• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

why Drudge?

varwoche

Penultimate Amazing
Staff member
varwoche
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
18,218
Location
Puget Sound
Drudge is a phenomenon I don't get. He's the toilet of journalism, adhering to the "if you throw enough pieces of sh** against the wall, one will stick" school of "journalism". Politics aside, it's an ordinary portal, it raises popups, and it auto-refreshes (lame!). I personally hold Drudge and his slimy little web page in low esteem.

Yet I visit the damn thing daily, all the while contributing to the weasel's click counter. Any recommendations on news portals? One thing I like about Drudge is the list of columnists. (I already use google news.)

And yes, I've searched. That's that problem, there are countless to pick from. I click thru, the experience is forgettable, I move on.
 
Drudge has broken a number of stories and a bombshell with Monica. He has screwed up and there is NO editorial responsibility. I read Drudge every day along with many reporters and pundits. I think it would be wrong to simply dismiss Drudge out of hand. He certainly has been willing to post stories that are unflatering to Republicans and the administration. If he has an agenda it is to his own sense of right and wrong.

One more vendor in the marketplace of ideas.

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."
--Thomas Jefferson

And let's be clear here. Jefferson was excoriated by the press. And the press was not all that professional in his time.

No, I'm damn glad Drudge is there. "nothing good comes from Nazareth" and neither it appears from the right side of the aisle.

RandFan
 
The amount of outright fabrication that Drudge prints is why I would dismiss him out of hand. If he "breaks" a story, a reputable news organization will also pick it up. Hey, credit where it's due, but I won't read him without a reality filter.

If you're looking for a feed, just use google. They've automated the process, so their own bias (liberal) doesn't really get thrown into the mix. Their bot spiders through thousands of news sites, picks a copy of a certain news item, and posts it. The process is very clean, and it's easy to get to all the important stuff without a lot of work.
 
Drudge stories are rarely fabricated - he's run with stories that haven't checked out, but rarely. The only one I can think if was the 'Kerry girlfriend' story.
His site is sort of the 'National Enquirer' of politics... pretty superficial and shallow, and the editorial slant is pretty pronounced. Having said that, he often breaks stories before other outlets have them, and he links to just about every news source you could want.
It's a mixed bag.
 
Drudge stories are rarely fabricated
Click to expand...

ANY amount of fabrication is too much. Not just talking about lack of fact checking here. Talking about outright lies. That is never acceptable. One lie, one tiny known lie, is enough for me to entirely dismiss the entire body of work of any journalist. It calls into question everything they've said.
 
Drudge's father, Bob, has an interesting site called refdesk . "Single page retro design" on steroids. (With news links in the center column towards the bottom.)
 
Fade said:
The amount of outright fabrication that Drudge prints is why I would dismiss him out of hand. If he "breaks" a story, a reputable news organization will also pick it up. Hey, credit where it's due, but I won't read him without a reality filter.
Click to expand...
I don't listen to any news without a reality filter. It's called critical thinking.

I know that a number of stories have been on Drudge that likely wouldn't have been if there had been some editorial supervision. But Drudge is hardly alone on that front. Many if not all news organizations have reported fabrication.
 
crackmonkey said:
Drudge stories are rarely fabricated - he's run with stories that haven't checked out, but rarely. The only one I can think if was the 'Kerry girlfriend' story.
Click to expand...
The one that comes to my mind is the allegation that Clinton administration advisor Sidney Blumental (a fine journalist in his own regard) had physically assaulted his wife.

No, Drudge is...drudgery.
 
I don't listen to any news without a reality filter. It's called critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Critical thinking isn't enough, not by far. Without being physically present at a place, I need to rely on the perceptions of others to relay to me what happened. I need to put my trust in them, that they are being somewhat honest, and somewhat accurate. This is why, with nearly any news story of any import, I fact check across many news organizations in as many different countries as I can. Sometimes it takes the perspectives of a dozen agencies until I feel I have a grasp on what actually happened.
 
Fade said:
Critical thinking isn't enough, not by far. Without being physically present at a place, I need to rely on the perceptions of others to relay to me what happened. I need to put my trust in them, that they are being somewhat honest, and somewhat accurate. This is why, with nearly any news story of any import, I fact check across many news organizations in as many different countries as I can. Sometimes it takes the perspectives of a dozen agencies until I feel I have a grasp on what actually happened.
Click to expand...
No argument but you are really just describing a process that is a natural result of critical thinking. That is why I don't dismiss Drudge or any one out of hand. I tend not to bother with anything too unlikely to be believable but I don't think Drudge fits that description. IMO.
 
