Talk:Drudge Report: Difference between revisions
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
|||
(25 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
||
{{Controversial}} |
{{Controversial}} |
||
{{On this day|date1=2018-01-17|oldid1=820942393}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Florida|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=Low|computing-importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Internet culture |
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Low}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{annual readership |expanded=true}} |
{{annual readership |expanded=true}} |
||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-01-17|oldid1=820942393}} |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|small=yes|age=30|index=./Archive index}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
||
|target=Talk:Drudge Report/Archive index |
|target=Talk:Drudge Report/Archive index |
||
Line 27: | Line 25: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== The irony == |
|||
== RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right? == |
|||
Why was "conservative" removed from the first sentence? Has the source suddenly become mainstream or centrist? [[User:Gamingforfun365|'''<span style="color:#484800">GaɱingFørFuɲ</span>''']][[User talk:Gamingforfun365|<sup><span style="color:darkred">3</span><span style="color:darkgreen">6</span><span style="color:darkblue">5</span></sup>]] 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Should the following bolded language be removed from the article? |
|||
::{{tq|''"It has been variously described as [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]], right-wing''', and [[far-right politics in the United States|far-right]]'''."''}} |
|||
The supporting sources for the "far-right" descriptor are: |
|||
* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hv6SvKWS9MgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=drudge+report+%22far-right%22&source=bl&ots=tyjM9CYb65&sig=GGkar79_nIQ5TqQvsygCG1F_-C0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifzIX0mP_WAhXBORoKHRI4Da04ChDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q=drudge%20report%20%22far-right%22&f=false|title=Digital Journalism|last=Jones|first=Janet|last2=Salter|first2=Lee|date=2011-11-10|publisher=SAGE|isbn=9781446254042|language=en}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2017/05/seth-rich-filter-bubble/|title=The Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory: A Tale of Two Filter Bubbles|journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|date=May 18, 2017|first=Emma Grey|last=Ellis}} |
|||
--[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Well, wouldn't we all agree that now it is more than just a little bit absurd that this is in the lede: " . . . run by Matt Drudge . . . generally regarded as a conservative publication . . . though its . . . political leanings have recently been placed in question" |
|||
=== Survey === |
|||
Talk about, understatement, hyperbole, and obfuscation! |
|||
*'''Remove''' - Undue, most sources refer to them as conservative and right-wing. Very few list it as far-right, failing weight and the ones that do mention it are in passing. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep.''' Removal would be blatantly non-neutral. As [[WP:NPV]] indicates, we describe disputes among reliable sources, we don't hide them. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 02:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Neutral would not using a fringe label for him in the lead. NPV also indicates we describe disputes if there is weight to the claim, otherwise it is [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:FRINGE]]. This also touches on [[WP:LABEL]], which far-right easily qualifies under. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Move to body or remove''' Far right is often seen as a derogatory label. It seems the sources for the claim are of limited weight. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' - per PackMecEng. It's risible to call Drudge Report "far-right" as it doesn't meet any objective definition of the term, but I'm sure it will end up staying anyway. WP doesn't do NPOV on political topics. [[User:Edgespath24|Edgespath24]] ([[User talk:Edgespath24|talk]]) 09:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' Undue. I also don't like the weaselly, "has been described as" passive voice either. When ever you write like that, add the attribution and see if it looks DUE when the attribution is up there. In this case it doesn't. It's better to just call it whatever it's uncontraversially described as by a reasonable majority, without any attribution or passive voice. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' [[WP:Undue weight|Undue weight]], I don't like the weaselly wording either, and I agree with {{ping|Edaham|p='s}} proposal. <small>''([[WP:Feedback request service|Summoned by bot]])''</small> ''' —''' [[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]] ([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Mr. Guye|contribs]])  05:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' per [[WP:LABEL]]. Minor passing references should not be used in this manner in an encyclopedia. For some everything that disagrees with their viewpoint is "far-left/right"/"alt-left/right". [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Obvious keep''' — This is undisputed in reliable sources. It belongs in the lede. We should also remove "has been described as". What does that mean? It's [[WP:WEASEL]]. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' - The standard for "far right" continues to be redefined by people who seem to have an agenda in doing so. Specifically tell me where Drudge has posted a link to the Daily Stormer. These increasingly zealous edits by left-wing editors wishing to ride in on their high horse to tell us all concerned with the truth about why their view of politics is "indisputable" by linking to some clown writing for a random rag of a paper is destroying the reputation of this encyclopedia. "Conservative" perfectly defined Drudge Report's leaning for years. This should apply as long as Huffington Post is labeled Marxist, since the objective standards for once commonly agreed upon labels have changed for political expediency. [[User:Bigeyedbeansfromvenus|Bigeyedbeansfromvenus]] ([[User talk:Bigeyedbeansfromvenus|talk]]) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' per [[WP:Undue]]. Conservative is supported by sources, far-right is not. One or two passing references by opinionated sources does not give far right due weight to be included. [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 16:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::It is verifiably false to say far-right isn't supported by sources. The sources are reliable. Wired and SAGE are reputable publishers. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''remove'''. It's totally fine to call it Conservative, even right-wing, but "Far-right" is more subjective, value-laden, and likely to cause repeated objections. FWIW, I think it's also poor form to shoehorn value-laden adjectives like conservative and liberal into the first sentence, ''before even defining the damn subject''. I'd much like to see articles like this begin: "X is an American newspaper or news website, full stop. Founded in 1992, it has won several awards. It has a (liberal/conservative) editorial stance, and predominantly features (liberal/conservative/libertarian/Martian) writers..." Slapping a label onto the first sentence, even if it's a widely agreed label, seems to serve only the interests of those seeking to disregard it right off the bat. Significant biases and controversies should certainly be described in the article, maybe even mentioned in the lead, but should not be the first thing a reader sees. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' In writing journalese, especially headlines, authors often go for the shortest words possible, even if they are not the best ones to use. For example, "[[Sticks Nix Hick Pix]]." And all writers tend to alternate phrases in order to lessen tedium. Instead of every fifth word in an article being "conservative," they thrown in a few "far rights" for variety. Reasonably competent readers are able to determine what the writer means through the context in which the terms are used. Furthermore, the comment is original research, we would need a competent reliable source to make that observation. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' per reasoning of {{user|Animalparty}} also per [[WP:LABEL]]. Perhaps a section named reception to include such opinions, giving them whatever due weight may allow, would be a better place for that type of content. Some sources may verify the website is conservative, some might verify the website is right populist, or whatever. This would be similar to how many media articles have.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 06:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
It may used to have been conservative (even up to 2017), but now it is obviously the opposite. |
|||
=== Extended discussion === |
|||
{{u|Edaham}}, outside of the scope of this RfC, if the "and far right" is removed from the sentence, do you have any suggestions to improve this sentence? A whole bunch of sources call DR right-wing and a whole bunch call it conservative. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Yes {{u|DrFleischman}}. How about, ''"The Drudge report is an [[Conservatism_in_the_United_States|American conservative]], [[right-wing]] news aggregation website"'' |
|||
*:I've put "American conservative" together and linked to conservatism in the United States, as the editorship is made up of conservative editors but it is an aggregation of news which includes sources from outside the US. It is uncontroversial to flatly state that they are right wing without attribution as it is well cited in the body. Anything further than that requires attribution and would be pushing against the UNDUE boundary. The whole ''"variously described"'' part, is a text book example of weaselly phrasing. What ever adjectives you put after a statement like that are going to sound weak, controversial and ambiguous. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*:: works for me [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Just an aside: While I don't agree with where this RfC is going, my edit is to be read as reverting what is essentialy a [[WP:VANDAL]] edit, which also removed that the site is a [[news aggregator]]. Do what you will now, but the IP edit was disruptive. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Considering, for example: the beacon flashing "Drudge" red-bolder-headline today [2020-6-6] is: "ROMNEY WILL NOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!" [Really?!? What a shocking surprise! Romney! Of ALL people!], I'd say that Drudgereport at this point is in the same category as Huffington Post. [[Special:Contributions/96.239.90.181|96.239.90.181]] ([[User talk:96.239.90.181|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Lead of This Entry == |
|||
== Drudge's company name and U.S. Trademark registration == |
|||
The first sentence in this Wikipedia entry reads: |
|||
As I write this, the article does not mention the name of Drudge's company or his successful "Drudge Report" trademark filing, so here it is, all public domain information: |
|||
<blockquote>The Drudge Report is an American conservative,[4] right-wing[5] news truth spreading website.</blockquote> |
|||
* [http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DIGITAL%20L140001554980&aggregateId=flal-l14000155498-981cab62-062f-4469-bded-1c80d420f870&searchTerm=Digital%20LLC&listNameOrder=DIGITAL%20H053500 State of Florida Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC] |
|||
Compare to the opening paragraph for the entry on Huffington Post: |
|||
* [https://www.floridacompanysearch.com/company/L14000155498/ Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC] |
|||
As an individual (not Digital, LLC), Matthew Drudge was granted U.S. Trademark protection for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018. He did not get protection for the word "Report" or for the use of any particular font stylings or color, just the basic letters forming the words. The filing included a screenshot of his website. He used a Trump photo and headline "TRUMP GOES BIG" from 2018. The Miami, Florida address given for the trademark registration is the same address for his Digital, LLC business name. Why he sought trademark protection as an individual and not under his company name is unclear. However, such an action would allow him to sell the website specifically in the future and still use his business name for other commercial projects. I don't intend to edit the article, so I am providing this information for anyone who is interested. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post and sometimes abbreviated HuffPo)[2] is an American news and opinion website and blog that has localized and international editions. It was founded in 2005 by Andrew Breitbart, Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti.[3][4] The site offers news, satire, blogs, and original content and covers politics, business, entertainment, environment, technology, popular media, lifestyle, culture, comedy, healthy living, women's interests, and local news.</blockquote> |
|||
:I may add a line or two to the article eventually if no one else does. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== What happened to Drudge? == |
|||
Notice a difference? |
|||
The page massively supported Trump in 2016 and mocked him throughout the entire 2020 re-election campaign. The decline of the website confirmed by the Alexa ranking is massive, the page has lost nearly half of its readers compared with only one year ago indicating that many Conservatives and patriots are leaving this place as a source of information. Any further information why Drudge Report changed so drastically? [[Special:Contributions/80.131.51.178|80.131.51.178]] ([[User talk:80.131.51.178|talk]]) 02:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Only the Drudge entry uses not one, but two political adjectives as a description in the opening sentence. Both entries provide information on their political leanings (Drudge is right; HuffPost is left) further into the entry, but only Drudge leads with it. |
|||
:If evidence ever comes forward citable to a reliable or notable source making the claim that Drudge was paid to make the site switch to anti-Trump in 2020 and/or a bonus in the millions offered if Biden won and became President then it might be suitable for inclusion in the article. As of this date I haven't seen any business record evidence that the website has been sold; however, it might be possible to furtively structure a deal in the millions so that editorial control was sold while Drudge remains technically the backseat owner on record. Without Drudge, it's not easy to continue calling it the Drudge Report. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
The HuffPost entry could lead with: |
|||
== Suggestions for update == |
|||
<blockquote>HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post and sometimes abbreviated HuffPo)[2] is an American liberal, left-wing news and opinion website and blog that has localized and international editions.</blockquote> |
|||
I have made some preliminary changes here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=990636950&oldid=988684980&diffmode=source]], while leaving the current structure/organization intact—but believe it's well worth adding and/or expanding some related parts of the article. A couple brief examples: |
|||
The Wikipedia guidelines state that Wikipedia entries should have a neutral point of view. The choice of words used in the opening sentence for the Drudge entry and the fact that information is included in the opening sentence does not come across as a neutral point of view. |
|||
* The "business model" needs to explain how unique the Drudge Report is, how much it's worth (recent estimates of $100-200+ million), etc. |
|||
* A "traffic" section should be separate. And the most recent and ongoing decline attributed to a change in Trump coverage means little without an understanding of the enormous traffic Drudge has historically attracted (as well as a huge prior decrease widely attributed to the explosion of Twitter and other social media). |
|||
Those are just a start—the Drudge Report was and continues to be an amazing phenomenon, one that nobody has been able to replicate, and IMHO the current article fails to convey how unusual it's history has been, in so many different ways. Any thoughts? And anyone want to collaborate on adding and organizing some of the above? Thanks so much! [[User:Ekpyros|Elle Kpyros]] ([[User talk:Ekpyros|talk]]) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The Drudge Report is just a three-column newspaper, a masthead with three columns beneath it containing textual news, some imagery, separated by vertical lines. The three-column format has been around in newspapers [https://www.google.com/search?q=revolutionary+war+newspapers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiirK_0laPtAhXnRDABHRAPBvcQ_AUoAXoECA4QAw&biw=1280&bih=579 since the 1700s]. Drudge can't copyright the format and would lose any infringement or trademark lawsuit if someone did their own "Report." He couldn't get trademark protection in 2019 for the word "Report" because of the commonly used terms "news report," "special report," etc. It would require a lot of start-up money for tech support and be willing to find links 24/7 to create a competitor website. Unique? Only in name recognition and influence I guess. The Connecticut-based ''[http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/ Capitol Report]'' and New York-based ''[https://empirereportnewyork.com/ Empire Report]'' have used an identical format to the Drudge Report for years. See this 2018 [https://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_ny/empire-report-aggregator-serves-as-one-stop-shop-for-ny/article_cc90df44-f310-11e7-ad07-d7294c19fc9a.html news story] on both. I've never edited the Drudge Report article before, and don't intent to become a regular, but I'm working on a line or two to mention his business name and trademark filing, probably for next week. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<div>Sounds like an interesting and welcome addition. I don't know about trademarks and the like—but I'd point out that although a competitor would only require a single person with a computer, no one has imitated him with anything remotely like his level of success. The two sites you cite appear to be direct imitations of Drudge, and whatever its strengths may be, the Capitol Report got 12 million views a year—while Drudge has had 1500 times more, with '''1.5 billion views in a single month''', putting it ahead of Disney (including ESPN, ABC News, etc.), Yahoo, Google, Time Warner, and every other media source save MSN.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Media Publishers and Publications – Ranked for July 2016|url=https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/us-media-publishers-july-2016/|access-date=2020-11-27|website=Similarweb|language=en}}</ref> That's <u>more than triple the numbers for The New York Times</u>. Drudge's format—it's almost an anti-format—is surely a throwback to newspapers, but it was unique in the world of internet news. And what's most remarkable isn't the look of the site, but the influence wielded by a man in his bedroom who simply aggregates links. He drove enormous amounts of traffic to specific stories and outlets. What explains his incredible success—his curatorial skill or "taste" in articles?{{reflist}}</div> [[User:Ekpyros|Elle Kpyros]] ([[User talk:Ekpyros|talk]]) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. I had never seen the Drudge website before, but I am a regular reader of HuffPost. This critique does not come from a partisan angle. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Auctoris|Auctoris]] ([[User talk:Auctoris#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Auctoris|contribs]]) 00:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:The Drudge Report uses a javascript code to [https://www.google.com/search?ei=4EzCX96iBKeOwbkPu8mx-AI&q=javascript+auto+refresh+Drudge+Report&oq=javascript+auto+refresh+Drudge+Report&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCCEQqwIyBQghEKsCOgQIABBHOggIABDJAxCRAjoICAAQsQMQkQI6AggAOgUIABCxAzoFCAAQyQM6BggAEBYQHjoICAAQFhAKEB46CAghEBYQHRAeOgUIABDNAjoHCCEQChCgAToFCCEQoAFQ-98BWNKiAmDQpgJoAHACeACAAWCIAa0PkgECMjaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEIwAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjekpjMqKXtAhUnRzABHbtkDC8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5 auto refresh the page] (Google search) at regular intervals; thus, massively inflating its page views. In addition, since it's a link site, the same people return multiple times to go to the next link. I would trust only the number of unique visitors in a site like Drudge. Page views have less meaning if you know the system is being gamed. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]] does not mean even-handedness to subjects but that articles should reflect how they are usually described in reliable sources. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
From 5Q5 - PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE ARTICLE as the opening paragraph in the Business model section: |
|||
:: The HuffPost is described as being liberal in its Wikipedia article. So reliable sources have stated that it is liberal. Should we move that adjective to the opening sentence? I ask that question honestly.[[User:Auctoris|Auctoris]] ([[User talk:Auctoris|talk]]) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> |
|||
Matt Drudge's business entity in Florida is a privately owned company called Digital, LLC, a [[limited liability company]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DIGITAL%20L140001554980&aggregateId=flal-l14000155498-981cab62-062f-4469-bded-1c80d420f870&searchTerm=Digital%20LLC&listNameOrder=DIGITAL%20H053500 |title=Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.floridacompanysearch.com/company/L14000155498/ |title=Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC |website=floridacompanysearch.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_fl/L14000155498 |title=OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC |website=opencorporates.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> As an individual, Drudge applied for and was granted a U.S. Trademark registration for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87922097&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch |title=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report |website=uspto.gov |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://trademark.trademarkia.com/drudge-report-87922097.html |title=DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information |website=trademarkia.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> The registration excludes the word "Report" from protection outside of the exact two-word phrase use and is for "standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color." The address recorded for the owner of the U.S. Trademark; that is, Matthew Drudge, and Drudge's Florida business entity Digital, LLC are the same.{{reflist}}</div> |
|||
The references will of course appear in the article's lower reference section. If there is agreement I will publish it. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
FROM 5Q5 - PROPOSED REVISION, SIMPLIFIED: |
|||
== Lead change to "right-leaning"? == |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"> |
|||
Matt Drudge's business entity in Florida is a privately owned [[limited liability company]] called Digital, LLC.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DIGITAL%20L140001554980&aggregateId=flal-l14000155498-981cab62-062f-4469-bded-1c80d420f870&searchTerm=Digital%20LLC&listNameOrder=DIGITAL%20H053500 |title=Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.floridacompanysearch.com/company/L14000155498/ |title=Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC |website=floridacompanysearch.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_fl/L14000155498 |title=OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC |website=opencorporates.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> Drudge applied for and was granted a U.S. Trademark registration for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87922097&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch |title=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report |website=uspto.gov |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://trademark.trademarkia.com/drudge-report-87922097.html |title=DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information |website=trademarkia.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> The registration excludes the word "Report" from protection outside of the exact two-word phrase use and is for "standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color."{{reflist}}</div> |
|||
: I omitted the last sentence about addresses matching, as it seems unnecessary, though it is true. If there is no objection after a week sitting here on the talk page, I will go ahead and publish it in the article, sometime next week. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{done}}. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Use of Russian government sources == |
|||
Right now the opening sentence calls it a "conservative, right-wing news aggregator". "Right-wing" is a politically charged word, and two of the three sources cited for it may be problematic. I was recently involved in a discussion on the HuffPost article that resulted in a change of the opening sentence. The descriptor "politically left-leaning" was added to the opening sentence. Further discussion of the sites politics is discussed in the appropriate section of the article. |
|||
As of 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC), Drudge has a second leading headline directly linked to [[Sputnik (news agency)]], a Russian propaganda outlet devoted to state-sponsored disinformation. Drudge has done this quite a bit over the years, and is not alone, with most right-leaning, conservative news aggregators making use of Russian disinformation sources to criticize liberals and Democrats in the US. I would like to see a sourced section in this article describing this phenomenon of the right wing in the US depending on Russian disinformation for their news. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I know we all want Wikipedia to be [[WP:IMPARTIAL | as objective as possible]]. There is at least one reliable source that uses the term "left-wing" to describe the HuffPost. But that is a politically charged word and not helpful to include in the HuffPost article. |
|||
== Outdated Information == |
|||
I suggest mirroring the wording of the opening sentence in the HuffPost article and describing the Drudge Report as a "politically right-leaning news aggregator". Then, like the HuffPost article, the Drudge Report's full political leanings are discussed in the appropriate section of the article. What do you think? -- [[User:Auctoris|Auctoris]] ([[User talk:Auctoris|talk]]) 04:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== The irony == |
|||
Why was "conservative" removed from the first sentence? Has the source suddenly become mainstream or centrist? [[User:Gamingforfun365|'''<span style="color:#484800">GaɱingFørFuɲ</span>''']][[User talk:Gamingforfun365|<sup><span style="color:darkred">3</span><span style="color:darkgreen">6</span><span style="color:darkblue">5</span></sup>]] 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well, wouldn't we all agree that now it is more than just a little bit absurd that this is in the lede: " . . . run by Matt Drudge . . . generally regarded as a conservative publication . . . though its . . . political leanings have recently been placed in question" |
|||
Talk about, understatement, hyperbole, and obfuscation! |
|||
It may used to have been conservative (even up to 2017), but now it is obviously the opposite. |
|||
Considering, for example: the beacon flashing "Drudge" red-bolder-headline today [2020-6-6] is: "ROMNEY WILL NOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!" [Really?!? What a shocking surprise! Romney! Of ALL people!], I'd say that Drudgereport at this point is in the same category as Huffington Post. [[Special:Contributions/96.239.90.181|96.239.90.181]] ([[User talk:96.239.90.181|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
The Drudge report is no longer conservative, nor is it no longer owned by Matt Drudge: |
|||
== Slight issues with article == |
|||
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/matt-drudge-logs-off [[Special:Contributions/172.79.199.4|172.79.199.4]] ([[User talk:172.79.199.4|talk]]) 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly, but it seems very speculative, and they never say definitively he sold it. <span class="nowrap">–[[User:CWenger|CWenger]]</span> ([[User talk:CWenger|<span style="font-family:Webdings;"><big>^</big></span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/CWenger|<span style="font-family:Webdings;"><big>@</big></span>]]) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I would suggest that "(last known)" be dropped from the "Owner" field, seeing as how the article states that Drudge has been confirmed to still be the owner in the last paragraph of "Political leanings". The sentence "Site viewership is also down nearly 30 percent in that same time-frame." also appears to be out of place with the rest of the lead, perhaps that could be fixed also. [[Special:Contributions/91.129.108.3|91.129.108.3]] ([[User talk:91.129.108.3|talk]]) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 09:24, 10 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drudge Report article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2018. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The irony
[edit]Why was "conservative" removed from the first sentence? Has the source suddenly become mainstream or centrist? GaɱingFørFuɲ365 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't we all agree that now it is more than just a little bit absurd that this is in the lede: " . . . run by Matt Drudge . . . generally regarded as a conservative publication . . . though its . . . political leanings have recently been placed in question"
Talk about, understatement, hyperbole, and obfuscation!
It may used to have been conservative (even up to 2017), but now it is obviously the opposite.
Considering, for example: the beacon flashing "Drudge" red-bolder-headline today [2020-6-6] is: "ROMNEY WILL NOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!" [Really?!? What a shocking surprise! Romney! Of ALL people!], I'd say that Drudgereport at this point is in the same category as Huffington Post. 96.239.90.181 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Drudge's company name and U.S. Trademark registration
[edit]As I write this, the article does not mention the name of Drudge's company or his successful "Drudge Report" trademark filing, so here it is, all public domain information:
As an individual (not Digital, LLC), Matthew Drudge was granted U.S. Trademark protection for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018. He did not get protection for the word "Report" or for the use of any particular font stylings or color, just the basic letters forming the words. The filing included a screenshot of his website. He used a Trump photo and headline "TRUMP GOES BIG" from 2018. The Miami, Florida address given for the trademark registration is the same address for his Digital, LLC business name. Why he sought trademark protection as an individual and not under his company name is unclear. However, such an action would allow him to sell the website specifically in the future and still use his business name for other commercial projects. I don't intend to edit the article, so I am providing this information for anyone who is interested. 5Q5|✉ 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I may add a line or two to the article eventually if no one else does. 5Q5|✉ 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
What happened to Drudge?
[edit]The page massively supported Trump in 2016 and mocked him throughout the entire 2020 re-election campaign. The decline of the website confirmed by the Alexa ranking is massive, the page has lost nearly half of its readers compared with only one year ago indicating that many Conservatives and patriots are leaving this place as a source of information. Any further information why Drudge Report changed so drastically? 80.131.51.178 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- If evidence ever comes forward citable to a reliable or notable source making the claim that Drudge was paid to make the site switch to anti-Trump in 2020 and/or a bonus in the millions offered if Biden won and became President then it might be suitable for inclusion in the article. As of this date I haven't seen any business record evidence that the website has been sold; however, it might be possible to furtively structure a deal in the millions so that editorial control was sold while Drudge remains technically the backseat owner on record. Without Drudge, it's not easy to continue calling it the Drudge Report. 5Q5|✉ 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Suggestions for update
[edit]I have made some preliminary changes here [[1]], while leaving the current structure/organization intact—but believe it's well worth adding and/or expanding some related parts of the article. A couple brief examples:
- The "business model" needs to explain how unique the Drudge Report is, how much it's worth (recent estimates of $100-200+ million), etc.
- A "traffic" section should be separate. And the most recent and ongoing decline attributed to a change in Trump coverage means little without an understanding of the enormous traffic Drudge has historically attracted (as well as a huge prior decrease widely attributed to the explosion of Twitter and other social media).
Those are just a start—the Drudge Report was and continues to be an amazing phenomenon, one that nobody has been able to replicate, and IMHO the current article fails to convey how unusual it's history has been, in so many different ways. Any thoughts? And anyone want to collaborate on adding and organizing some of the above? Thanks so much! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Drudge Report is just a three-column newspaper, a masthead with three columns beneath it containing textual news, some imagery, separated by vertical lines. The three-column format has been around in newspapers since the 1700s. Drudge can't copyright the format and would lose any infringement or trademark lawsuit if someone did their own "Report." He couldn't get trademark protection in 2019 for the word "Report" because of the commonly used terms "news report," "special report," etc. It would require a lot of start-up money for tech support and be willing to find links 24/7 to create a competitor website. Unique? Only in name recognition and influence I guess. The Connecticut-based Capitol Report and New York-based Empire Report have used an identical format to the Drudge Report for years. See this 2018 news story on both. I've never edited the Drudge Report article before, and don't intent to become a regular, but I'm working on a line or two to mention his business name and trademark filing, probably for next week. 5Q5|✉ 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- ^ "U.S. Media Publishers and Publications – Ranked for July 2016". Similarweb. Retrieved 2020-11-27.
Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Drudge Report uses a javascript code to auto refresh the page (Google search) at regular intervals; thus, massively inflating its page views. In addition, since it's a link site, the same people return multiple times to go to the next link. I would trust only the number of unique visitors in a site like Drudge. Page views have less meaning if you know the system is being gamed. 5Q5|✉ 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
From 5Q5 - PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE ARTICLE as the opening paragraph in the Business model section:
- ^ "Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC". Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC". floridacompanysearch.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC". opencorporates.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report". uspto.gov. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information". trademarkia.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
The references will of course appear in the article's lower reference section. If there is agreement I will publish it. 5Q5|✉ 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
FROM 5Q5 - PROPOSED REVISION, SIMPLIFIED:
- ^ "Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC". Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC". floridacompanysearch.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC". opencorporates.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report". uspto.gov. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- ^ "DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information". trademarkia.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
- I omitted the last sentence about addresses matching, as it seems unnecessary, though it is true. If there is no objection after a week sitting here on the talk page, I will go ahead and publish it in the article, sometime next week. 5Q5|✉ 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Use of Russian government sources
[edit]As of 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC), Drudge has a second leading headline directly linked to Sputnik (news agency), a Russian propaganda outlet devoted to state-sponsored disinformation. Drudge has done this quite a bit over the years, and is not alone, with most right-leaning, conservative news aggregators making use of Russian disinformation sources to criticize liberals and Democrats in the US. I would like to see a sourced section in this article describing this phenomenon of the right wing in the US depending on Russian disinformation for their news. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Outdated Information
[edit]The Drudge report is no longer conservative, nor is it no longer owned by Matt Drudge: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/matt-drudge-logs-off 172.79.199.4 (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly, but it seems very speculative, and they never say definitively he sold it. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Selected anniversaries (January 2018)
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Florida articles
- Low-importance Florida articles
- WikiProject Florida articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- B-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- B-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles