March 24, 2009

Drudge vs. Obama.

This is a particularly sharp composition of photo and headline. Drudge at his best.

65 comments:

Robert Cook said...

"Drudge at his best."

One puzzles over the conundrum in such a statement; it's as if someone had said, "Ptomaine poisoning at it's best," or "A migraine headache at it's best," or, "George Bush at his best."

Seven Machos said...

Robert Cook -- Drudge is among the most popular Internet sites in the world. Millions and millions of hits. The most powerful people on earth consult it multiple times daily.

One puzzles at how you could call something that is so manifestly successful and popular bad. One has to conclude that you are an idiot.

Tell us more about how international law to which the United States has not consented governs the United States. Making an ass of yourself in that arena is really more your forte. Stick to what you know, babe.

Rose said...

The headlines for the last month are SCREAMING "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!" Don't you hear it Robert?

Robert Cook said...

"Drudge is among the most popular Internet sites in the world. Millions and millions of hits. The most powerful people on earth consult it multiple times daily."

If the part of this statement I have bolded is true--and I am skeptical--it explains why "the most powerful people in the world" have made such a fucking mess of things: they're imbeciles.

Seven Machos said...

Robert -- Everybody in politics and media reads Drudge, all the time. Drudge drives all media.

The fact that you won't acknowledge the power and popularity of this guy's made-up newspaper -- he has virtually no content of his own, ever -- merely shows that you are living in a cave of stupidity.

Wake up, dude.

Hoosier Daddy said...

One puzzles at how you could call something that is so manifestly successful and popular bad.

Not puzzling at all. It's a classic liberal reaction to anything successful. Real life example: I have a co-worker who loathes, I mean loathes Starbucks. Not here's the kicker. She's not even a coffee drinker. She just hates the fact that there are a lot of them around and sell $5 lattes to obviously stupid people.

Never mind that they pay their workers a good wage. Never mind they offer medical insurance benefits,401K, tuition reimbursement. Forget that they're one of the most socially conscious crunchy granola corprorations around. They're evil because they had and I quote 'a brilliant marketing campaign that convinced people to pay an obscene price for a cup of coffee.' (end quote).

Oh and Disney's evil too just so you know.

MadisonMan said...

I dislike Starbucks because they drive locally-owned coffee bars out of business -- or they try to. Starbucks coffee is not very good. And every Starbucks is the same. I like variety. But that's not evil in my book. That's just marketing to the herd, which is easily done.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I dislike Starbucks because they drive locally-owned coffee bars out of business -- or they try to.

That's called capitalism MM. Improvise, overcome or adapt. While you may not like thier coffee, evidently enough people do that they prefer it over the local variety. When it comes to food, good marketing won't keep a place alive for long which explains why restraunts and cafes have a life expectancy of about 5 years on average.

That's just marketing to the herd, which is easily done.

Obviously not otherwise Starbucks would have more competition.

Seven Machos said...

I am not a person who frequents hardware stores myself, but I remember reading this article once about the common lament about small business owners getting driven out of business. The author used the hardware store as an example, and pointed that the thing being lamented was crap. It never had what you wanted and prices were ridiculous.

The fact is that these businesses go out of business because they aren't as good, and businesses like them will reappear when they can offer something unique and better.

Take Robert Cook, for example. No one would read his website, because it would be crap. But he can be all upset that Drudge gets millions and millions of hits.

traditionalguy said...

Drudge is Flashy and his headlines have an attitude. That's why people enjoy the Report by Matt Drudge. He is a good reporter who sell hits with headlines like old time "News" papers, while those papers were becoming Pravda organs during the Clinton years. Robert Cook should stick to his NPR where all the reports are thru rose colored glasses of liberal thought and the announcers talk like lovely Kindergarten teachers. Entertainment is needed along with the news these days. So to each his own comfort level.

Jeremy said...

traditionalguy-
"Reporter"? I go there because he's got an interesting news aggregate site that doesn't bury the lede. I didn't realize he does much in the way of original reporting.

Jeremy said...

I've never considered Drudge to be anything other than a conservative who cuts and pastes information others ferret out. With the exception of his initial Monica information I know of no real stories he himself has broken.

As to his headline, it apprantly has little traction with the American public:

"Despite a wounded economy and public furor aimed at Wall Street, a new CBS poll finds President Obama's approval rating has actually gone up.

Sixty-four percent of Americans say they favor the job that Obama is doing right now, a modest increase of two points since CBS's poll earlier this month. More notably, ratings for the president's handling of the overall economy jumped five points, from 56 percent to 61 percent."

Seven Machos said...

Drudge is a brilliant layout editor who has all the world's news soruces as his potential copy. He did once break an interesting story about a stained blue dress.

Seven Machos said...

That's interesting, Jeremy. Has anyone considered you? Like, at all, ever?

AllenS said...

The Drudge Report is like standing in line at the grocery store. You just can't stop looking at the cover of National Enquirer. Even if you don't buy it.

Jeremy said...

Of note: those two Jeremys are not the same person. I'm the funny one. The other is a scold.

Jeremy said...

Seven Machos said..."That's interesting, Jeremy. Has anyone considered you? Like, at all, ever?"

Excuse me?

Jeremy said...

Jeremy said..."Of note: those two Jeremys are not the same person. I'm the funny one. The other is a scold."

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was just comments on Drudge and his impact on American's attitudes.

I realize he's a popular internet figure, but most real "reporters" publish their information in recognized publications or televised news organizations such as Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC and others.

Seven Machos said...

Conservative Drudge headlines at this very hour:

CLAIM: Woman Steals Brand New Breasts...

'SEX SLAY'...

Blizzard shuts down parts of Wyoming, South Dakota...

HOW SASHA COHEN PULLED OFF 'BRUNO'; 31 DIFFERENT FRONT COMPANIES...

Mexican-Border plants to be killed to reveal smugglers...

Call to 'shut down' GOOGLE Street View in UK... Developing...

Japanese astronaut tests stink-free underwear...


And a few of his conservative links:

PAUL KRUGMAN
JOE KLEIN
DAILY KOS
HUFFINGTON POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
BILL PRESS
JAMES WOLCOTT

Jeremy said...

Seven, I'm not going to get into a fight over this, but are you saying Matt Drudge is not a conservative?

Jason (the commenter) said...

I dislike Starbucks because they drive locally-owned coffee bars out of business -- or they try to.

I think that's a myth. Local coffee houses have been helped by Starbucks. Remember, before Starbucks many people were drinking coffee they made themselves. Starbucks made coffee culture accessible to lots of people. It was safe, standardized, and had publicity behind it. Some coffee houses may have gone out of business, but many more sprung up because the public was now willing to pay for quality coffee. Starbucks was the gateway drug of the cafe scene.

Seven Machos said...

Jeremy -- Drudge is trolling for hits. The fact that he doesn't see everything in neat little compartments of conservatism and leftism is hard to get your head around, but try.

Dave TN said...

I think Starbucks has raised the bar on coffee all over the country. The coffee I now get in bagel shops, cafes, and even in a lot of gas station/convenience stores is a lot better than it was 20 years ago.

Starbucks also sells atmosphere, although they've been making several mistakes the last few years.

The comment on the local hardware stores is spot on. It's fun to browse through a small hardware store and marvel at the eclectic collection of odd wares. After your done though, you need to head over to Lowes or Home Depot to actually find what you were searching for in the first place.

Jeremy said...

Seven, Again; I'm not sure of what it is you're trying to say. Are you saying you don't think Matt Drudge is a conservative? Or that you don't want to admit that he is?

Seven Machos said...

Jeremy -- I'm saying that I doubt Drudge considers himself to be a conservative or a leftist. That is obvious. Please learn to read.

I certainly do not consider Drudge to be a conservative. What percentage of, say, the average issue of National Review do you imagine Drudge would agree with? More or less than, say, you?

Fen said...

I realize he's a popular internet figure, but most real "reporters" publish their information in recognized publications or televised news organizations such as Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC and others

Actually they don't. Information they don't like is withheld from public consumption. Case in point - the MSM was sitting on the Lewinsky story until Drudge outed it.

They would have done the same with FR and LGF's breaking of the CBS Memo Fraud, but after Drudge picked it up, they had no choice but to follow him.

Jeremy said...

Seven, If you don't consider Matt Drudge to be a conservative you would be one of the very few, including Matt Drudge:

In 2001, Drudge told the Miami New Times that: "I am a conservative. I'm very much pro-life. If you go down the list of what makes up a conservative, I'm there almost all the way."

Wikipedia: "Drudge was unknown before he began the conservative news aggregation site, the Drudge Report."

"He guest hosted for the conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Drudge gained radio notoriety in the early 2000s by becoming a constant reference for news material on Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's, and Mark Levin's radio shows. He was often acknowledged by conservative Michael Savage as a source of topics for The Savage Nation."

"Republican operatives keep an open line to Drudge, often using him to attack their opponents."

ShadowFox said...

Drudge is among the most popular Internet sites in the world. Millions and millions of hits.

This is quite a joke, because it's really a scam. Do you ever notice how the Drudge page flickers? That's because it updates every few seconds and counts every single update as a separate hit. So, if you leave your browser pointed at Drudge, by the end of the day, you alone will be responsible for a few thousand hits.

Even Drudge's popularity is a lie. What does that say about his content?

ShadowFox said...

Oh and Disney's evil too just so you know.

Disney wasn't evil--he was just a rabid antisemite. Oh, wait! That is evil!

Jeremy said...

Fen, I never said "reporters" publish literally everything they know or investigate. No reporter publishes everything, considering some things either can't be substantiated or may not be that important to their readers or editors.

I said that when they "report," they generally publish it in accepted publications, etc.

Seven Machos said...

Jeremy -- If all that's true, then I stand corrected. I definitely do not view Drudge as a conservative.

Shadow -- Yeah, Drudge's site is the only one that automatically refreshes and everybody leaves his site up all day. Nobody else does that. What a manipulator. I guess he's not important after all.

Jeremy said...

Fen: "Actually they don't. Information they don't like is withheld from public consumption. Case in point - the MSM was sitting on the Lewinsky story until Drudge outed it."

All reporters hold back on sprcific investigative stories, for a number of reasons.

Seymour Hersh, Woodward & Bernstein and any number of other "actual reporters" would be included in that group.

Seven Machos said...

P.S. What does that say about his content, Shadow? Considering that most of it is from major newspapers run by leftists?

Fen said...

Fen, I never said "reporters" publish literally everything they know or investigate. No reporter publishes everything, considering some things either can't be substantiated or may not be that important to their readers or editors.

Telling. Who decides what "may or may not be important to their readers"?

Sounds a bit like a weasle - you're deliberately ignoring that reporters withhold information that damages their political belief system.

Fen said...

"He guest hosted for the conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Drudge gained radio notoriety in the early 2000s by becoming a constant reference for news material on Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's, and Mark Levin's radio shows. He was often acknowledged by conservative Michael Savage as a source of topics for The Savage Nation."

Of course, but not as nefarious as your MSM source makes it sound. When the media suppresses or censors information, the market will find another venue. Back then it was talk radio.

Bruce Hayden said...

Telling. Who decides what "may or may not be important to their readers"?

Sounds a bit like a weasle - you're deliberately ignoring that reporters withhold information that damages their political belief system.


And their decision not to publish the Lewinsky story will always be second guessed. Were they really just trying to verify the story? Or were they giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt because he was their guy?

This was the story that led to the second impeachment in our country's history, and a number of the MSM were sitting on the story.

ShadowFox said...

Yeah, Drudge's site is the only one that automatically refreshes and everybody leaves his site up all day. Nobody else does that. What a manipulator. I guess he's not important after all.

Actually, yes, Drudge's is the only news site that performs this kind of procedure on his front page. We are not talking about updating basketball scores here.

What does that say about his content, Shadow? Considering that most of it is from major newspapers run by leftists?

This is from the same guy who thinks that Drudge is not conservative. Perhaps your liberalism meter is a bit off. Or perhaps it's a deeper problem.

Jeremy said...

Fen, I'm not saying reporters don't hold back for political reasons, but if you actually believe that it's exclusively because of their political beliefs, you're going to limit your source of information.

They do it for all kinds of reasons, generally because they don't have everything they need to shore up the credibility of their report.

And do you believe conservative reporters, who also belong to the MSM you refer to, don't do the same thing?

Jeremy said...

Seven - As to Drudge's content: "Considering that most of it is from major newspapers run by leftists?"

What in the world are you talking about?

traditionalguy said...

Jeremy... You are correct that Matt Drudge does not go out to dig up stories in the big city like a private investigator. What he does do is display the news stories that are News, rather than refuse to publish them, or hide them away on page 17. Spin by camoflaging the truth is still dull propaganda. People can handle the truth. Our safety comes from hearing literal reports of what has happened. That must be why you call Drudge Conservative. He refuses to ignore the news and highlite only fantasy of hope and change.

Jeremy said...

traditionalguy - Drudge basically cuts and pastes stories that are published elsewhere. It alleviates the necessity of actually investigating or even vetting a story's content or veracity.

As to hiding reports inside newspapers, I doubt you'll find any reporters who are asking their editors to keep what they have to say off the front page, but all news organizations have their own slant on what they think is or is not important. As an example; The Washington Post and Washington Times see things from a different point of view and will in turn highlight what they want people to read or that they think is newsworthy.

And as for Matt Drudge: When the man himself says he's a conservative, why are you implying I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he is?

In 2001, Drudge told the Miami New Times that: "I am a conservative. I'm very much pro-life. If you go down the list of what makes up a conservative, I'm there almost all the way."

Seven Machos said...

Jeremy -- Are you really going to try to argue that the editors at the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune are not nearly unanimously and boringly leftist? Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you merely not understand the world? Are you an undergrad?

Jeremy said...

Seven - I read a number of papers and they ALL have a slant, left right and what they like to think is center.

But, they all also employ reporters of every political persuasion so they can counter and offer a variety of opinions.

I realize conservatives like to bandy about the term; MSM, but in reality damn all of the newspapers, periodicals and TV news shows are part of the overall MSM. (Do you not include Fox News in the MSM mix?)

As to your claim that "the editors at the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune are not nearly unanimously and boringly leftist," maybe you can explain why these people employ Bill Kristol and David Brooks at the New York Times, Or Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg at the L.A. Times. Or Kathleen Parker and others at the Chicago Tribune.

Better yet; Can you name some "leftist" writers who work for the Washington Times?

Seven Machos said...

You are confusing reporters with people who write on the opinion pages. You obviously have not spent much time mingling among actual reporters for big-time news organs.

Do try to get out more. Thanks.

Fen said...

(Do you not include Fox News in the MSM mix?)

Yah my bad, we have that one token station that actually presents both sides of the argument.

Your trust in the media is misplaced. They are no different than the hacks who worked for Pravda, spreading lies and concealing truths to keep people like you ignorant.

Although I'm sure you think CNN is smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum? Would you be surprised to know that media studies have placed it farther to the Left than Fox is Right?

Fen said...

As to hiding reports inside newspapers, I doubt you'll find any reporters who are asking their editors to keep what they have to say off the front page

For starters, we've got Eason Jordon of CNN admitting they deliberately withheld knowledge of Saddam's rape room and torture chambers from people like you, because they were afraid that information would rally support for the war.

Or did you even know about that? If not, why not? With all due respect, you're being fed with a shovel. Wake up.

Consider - if your stockbroker mislead you about Enron, would you still use him? And yet, people like you still use information broker like CNN and CBS. If information is power, you're under a severe handicap.

AlphaLiberal said...

It also misleads the reader. Anyone who thinks we don't need more regulation of Wall St has been smoking the crack pipe or drinking the RW Kool Aid.

We've had a very expensive educational lesson. But the lesson threatens a powerful and profitable ideology. So people will deny.

And we will travel this road again as Capitalist hardliners demand that ideology be placed above nation.

Fen said...

Capitalist hardliners? LOL

Peter V. Bella said...

We've had a very expensive educational lesson. But the lesson threatens a powerful and profitable ideology. So people will deny.

Yes we have. Brought to us by a liberal altruistic lie that home ownership is a right and anyone, even if they do not qualify for a mortgage should own a home.

Oh, and Alpha, how do you expalin the fiscal responsibility of giving ACORN 4 billion dollars in stimulus money- can you spell bonuses? Where is the outrage? What does an organized criminal community organizing group have to do with economic stimulus?

How come we are not asking for that money back- seeing as they are one of the groups the perpetuated the problem that caused the meltdown.

I want their names. We should do to them what they did this weekend- mob rule- take busses and drive to and protest outside the homes of their leadership.

Oh Alpha, you lovable hypocrite!

Peter V. Bella said...

BTW, Alpha,
Should Geinter have the power to seize community orgaizing groups if they misspend the money?

Jeremy said...

Seven Machos said..."You are confusing reporters with people who write on the opinion pages."

I know the difference, but most columnists do plenty of research into their subject matter before offering opinions or reporting what they believe to be the case.

And by the way, who are all of these "reporters" you refer to? Much of what we read is presented by stringers or local writers who are employed by the specific news organization.

traditionalguy said...

Alpha liberal... The "ideology" trap is in believing a fact that is not anywhere near true, and acting on it anyway without listening to the true facts. We came up with the Due Process of Law concept to encourage at least having a quick "hearing" before a lynching. That hearing must allow the other side to present evidence of facts also. Your false statement that Wall Street caused the housing bubble is Obama's basis for his power grab by the People's avenging Tyrant. The Government's own actions issuing the implied guarantee for FNMA's junk loans to home buyers with no down payment planted the dynamite that blew up in Wall Steet's face five years later. (as soon as they ran out of borrowers to keep the bubble growing). So we do need regulation in the Senate and the House, both of whom approved the risky actions of FNMA in exchange for money contributions and bonuses to Democrat insiders. That is called elections. But elections require a free press willing to expose carefully hidden truths to the voters. Drudge may be our last gutsy exposer of hidden truths.

Seven Machos said...

most columnists do plenty of research into their subject matter

Funny.

I'm referring to all reporters. Even most of the reporters who work for The Wall Street Journal are leftists. This is all very well known. Something approaching 100 percent of the people who work for the media tilt left.

As for your stringers, they're the worst of all.

Jeremy said...

Seven - "Something approaching 100 percent of the people who work for the media tilt left."

It's rather difficult accepting such a ridiculous claim from someone who evidently doesn't even know Matt Drudge is a conservative.

Maybe you should pass this valuable insight onto Fox News, The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, National Review, New York Post and others.

That way they can ferret out the subversive "leftists" from their staffs.

Peter V. Bella said...

As for your stringers, they're the worst of all.

Mental floss?

Seven Machos said...

Fox News, The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, National Review, New York Post

Sad that you cannot tell the difference between a news entity and an entity dedicated to opinion. Oh well.

Go here, dumb ass, just for one example.

And do try to get to more adult parties once you get that degree.

Jeremy said...

Seven Machos said..."Fox News, The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, National Review, New York Post..."

"Sad that you cannot tell the difference between a news entity and an entity dedicated to opinion. Oh well."

The Washington Times/WSJ/, etc. are not news organizations?

Seven Machos said...

The Weekly Standard and National Review are not. Lumping them in with the Washington Times is like lumping The Nation with the New York Times.

You are a silly, unserious person. You bring nothing of value.

Next.

Jeremy said...

Seven Machos said..."The Weekly Standard and National Review are not (news organisations)."

Well, at least according to them they are:

1. The Weekly Standard is a conservative American opinion magazine published 48 times per year.

2. The National Review is a biweekly magazine and web site, founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

Fen said...

I know the difference, but most columnists do plenty of research into their subject matter before offering opinions or reporting what they believe to be the case.

No. They don't. In every instance I've been directly involved in, the MSM has gotten it wrong.

Every. Single. Time.

So they are either ignorant or corrupt.

ShadowFox said...

The author used the hardware store as an example, and pointed that the thing being lamented was crap. It never had what you wanted and prices were ridiculous.

Your "author" was full of shit. Every time I went to Lowe's or Home Depot looking for a particular size part--something that is fairly common, but not used in framing houses or setting up doors and windows--the guys at the hardware department always suggest a smaller local store that specializes in that kind of parts. For example, if you want a size of nail that is not among the 8 that Home Depot carries, you need to go to one of the local, smaller shops. Home Depot doesn't care if they have a particular part or not--they make their money on selling bundles of things, particularly to small contractors.

Same with Walmart--if you are fond of a particular brand of product, you better hope that Walmart carries it. And if it's a nickel more expensive than the brand that it does carry, Walmart may drive them out of business--and I mean the manufacturer, not the retailer here.

I am pretty sure about the identity of your source, if indeed you have one, rather than covering your own opinion with a phantom column.

Sad that you cannot tell the difference between a news entity and an entity dedicated to opinion. Oh well.

Go here, dumb ass, just for one example.


Hah! From the department of pots and kettles: and you are calling someone else a "dumb ass"? I am glad you recognize that Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Washington Post, for that matter, are not legitimate news organization. They are in the business of opinion peddling.

WaT and NYP news departments are as biased and slanted as their opinion pages. WaT, in particular, is in the business of fabricating news (much like Fox News's Garrett and Cameron, who regularly spice up their reportage with nonsense, only to apologize later for poor quality "jokes".

If anything, even legitimate reporters give far too much attention to the flat-earthers in a misguided attempt at balance. Just because someone has an opinion does not mean that it's worth hearing. There is far too much effort spent on false equivalence.

ShadowFox said...

In every instance I've been directly involved in, the MSM has gotten it wrong.
Every. Single. Time.


Have you considered the possibility that you're the one who's ignorant. I mean, if "they got it wrong every single time" based on your opinion alone, there are two possibilities--either "they" are wrong all the time, or you are wrong all the time. Given that "they" are quite a diverse population with radically different views, my bet is on you.

Jeremy said...

Fen - "No. They don't. In every instance I've been directly involved in, the MSM has gotten it wrong."

Fox News is "wrong" "in every instance"?

Even I don't believe that.

Fen said...

In every instance I've been directly involved in, the MSM has gotten it wrong.
Every. Single. Time.

Have you considered the possibility that you're the one who's ignorant. I mean, if "they got it wrong every single time" based on your opinion alone

Read again more carefully. Not based on my opinion, but based on direct experience, ie "every instance I've been directly involved in".

Fox News is "wrong" "in every instance"?

Love how you keep pointing to FOX News as your token conservative outlet, but they're not even that. Entertainment fluff news - Rome is burning and they titilate the audience with Chandra/Lacy/Natalie underwear sniffing rubberneck.

But yes, in the one instance FOX reported on, they got it wrong too.

Seven Machos said...

Wow, Shadow. Chill the fuck out, dude.

Sorry people have opinions that differ from yours. It's interesting that you refuse to differentiate between newspapers with conservative editorial pages and conservative journals of opinion. Also interesting that you don't admit that all the news outlets you don't name are leftist in slant.

What's really sad, though, is how tedious and banal you are.