No argument but you are really just describing a process that is a natural result of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

This statement serves no purpose.

I said, in the statement you quoted, that critical thinking wasn't enough, not that it wasn't important.

Reasoning alone is not enough to find truth. You can't "reason" reality. It just doesn't work that way.

That is why I don't dismiss Drudge or any one out of hand. I tend not to bother with anything too unlikely to be believable but I don't think Drudge fits that description. IMO.
Click to expand...
[Emphasis mine]

You have displayed the opposite of critical thinking. What is "too unlikely?" Do you get to judge what is and is not likely? If not, then whom? You should almost never dismiss a claim out of hand because it sounds implausible. Our world is full of things that seem implausible, yet are undoubtedly true.

I dismiss Drudge because he has (historical fact) lied. One lie spoils the bunch. Which is why I have already said if Drudge breaks a story, kudos to him, but I will always wait until it's independantly verified. He has 0 instant credibility, because of his lies and painfully obvious biased agenda.
 
He never made stories up... he has reported stories relayed to him that turned out to be untrue.
Do you boycott the NYT or the BBC for their more egregious errors? the NYT published numerous stories that were complete fabrications by Blair. The BBC broadcast Gilligan's reporting that was found to be fabrications during the Iraq war. The BBC's editorial staff also made no effort to hide their editcorial slant during the war - they publicly declared their official stance was anti-war.
In regard to Blumenthal - that was again a story that was relayed to him. He was negligent in publishing something that hadn't been properly vetted, but he didn't invent the story. Blumenthal sued Drudge over the story, and the judge threw the suit out for the reasons I stated.
 
I used to go to Drudge's page regularly, which was mostly unsatisfying. Most of his news links are to dumb, uninteresting stories in British tabloids.

The Monica story that he "broke" was simply him getting whiff of the story that was already under way by Newsweek. But not being bound by the basic journalistic procedure of checking a story out, Drudge could just print it at will.

I finally decided that he is an irredeemable ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and stopped going to his site on the day that he revealed the ending of "The Planet of the Apes" in a screaming "scoop" headline, for no good reason whatsoever.
 
Fade said:
This statement serves no purpose.
Click to expand...
Not to those who don't want it to.

I said, in the statement you quoted, that critical thinking wasn't enough, not that it wasn't important.
Click to expand...
And I AGREED but added that you were just talking about process.

Reasoning alone is not enough to find truth. You can't "reason" reality. It just doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
But you must reason to find the truth.

You have displayed the opposite of critical thinking.
Click to expand...
Why? Because I don't dismiss the stories in Drudge out of hand but look to the quality of the arguments or the data and seek out other sources? You have got to be kidding.

What is "too unlikely?"
Click to expand...
What I deem it to be.

Do you get to judge what is and is not likely?
Click to expand...
For me? YES!!!!!! Odd how that works isn't it?

If not, then whom?
Click to expand...
Fade gets to decide for Fade, hgc gets to decide for hgc, etc.. Freedom is a nasty business. I hope that Fade and hch and others will use critical thinking when making their choices. I can't choose for them though.

You should almost never dismiss a claim out of hand because it sounds implausible. Our world is full of things that seem implausible, yet are undoubtedly true.
Click to expand...
And the sky is blue. Thank you.

I dismiss Drudge because he has (historical fact) lied.
Click to expand...
No he hasn't. He has reported stories that were incorect. BIG DIFFERENCE! It is plausible that he honestly reported an incorrect story based on false information that he recieved. This simply makes him guilty of poor journalism.

Comming to the conclusion that the only explanation for the wrong story that Drudge posted is that he lied is NOT critical thinking.

One lie spoils the bunch. Which is why I have already said if Drudge breaks a story, kudos to him, but I will always wait until it's independantly verified. He has 0 instant credibility, because of his lies and painfully obvious biased agenda.
Click to expand...
Well bully for you. See, isn't freedom a cool thing. Since no one has ever shown Drudge intentionally fabricated the stories on his own and since he posts some interesting (IMO) stories and does a good job of it I get to read him along with CNN, MSNBC, Fox and others. I then get to decide what is and isn't true using critical thinking skills.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
And a whopper of an ad-hom.
Click to expand...
No, not really. He has shown that he is more interested in defending Clinton than getting to the truth which kind of messes up his distinction as a journalist. So I don't see how that is an ad hominem argument. Perhaps you could explain it to me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom