As an insider, he often gets to break the news first. But that certainly doesn't mean he breaks it well, or tastefully, or informatively. His tone is that of a gossiper, not an editor or reporter. His web 1.0 website only adds to this lack of depth in the way he presents politics. If Matt Drudge is to remain a chief arbiter of how Americans read politics, then god help us.

Well I almost never visit Drudge. But I do go to the Huffpo once in a while and I always give up on them because that whole website is so loaded down with ads and gizmos whatnot that my computer starts straining from the load and I can't do anything else. So there's something to be said for 'web 1.0.'

The beauty and idiocy of his website is in its simplicity. But the man is a link-poster, not a reporter. He doesn't fact-check, he doesn't investigate anything himself. He lets others do the work, finds the most provocative titles he can muster up for their work, and links it. He does this regardless of whether or not he receives confirmation on the story. I would enjoy a hit-to-miss count of the false stories he's posted as gospel-truth. If you post everything you hear and read without checking accuracy, it's easy to be one of the first to break anything that turns out to be true. But it doesn't make you a reporter.

Well I almost never visit Drudge. But I do go to the Huffpo once in a while...

oh jeez. huffpoo. isn't that place for victim obsessed junior high school girls?

@irvingchang

i thought you would have hung yourself by now. whats with the delay?

KevDurden, what DOES make you a reporter? Near as I can tell reading MSM stuff from this most recent presidential campaign, being a reporter is now defined as inserting one's personal opinion and slant into a "news story." Sure the heck doesn't resemble what I was taught, the five "Ws" and getting both sides of the story...how is Drudge any different from the NYTimes (McCain affair story, Al Qa Qa fiasco), CBS (Rathergate) or Newsweek (good lord, where does one start with that rag)...help me out here. I still believe readers/viewers can form their own opinions given a set of facts. But I also believe editors/producers don't hold that view, and the numerous studies (PEW being the most damning) bear that out.

So why NOT Drudge?

His partisan reportage - changing headlines of linked stories to reflect his biases, and posting insulting and silly pictures of Dems and folks on the Left - is laughable. He makes Faux News really look "fair and balanced" by comparison...:)

It's the place that scares off partisan Righties like you with facts....:)

How long are you conservatives going to keep this pathetic Media Bias myth alive? Fox News and NBC are biased News channels for the right and left. So are the NYtimes and the WSJ. And there are plenty of news outlets (CNN, the Economist) that maintained neutrality. Its ridiculous to assert that the "MSM" took a side, and it makes you all look as uninformed as you are sore losers.

Drudge is far worse than a biased news source - he is a hysterical one. I would much rather read an anti-Obama piece in the journal or the NYpost than some neutral Obama news item from Drudge wh's headline ends in "!!!!"

Anyone who thinks Drudge is irrelevant is deluded, and probably is (ideologically) on the receving end of his bludgeon. If you can get past the irrationality of hating everyone that doesn't agree with you politically (and disagrees well), you'll see that numbers don't lie. Where the NYTimes gets a circulation of 1.1 million, Drudge gets about 5-10 times that many readers on any given day. He just posts links? Um, that's what MSM does today when they pool coverage and buy AP stories.

When you have presidential candidates (including Hillary Clinton) calling you directly for exclusives, when you break news before multi-million dollar cable outfits like CNN and BBC, (GLOBAL EXCLUSIVE with that ridiculous police flash), and when you have a traffic flow on your website in 9 figures, you're more than relevant. (the ones who say he's irrelevant probably think Daily Kos is in the same ballpark as Drudge... delusions, delusions)

Matt Drudge isn't irrelevant. Heidi Montag isn't irrelevant either. They are both more well known than most other people in their fields. But it doesn't mean that they offer much of value. The way Drudge presents news just contributes to the dumbed-down crying game of soundbite journalism.

I could care less about his biases. But reading his page's presentation of politics, you would think we live in some banana republic. Its cheap sensationalism, a tabloid, the ultimate echo chamber. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to exist, but I am hoping that people recognize this as fundamentally different form a legit news site, where one would expect more depth and detail.

But reading his page's presentation of politics, you would think we live in some banana republic. Its cheap sensationalism, a tabloid, the ultimate echo chamber.

you mean katie couric doesn't?

Far less than Drudge, thats for sure.

I think it's time for you to gently scratch a backwards "L" into your forehead.

CMartin65:

KevDurden, what DOES make you a reporter? Near as I can tell reading MSM stuff from this most recent presidential campaign, being a reporter is now defined as inserting one's personal opinion and slant into a "news story." Sure the heck doesn't resemble what I was taught, the five "Ws" and getting both sides of the story...how is Drudge any different from the NYTimes (McCain affair story, Al Qa Qa fiasco), CBS (Rathergate) or Newsweek (good lord, where does one start with that rag)...help me out here. I still believe readers/viewers can form their own opinions given a set of facts. But I also believe editors/producers don't hold that view, and the numerous studies (PEW being the most damning) bear that out.

So why NOT Drudge?

Because he doesn't do his own investigations or reporting. He links to other people's work. Without checking their accuracy. That's a linker, not a reporter.

You actually have to get information that wasn't readily available before. Drudge doesn't do that.