Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
It's not like there's a repercussion here if Drudge is wrong. Again. So why is this a ballsy move?
I check Drudge first every day because he's certain to have anything really interesting even if the MSM won't touch it yet.With that advantage goes a false alarm rate, but at least it's an agenda-free false alarm rate.
rhhardin, as usual, gets it right--must be that bicylcing and doberman thing. Drudge is an entrepreneur and has every reason to skew the headlines to get the link which in turn impresses the advertisers. Free markets are indeed wonderful.And rh's point is absolutely on target--Drudge is the source of the stories the media wont touch: some pan out, others dont. All are hype. Were it not for drudge, Clinton would have gotten his hummers from Monica until January 2001, and Monica would probably have been on the payroll. Thought exercise: what would Monica's job title have been in the Clinton white house? :)
Sullivan dallies somewhere between smug and cocksure on this one.
"Thought exercise: what would Monica's job title have been in the Clinton white house? :)"Official Cigar Humidor
Big butt, our Sully. Big ego too.
Dear lady, I do very much enjoy your writings, but I do have a small issue---you've linked to that self-righteous, abrasive, mentally unbalanced (watch the end of the video of the discussion at the Cato Institute between him and David Brooks) Limey again. As long as people link to him, he has credibility. Please stop linking to him. The fastest way to kill a pundit is to show he or she is not relevant to the conversation. The only things that Limey has done well this campaign season is say viciously personal comments about Mrs Clinton (bordering on misogyny), lick Mr Obama's loafers, and damn Mr McCain with faint praise. Outside of that, he has shown NO indications of what *was* a first rate mind....at one time.
Sordid Business said... [text of old comment removed]You are a couple of weeks early for re-run season. Please come back when have something more to say that a cut and paste of a posting from months ago...
Imagine an America in which Andrew Sullivan thinks he is a winner.Yuck.
Drudge is a moron. He can find news, but beyond that he's pretty dim. He often links to engineering or scientific stories, headlining them with tabloidy, but incorrect headlines. I tried to correct him on one, once, and he got all angry about it.
Sullivan's usual curiosity about and envy of another man's balls.By pointing out that Drudge has big balls, Sullivan infers that his own are not big.
And rh's point is absolutely on target--Drudge is the source of the stories the media wont touch: some pan out, others dont.He's just like a real journalist! Except he doesn't have to do anything hard like check his sources or be responsible for what he publishes!Do you realize how stupid you people sound? He does exactly what you claim you hate the MSM for, but because he has a blog, apparently he can publish anything he wants even it is completely wrong.
Freder--in the wildest fever swamps of your fetid imagination, have I EVER called Matt Drudge a "journalist?" You perhaps failed to read or understand these two comments I made in my post: (1) "Drudge is an entrepreneur and has every reason to skew the headlines to get the link which in turn impresses the advertisers." (2) "All are hype" I don't know which of your personas is worse: JFThomas on Volokh or Freder Frederson on Althouse. Both personas are carbuncles on the ass of free speech.
He's just like a real journalist! Except he doesn't have to do anything hard like check his sources or be responsible for what he publishes!Like you said: he's just like a real journalist. :)
All you need to be a journalist is to write something every day.Same root as diurnal.The other qualifications are just marketing.
have I EVER called Matt Drudge a "journalist?"You obviously don't get the concept of a simile or sarcasm.
Freder: I get the concepts of simile and sarcasm quite well, thank you. In fact, I even employed a simile in my 1:57 post. If that was your intent, you really need to work on your delivery.
OMG--before MM jumps on me for mistaking simile for metaphor, please substitute metaphor for simile in my post above. Phew.
I enjoy reading Sullivan. Every 6 months he does wander off the reservation and you do start to see the behavior that other bloggers chide him for. This is pretty much the same - he is so gung-ho for Obama that he is absolutely certain that everyone who isn't is not just wrong, but nefariously so in some way. Which is where I come unstuck with Sullivan. For someone who has spent the last two years banging on about how President Bush isn't a real conservative it strikes me as a tad wacky that he's thrown his lot in with someone who is ideologically opposed to everything he stands for. This isn't even in the "one-issue voter" category.
I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person to the right of Hillary Clinton who actually thinks Sullivan is a conservative.
When did I become the grammar hawk?FTR, I confuse metaphors and similes all the time. I tried to think up a clever simile for this paragraph but failed.
Post a Comment