For instance, he links to an article on Katherine Harris' soon-to-be-failed senate bid. He also links to a story on McCain's poor showing in a straw poll at some Republican event. That's all I could find as I type this--the point being that he does seem to at least attempt to be balanced.
However, it's far easier to bag on Drudge for being conservative--even pro-big-brotherian. Check out the below screengrab I took just moments ago:
Does he really think we don't know what "F--" and "B-lls" means? Does he really think kids who would be to young to use such words would be looking at his site? Come on, Matt--
F-U-C-K
B-A-L-L-S
Hell, Steven Colbert says the latter on his 4-times-a-week show all the time. You really think your site visitors are so delicate that they can't handle these two words?
Have a look at another screen grab--this one vanished from DrudgeReport.Com just moments ago:
Hey, Drudge--who exactly were the guys at the Boston Tea Party? I've heard quite a few Democrats, Republicans and others describe what the American colonies did to Great Britain in 1776 to be insurgency and even terrorism--not to mention insurrection. As much as I dislike the Wachowski brother's work, I feel like they just might be right on this one.
And finally:
If you follow the link for that headline you get to an article about Crash director, Paul Haggis, being in talks to direct a movie version of former terrorism czar, Richard Clarke's book about 911 and the build-up to the Iraq war. Hardly a polemic against Bush, it's about much more than how Bush screwed up, it's about the events surrounding events that dramatically changed our world. It's only Bush's massive mistakes during these events that lead one to sensationalize the book's content by calling it "anti-Bush."
I could go on, but like I said, these were the easiest targets. :) Still, these are indicative of Drudge's "hard news" gathering "style." I find it really depressing how all he has to do is provide headlines to stories and he assumably makes enough money to survive on. Some of us amateurs out here are actually pointing out not just stories we think people should know about but we actually make the effort to come up with commentary that explains why we said stories should be known about in the first place.
You know, we bother to do--what do you call it--A JOB.
It must be sooooo hard to sit around all day simply linking to other people's articles. The really sad thing is I'll keep going to his site because no one else posts links to these types of stories as often as he does. It's a good site to get a quick dose of what's "wrong" with the world. I just wish he could hire a staff and provide some of his own content (no, I don't count those piddly two or three paragraph posts he throws up every now and again).
OH YEAH, and why the fuck does Drudge always link to that Brietbart site?? WTF is that site and what idiot named it? What does that even mean "Brietbart"??? Why not "Bootbweet"? How about "BratBeert"? In today's day and age I feel like it is disrespectful to your target audience to not bother to come up with a domain name your site visitors will be able to remember AND find fitting to the work you do. Would you buy groceries from a store called "BweepBob"? How about hardware from a place called "Hambopboogie"?
Perhaps Bush should rename America "Boombwop."
Also, these guys are never linked to on News.Google.Com, either, which makes me suspicious of them even more.
Ultimately, I think Drudge is too scared to put himself out there and let us know that he really can't spell, or worse, really doesn't have the chops to be even a "real" amateur journalist like many news bloggers really are these days.
This is just my opinion, of course--your mileage may vary.
No comments:
Post a Comment