In any case, I haven't been to his site since Planet of the Apes, because, what a friggin' prick, spoiling a movie because he could pretend a movie plot is news. He'll roast in Hell.
 
hgc said:
I used to scan Drudge daily, until the day a few years ago when he revealed the end of the movie "The Planet of the Apes," before it was released.

He did this like it was some kind of breaking news headline, when in reality, almost any Hollywood insider knew or had ready access to this information. All he does is pick up rumor that his contacts tell him on the phone, and if it seems sufficiently interesting, and screams it out like it's some kind of big, important headline. In the case that made him famous, he caught wind of a story that Newsweek had long been working on through hard news investigation, and then, without benefit of research or verification, beat them to their own punch. (That was the Lewinsky story.)

In any case, I haven't been to his site since Planet of the Apes, because, what a friggin' prick, spoiling a movie because he could pretend a movie plot is news. He'll roast in Hell.
Click to expand...

Presumably you mean the 2001 version and not the 1968 original. I agree the fun of this movie is the ending, but even
more, figuring out the ending:

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/2001ending.htm
 
Too bad. It would have been a good stroke of luck for people willing to fight terrorists.
 
Yeah too bad....

But still and all, I'd have to say that as long as you keep the 48 hour rule first in mind it's fun to hear these rumors/reports as quite often this is how a real event breaks. Due to the internet we get to see the initial, raw word on breaking world events. Often enough it's BS...but it's always fun when it turns out to be true and you heard it first! ;)

Just make sure not to put any actual stock in it until it pans out!
-z
 
Re: Re: drudge

Jocko said:
Drudge breaks news ....
Click to expand...

Actually, it would seem to me that Drudge breaks rummors and inuendo that occassionally collide with fact... he can't be breaking news if some significant percentage of it doesn't turn out to be true or factually consistent and verifiable...just an observation on the concept of breaking "news" -- not arguing about Drudge (who does qualify his site).
 
Re: Re: Re: drudge

headscratcher4 said:
Actually, it would seem to me that Drudge breaks rummors and inuendo that occassionally collide with fact... he can't be breaking news if some significant percentage of it doesn't turn out to be true or factually consistent and verifiable...just an observation on the concept of breaking "news" -- not arguing about Drudge (who does qualify his site).
Click to expand...

I believe that Dredge cut his teeth as the Beloved Leader's press secretary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom