Talk:Drudge Report

Themes

This page has remained static for a long while, so let's do something to improve it. I suggest a new section called Themes.

Proposed edit insertion

Themes

Frequent visitors to The Drudge Report will recognize recurrent themes and issues featured on the page, such as hyperlinks to

• Political articles about US politics, usually pro-Republican or anti-Democrat
• Global warming-related material, usually stories about unseasonably or record cold weather
• Show business articles, often highlighting scandalous behaviour by Hollywood stars
• News items about Las Vegas
• News items about unusual or freakish animals, such as an enormously fat cat
• News items about oil and peak oil

---

That's a first pass. Please suggest other themes you have recognized. We can get cites if any of this rather self-evident stuff is contested. I think this Themes section could be useful to someone not familiar with the page and who is seeking info. ► RATEL ◄ 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

just some thoughts here:

• "Political articles about US politics, usually pro-Republican or anti-Democrat" - lmao after all the discussion above, you think you can get away with adding something like that? you should know better than that!
• Global warming-related material - usually i can only remember stories about hot weather (sometimes tied into forest fires etc) and polar bears losing places to live because of melting ice or something.
• News items about Las Vegas - i dont think that is a theme. i dont see the DR focused on that location more than any other.

also other themes:

• items about media rivalry with postings of audience ratings from cable news, book publishing ratings etc.
• News items about privacy sometimes focused on internet groups such as google.
• photographs mocking President Bush such as times he fell off a segway, fell off his bike, and another when he was unable to open a door.

Perry mason (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to oppose, I'll find citations for as much as I can. I know I can cite the Las Vegas angle for starters. So please don't oppose for the sake of opposing, as you usually do. As far as your suggestions go, Drudge does frequently post his own traffic numbers, almost as a boast, but I have not noticed Google as a theme, nor photos of Bush (of any kind) as a theme. ► RATEL ◄ 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

you really need to stop taking my comments out of context. I "don't oppose for the sake of opposing" (and you should find good citations for things regardless of anybody 'opposing'), i just commented that i cannot remember Vegas being focused on more than any other location. if you have a (decent) citation for it, even better! i wasnt talking about his own traffic (it is not a theme but rather a permanent bit in the 3rd column) but rather TV ratings, rivalry between FNC and msnbc, things like that etc. regarding google, DR usually has things about invasion of privacy and links it to news about google sometimes. in fact the DR has 2 pieces on there now [1] (1st column, towards the bottom) and there has been at least another 1 this week so it reoccurs quite often i think which i believe would make it a theme. i will totally try and find a source about the privacy stuff because im sure Matt Drudge has commented on it a few times regarding it being featured on the DR and how it is important. i just thought for such a conservative site[sic] it seems a little strange that it keeps posting pics that have President Bush looking foolish because surely it should have images that portray him in a positive light right? (another one was where he was doing an African dance and had a silly expression on his face) and thought it could be a theme possibly. Perry mason (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll get back to this when I have time. ► RATEL ◄ 22:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oprah?

The other examples under the errors section are instances where Drudge retracted a story or was categorically proven wrong by the mainstream media. The Oprah situation seems more like a case of he said/she said. It seems NPOV to say that an Oprah denial amounts to a debunking of Drudge's claim. In fact, the fact that Oprah actually isn't allowing Palin on seems to verify in part Drudge's report. 129.74.200.62 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No one sees to have responded, so I'm going to go ahead and make the edit. Feel free to revert if you feel the need.Joker1189 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oprah also refuses to have McCain and Biden on, so her rejection of Drudge's unfounded claims stands as an error. If Drudge provides proof, it will no longer be an error. ► RATEL ◄ 14:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say it's not an error, but it needs a citation from a reliable source or it's WP:OR--Cube lurker (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Bias

There is an increasing number of articles mentioning Drudge Report bias against Barack Obama. The main paragraph should make a brief mention of this, so the reader can filter the news from this perspective. Let's not all assume that Drudge Report visitors are US based and with inherent knowledge of the bias. 75.199.165.132 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it this means every news source that has been claimed to be biased against John McCain should have a similar statement on their page? Do you envision this also including a reference to the sources within the text, or only in the reference field?

The exact defition of "pushed hard".

User Rafel has made a statement that the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" case was "pushed hard" by the Drudge Report. Can there be please made en exact definition of what "pushed hard" means, as it can then be applied across the board of media articles? I often see media writing many articles on a case, and wonder if "pushed hard" is the applicable term. If not, will change to "published". 92.41.205.37 (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes directly from the source, ABC NEWS, to wit:

One classic example: the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign, the group made often unfounded claims about John Kerry's war record, which were pushed hard by Drudge and then investigated by major newspapers and TV networks.

Maybe you should rephrase it without losing the meaning. Or simply put "pushed hard" in quotation marks.► RATEL ◄ 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, fair enough. I am going to try to educate myself more on Wikipedia's common policies on using media as sources. It strikes me as strange that the political opinion blog of a newspaper becomes the default fact - if for example an editor says that "Presidential candidate X made a poor show at the debate", should this be referenced at the relevant page as EITHER "X made a poor show at the debate (ref#)", OR "Source Y states that presidential candidate X made a poor show (ref#)", OR none at all if the person is not a very influential source at academic level? If you have links to stated policy about this I would be grateful. It may appear immaterial but I feel it contributes in cumulation to the tone of an article.92.41.205.37 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of carping and whingeing, why don't you see if what is claimed is true (as I am sure it is). Go to the Drudge archives of the time and check for yourself if Drudge pushed the issue ahead of the mainstream Press. Or is that too hard? ► RATEL ◄ 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative" in the opening line

If the first descriptive word in this article is to be "conservative," it has to be sourced. It is extremely misleading to have three "sources" attached to that assertion that are not "sources" at all. As it stands, 2 of the three "sources" link to articles that have nothing to do with analyzing the political stance of drudgereport.com, and the third links to the main page of a website. I'm sure that a media watchdog has compiled a statisitical ratio of conservative/liberal main articles. Finding something like that "would" be useful. Tagging me for vandalism because I've removed non-sources? Not so much. (forgot to sign)76.106.33.90 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative in First Line

I couldn't agree more about having the word "conservative" in the first sentence. The "sources" that are cited are ridiculous, as are the moderators who control this page. Things like this just make Wikipedia look idiotic. Notice they locked the page now so nobody can disagree with the moderators.