Talk:Drudge Report/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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. 24.187.121.169 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the word conservative in line one.

The article on the Huffington Post has "liberal" in the first line.
The sources cited are independent and respected media commentators, including the august Financial Times
Drudge has called himself a conservative and votes Republican.
He hosted a rabidly right wing radio show. Some podcasts can still be found. The opinions expressed in these shows leave no doubt at all about his political leanings.
His opinions and story selection always boost the right side of politics and denigrate the left.
I suggest you do some research. Apart from the sources cited, there are literally hundreds of other independent and citable sources on the web saying that the Drudge Report is conservative or supports the Republicans. Start with Google News archives.
Find a source that claims Drudge is liberal if you want to create some uncertainty about the conservatism of his webpage. Good luck with that! ► RATEL ◄ 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratel, would a conservative website host Obama campaign ads? You won't find any McCain ads on the Huffington Post. While Drudge Report may have a bias (much like the New York Times and ever other media outlet), that does not make it a conservative website. The Huffington Post is openly liberal and promotes a liberal agenda. Comparing the Drudge Report to the Huffington Post is ridiculous. Just because Matt Drudge is a conservative does not mean that you can label the Drudge Report as conservative. Also, you mention "The sources cited are independent and respected media commentators." Perhaps you are not aware, but a commentator's job is to provide opinions, therefore those "sources" are not reliable statements of fact on any level. I think you need to do some more research, although I have the feeling you have a personal agenda yourself. 24.187.121.169 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Would a conservative website host Obama campaign ads? " Even for Drudge, cash is king. He banks on the right wing nutjobs to click Obama's ads to cash in. If clicks = cash, and his users know it, they would be inclined to click to "reward Drudge and penalize Obama". 24.147.84.127 (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

24.147.84.127 sounds like a loony conspiracy theorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.121.169 (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Drudge has javascript running on his site, linking to ad farms that display thousands of different ads, depending on the location of the visitor. Drudge has no input as far as ad content goes. Moreover, Drudge would link to anything that resulted in click-through revenue. It's a business. He caters to the right wing, as his stats show (2/3 are conservative). I'm not sure why anyone would object to the inclusion of the word "conservative" in the first para unless they were eager to hoodwink people into regarding Drudge as an even-handed commentator, which he clearly is not. ► RATEL ◄ 03:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then Mr. Ratel, why don't we call the New York Times "Liberal" in the first sentence of its Wikipedia page?? (24.187.121.169 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That sort of comment will get your IP banned if any admin is monitoring this Talk page. I have edited out your attack, as allowed by the rules. The reason why the New York Times does not get a labelled conservative or liberal is because it has so many staff that a multiplicity of views is represented, unlike the Drudge Report, with a staff of 2, the other staffer being Andrew Breitbart, who is about as right wing as you can get. ► RATEL ◄ 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep drinking the kool aid Ratel. I believe you know you are wrong but just don't want to admit it. Instead of citing the "sources" you continuously state your own opinion. This is because your "sources" are a joke and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.121.169 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Financial Times is a "joke"? In your universe, perhaps. As I said, come back with anyone saying the Drudge Report is left leaning and you'll have a case. Currently I have to suspect that you are someone with a vested interest in the site. BTW, I am only one of many editors that wished to insert the word conservative into the leading para, if you look at the talk page archives. ► RATEL ◄ 06:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the opening statement is that one source links to the mainpage of a website the does not mention drudgereport.com at all, and the other two links are articles are about non-drudgereport.com topics. And since you bring up the Huffington Post article, look at the citation for "liberal." The entire article is about that assertion. As an aside, I believe it is a policy of wikipedia to assume good faith, which neither of you two are doing right now.76.106.33.90 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The source that goes to the main page of E&P is there because someone objected to the convenience link [2] as an (assumed) copyvio (it probably is not). It is not required to link to the actual page from whence a fact is sourced; a link to the site is enough.
It is not required to have an entire article devoted to the fact that Drudge is conservative (duh!) to source the fact that the DR is a right-leaning webpage. If that were the standard for citing facts, you'd have to delete half of Wikipedia! In addition, you can get countless confirmatory citations from the press, eg:

Ms. Huffington has already built her site, The Huffington Post, into one of the Web’s biggest success stories — a liberal alternative to The Drudge Report...[3]

That the DR is a conservative website is simply an obvious fact and your objection to the frank naming of it as such is nonsensical. I therefore have to suspect you are motivated by political interests rather than a dispassionate presentation of encyclopedic facts.► RATEL ◄ 07:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks, how refreshing. Do what you want with the article, I was just trying to improve the page. This is not worth the grief.76.106.33.90 (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see from the history that there are many people out there who object to calling the Drudge Report a "conservative" website. I believe the site should state that the neutrality of the article is being disputed. Remember, fairness and accuracy are the key to Wikipedia. 24.187.129.47 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Even more people wanted the description. The consensus was to include the word. Mostly because it's the truth. We don't go in for "truthiness" here on wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It still deserves a NPOV dispute that goes beyond you Ratel. 24.187.129.47 (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a NPOV because it's well sourced. WE are not saying it is a conservative website, OTHERS (as cited) are. We do not do original research here. We are a tertiary source. The owner of the webpage is an avowed conservative, in his own words. His page is described as conservative in many places, including some of the world's best newspapers. So really, calling this a POV dispute is completely absurd. ► RATEL ◄ 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really well sourced when you look at it. There are three articles that mention "conservative" in the context of talking about the DrudgeReport. None of these actually back up the fact that there is a bias, they just mention it in passing. A good citation would be a study that looks at the number of conservative vs liberal articles or something similar. The word "conservative" should not be there unless there is a study cited. Lkysam (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I regard the sources as entirely adequate. Requiring a "study" to prove that Drudge and his webpage are conservative is fatuous in the extreme. There is no study for the HuffPo's "liberal" tag. I suggest you RfC this if you want to take it further. ► RATEL ◄ 04:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just for fun I did a bit of my own OR and asked Google News to give me all mentions of "Drudge" in the last 24hrs. Here are the quotes I got from that one day news search. I think this pretty much closes the case in my favor:

[In ref to the Ashley Todd hoax] Matt Drudge, Mark Noonans, and Brent Bozell's "Newsbusters" were among the most vociferous purveyors of this racist hoax. The phony attack story revealed just how willing and eager are the denizens of the right-wing blogosphere and Republican echo chamber to fan the flames of racial hatred if they think it will benefit their candidate. History News Network

Indeed, voters who primarily get their news from Web sites like The Huffington Post by day and MSNBC by night, and those who primarily get theirs from The Drudge Report by day and Fox News Channel by night would have entirely different views of the candidates and the news driving the campaign year. International Herald Tribune

On the web, the rightwing Drudge Report highlights anything that favours McCain, the Huffington Post does the same for Obama, and the more independent Slate has said only one of its staff intends to vote for McCain, the other 55 for Obama. Gulf-Times.com

Moral of the story: make sure of your facts before starting disputes. ► RATEL ◄ 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who is neutral in this dispute, I must say that those sources are very weak. I believe there is a NPOV dispute. 167.127.107.8 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The first step is RfC. Go for it. ► RATEL ◄ 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are so many confirmatory sources that I welcome a RfC. One example among thousands, picked at random from a UK source from today's press:

And let’s not forget the news bloggers and aggregators. Perhaps the most famous of them is Matt Drudge, whose conservative-leaning www.drudgereport.com led the way. The Belfast Telegraph

I could literally fill this page with such references. There is no real contention here, only time wasting by some anonymous editors. ► RATEL ◄ 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is a real contention because UCLA's newsroom seems to disagree with you (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx) with the quote "The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left.". Why is UCLA wrong but random newspaper article that mentions Drudge in passing counts as a "source"? The difference here is that the UCLA uses actual research while the other sources are just unknown, unqualified journalists spouting things off without support. Filling a page with such worthless references wouldn't do much good because they don't actually support the fact that Drudge is conservative, just that an unqualified person made an unqualified and unsupported statement that it is. Lkysam (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You make the comparison to the Huffington Post but this analogy does not work. Huffington hires liberal writers to write stories for its website. Drudge Report posts links to news sources from many different outlets, including many that lean liberal such as MSNBC and the New York Times. Therefore Drudge is not a conservative website (even if it leans more to the right than other outlets) but rather a place to find links to other site's news pages. 24.187.129.47 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you'd rather judge the Drudge Report by the stories Drudge himself has authored, then we'd have to conclude that the site is not merely conservative but extremely conservative, since 90%+ of his own stories are designed to damage Democratic candidates' reputations (do I need to provide examples?). Moreover, the politically-oriented links that he cherry-picks are all there to drive an agenda, which everyone knows, and that's why his site is universally recognized as right wing, aka "conservative". As Eric Boehlert said a few days ago[4]:

Matt Drudge is still doing his loyal best to boost the chances of the GOP down the homestretch in the form of a blizzard of anti-Obama and pro-McCain links on his site.

(Please note, the page is locked until November 15, so there is no hope of getting it changed before then). ► RATEL ◄ 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

<===RFC IS OVER===>

The question is whether or not the word "conservative" should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the page.

Strong Include — 1) There are innumerable supporting quotes that can be found from many professional journalists and commentators, all attesting to the site's conservatism. 2) Every thinking visitor to the Drudge Report site, including me, will get a strong impression that the site is conservative in its purpose and orientation. That's an inescapable conclusion. 3) The links Drudge selects are there to prove a point (eg a link to Obama's aunt's illegal status) and the stories authored by Drudge are always harshly anti-Democrat (and often erroneous, as the wikipedia page on the Drudge Report shows). 4) Drudge himself has admitted to his conservatism and says he votes for the Republicans. 5) His co-editor of the site, Andrew Breitbart (who also selects linked stories) is even more rabidly right wing and even runs a society for conservatives. ► RATEL ◄ 01:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

...anyone besides Ratel??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.129.47 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfCs can take a few weeks, you have to be patient. ► RATEL ◄ 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Include — It is fact, for any person with a brain that visits DrudgeReport.com, that the person choosing the links (be it Matt Drudge or his helper) has a strong bias against the Democrats/Liberals. It is extremely clear in the choice of pictures: it must take him time to find the worst stock images for Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton (neither of them beauty queens, but still) or Barack Obama. Today's link was to a 15 seconds YouTube video showing Barack Obama wiping his face with his middle finger. And this was Drudge's top news.

On the same token, all his McCain pictures include the US flag, are taken from the left (his best angle, not showing his deformity). Barack's images are shot from the ground with the sky or the sun behind, so he is shown darker and unfavorable shades. Huffington Post is sometimes guilty of the same: "presidential" images of Obama, and angry McCain images. In my view, that is disrespect and biased journalism.

It is also extremely easy to see Drudge's catering to extreme right wing in the Republican Party, by following his top links to sites that allow unfiltered comments: you will read the worst spew, racism and hate towards liberals.

The wikipedia reader has to be informed, from the first sentence about the bias of every media source. CNN makes it clear from the first moment they show an analyst on who's side they are. Their viewers do not want to listen to Paul Begala for 20 minutes, and than ask themselves: "hm, perhaps this guy is somewhat too nice to democrats, maybe he is biased".

Bottom line: for clearly biased media/analysts (by choice, their views or their employment) it has to be made clear in the first sentence. Huffington Post has to be tagged as liberal in the same way as Drudge Report is clearly conservative (if not to the right of them). Now, for example, Wall Street Journal was always thought to be conservative on some issues, but liberal on others. Some may argue that it moved to the right somewhat since it was bought by Murdoch, but overall nobody can call WSJ a "conservative newspaper" in the first sentence. They can have an academic discussion on it. Best, 24.147.84.127 (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say include it. Reading over the discussion, It looks like although people agree that it is a conservative site, but that the sources aren't convincing. Looking at the sources, they are more or less weak as they either don't strongly state the conservatism, or are partisan themselves, and should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, there is a multitude of them, as demonstrated above. Could we find some other form which we may get consensus on? Maybe changing conservative to right leaning, or republican leaning (okay, that last one needs to be rephrased). Maybe something like aimed at a republican audience? Those who oppose conservative there, could you come up with some ideas that you would support, and those who would like to include it might support as well? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps right-wing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.84.127 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say include, but you should add reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7876 ann arbor street (talk • contribs) 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Include There is no question the Drudge Report is a conservative website. In trying to best encapsulate the core essence of that news/blog site in an encyclopedic manner, characterizing it as such is essential. Neutralis (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Exclude Drudge is not a conservative site. You are confusing "bias" with "fact." For example, http://www.conservativeusa.org/ is a "conservative" website where people can go to learn more about conservative principals and beliefs. Drudge, while it might lean to the right, is not a conservative website. Aside from that fact, the opinionated sources are laughable. 24.187.129.47 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You say that the Drudge Report cannot be described as conservative because it is not a website where "people can go to learn more about conservative principals and beliefs". I think that's your problem. You have a basic misunderstanding of what the average person means by "conservative". Hint: it certainly does not mean a learning source for conservative principles and beliefs. ► RATEL ◄ 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel bad for you Ratel because I think you have a learning disability. Conservative websites are ones that promote conservative values and beliefs. Same can be said about liberal websites. On the other hand, every news outlet either leans left (NBC News, New York Times, Washington Post) or right (Fox News, Washinton Times, Wall St. Journal). This does not make them "liberal" or "conservative." It would be incorrect to label them as either even though they lean one way because they present stories from both sides (just in inproportionate numbers). It is even more ridiculous to label a site that does not write its own stories, and links to articles on both sides as "conservative."

Oh but the Drudge Report does write its own stuff, on occasion, and every single one of those articles are anti-Left attacks. ► RATEL ◄ 04:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So what about making it "right leaning" ? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Right-leaning" would be appropriate if the site occasionally authored pieces critical of Conservatives, in amongst all the anti-Left reports and images. I am unaware of any evidence that there is any even-handedness at all. Right-leaning implies that there is a balance present, but that the bottom line is conservative. I see no balance. But I'd be willing to support the milder "right-leaning" if someone can show an article Drudge has authored that is critical of anyone on the right of politics. ► RATEL ◄ 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest as an alternative to conservative? Could you try to find a compromise you think the opposition could live with? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Drudge is a conservative. However, articles written directly by Drudge probably account for <1% of total news links on the site. Believe it or not, most of the stories linked contain informative news with relative information and not opinionated, because they come from almost EVERY major news outlet (including far left MSNBC.com and the New York Times). 24.187.129.47 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. He links to stories that slant opinion one way or the other, no matter what the leanings of the outlets to which he links. For instance, he never linked to any of the legitimate news stories about Palin's many gaffes, which were huge news at the time (and may even have cost McCain the election). That omission is an example of how he manipulates the so-called "news" coverage he gives. ► RATEL ◄ 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For someone who thinks Drudge Report is such a biased news outlet, you seem to spend more time on the site and know more about what they do and don't link than anyone. Why spend that much time on such a biased site... 24.187.129.47 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong include - it's ultra-conservative, in my opinion; but to deny that it is conservative at all is rather like denying that MoveOn.org is liberal. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Include Despite the comments by 24.187.129.47, it is fairly clear what 'conservative' means in this context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense if the New York Times is a 'liberal' newspaper. Or if MSNBC is a 'liberal' news channel. You people are funny.. you only want to bring to attention conservative biases and completely ignore the major liberal ones. Laughable really... 24.187.129.47 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Include, but find better sources. And yes, MSNBC has increasingly moved to the left, as that article states in the lead. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the MSNBC example is more fair and accurate. Rather than calling it a conservative website (or MSNBC a liberal news organization) perhaps we should use MSNBC as example and mention the bias later on in the lead. 24.187.129.47 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha now. Your main aim is to remove the word "conservative" from the leading sentence and put it further down because it comes up in a Google Search for Drudge report. So clearly you have no encyclopedic interests here but instead you are involved in the website in some way and you are intent on manipulating this article so that you can influence what Google shows to the public. No way, my friend. You can see that the vast majority disagree with you. The case is closed, IMO. ► RATEL ◄ 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong include - We have already discussed this in great detail and it is patently obvious to everyone that the Drudge Report is a strong voice for conservatives. Those who seek to deny this in my view use pretty weak arguements of obfuscation, which is helped by the Drudge Report itself since it rapidly cycles through articles. The Drudge Report can begin the day neutral, then wax heavy conservative by the end of the day. Just because DR hosts an article that might be able a liberal topic does not free it from an over all nature, just as Fox News is willing to interview democrats. No, DR is conservative in general and everyone knows it, this discussion is pointless, and those who disagree I feel may have other priorities considering the nature of their problems. --Jason Parise 67.113.98.3 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles like this are the reason nobody can take Wikipedia seriously. It is obvious Wiki is run by liberals with an agenda. 24.187.129.47 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your unique insight. ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at how Drudge is going about the Illinois governor...I've rarely seen such a spash of articles at the top...that only happens when the DR is really excited. Now did you see similar spash during the Foley scandle? Arguably as big a situation, but all I saw were one liner mentions that make up the rest of the report, where bashing global warming concerns made more ink. 67.113.98.3 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Drudge Report accuracy misstatement

The line that says "Drudge has estimated that 20 percent of his reporting is wrong" is incorrect. The source referenced (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2514276&page=1), an ABC news report, says:

"Though Cronkite was described as the 'most trusted man in America' Drudge has estimated that 20 percent of his reporting is wrong. He was sued for falsely accusing a Clinton aide of beating his wife."

Nowhere else in the ABC news article does Matt Drudge estimate his accuracy. It is quite clear that Drudge is referring to Walter Cronkite, not himself. I have taken the liberty of correcting this error myself.

(I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so let me know me if I'm wrong anywhere!)

--Samgtaylor (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Source #4

Has anybody actually clicked on this? How is it a source? Does it provide anything of any substance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.129.47 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As discussed in the edit summaries, there are numerous convenience links if the Editor and Publisher article is not available, e.g. [5] and [6], etc. Note that an article can be behind a pay firewall but may still be used as a source. I originally offer a convenience link but that was rejected. ► RATEL ◄ 06:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable Errors

Considering that Drudge only links to other stories, and does very little original reporting, this section will be trimmed to include only what drudge himself reported. Here Cometh the Milkman (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sez you? How about discussing your idea of what should be there, rather than making wholesale deletions to sections added and edited by many editors over time. You are heading towards a block with your recent edit history. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sez me ... how eloquently put. What should be there? As I stated earlier, since Drudge is an aggregator the only accuracy issues are things he publishes himself. Wild allegations of bias from decidedly partisan sources shouldn’t be included. Here Cometh the Milkman (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, you didn't delete "wild allegations of bias," you deleted WP:RS-supported statements of fact. It's not an insult or "bias" to say that Drudge has been wrong a few times. Happens to a lot of journalists. In his case, he was wrong in a few very high-profile stories, so they're worth noting here. --Good Damon 21:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I challenge the neutrality of this article, it appears to have been infiltrated by liberal bloggers who wish to paint Mr. Drudge not on the merits of his website but from their own personal biases and issues with recent news events. These recent news events do not belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.251.242 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone disagrees with this comment or thinks the article is well balanced they are welcome to reply, but we don't censor comments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the phrase "infiltrated by liberal bloggers" is an attack that is specifically disallowed on Talk pages. Secondly, the comment is a flame that is not designed to improve the page. If you can cite specific cases of unsourced additions, then speak up, otherwise do not use this page to start arguments over vague dissatisfactions. ► RATEL ◄ 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with liberal bloggers? Are you attacking them? WHy would calling someone a liberal blogger be an attack? I don't have anything against bloggers of either party.

Let's focus on the article contents. Some of the bits removed were irrelevant trivia. The intro cshouldn't say the website "is" most famous for something that occured in 1998 sourced to a story from 1998. The correct grammar is to use: "was". If you have questions about other edits, please discuss them. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing "is" to "was" is fine and that is not what is at issue. But adding nonsense about Oprah moving house to be near Obama is odious, especially as it was added without a source. ► RATEL ◄ 03:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the issue. You've done a wholesale reversion three times now of my edits as well as posting bogus warnings on my talk page. If my edit was legitimate, please go back and fix it to how I had it. You also keep reverting to an awkward wording of the lead by starting the second sentence with "based in the US," instead of including the operation's location in the lead sentence as is normally done and as is uncontroversial and as I've tried to do repeatedly. Once again, it's improper to come along and mass revert a bunch of good faith edits by people unless you have a problem with them you are willing to discuss specific objections. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The warnings concerned adding specious rubbish to the page, which you restored after I removed it. In the meantime, I have changed is to was. There is nothing improper about mass reversions when they are uncited garbage. The lead sentence states "American conservative" which is enough to deduce location. ► RATEL ◄ 03:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the edit history clearly shows my edits didn't have anything to do with those additions, which probably needed a citation needed tag. The problem was your mass reversion of perfectly good edits along with ones you objected to. You also never discussed your issues with any of the edits. And as far as nonsense, as I've now read through parts of the article wondering why you're working so hard to preserve one version of the article, I find all sorts of problems. It's unbalanced, there are unreliable sources like gawker, and there is ample evidence of bias. So I hope you'll work collaboratively to correct these problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the people making sure this page is not destroyed by vandals, and I vandal-patrol it daily, doing numerous reverts. If your tiny change got caught up in a revert, I apologize. But you did try to restore a bad version that needed more than a "citation needed" tag, so accept some guilt. If you wish to take an interest in this page and work with me on it for a few weeks, be my guest. ► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "collaborate" does not mean making controversial changes to the article without first discussing them here. For instance, saying it is "influential" is a judgement not a fact, and saying it has a large audience is weasely; in fact the audience is quite small on a global scale, and shrinking. One more suggestion: using edit summaries to slam the work of many months by many editors is not a great collaborative start. ► RATEL ◄ 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an entire section of the article about it's influence, and is has 2 million visitors per month. So it's clearly one of the major news sites. I'm always happy to collaborate on wording, but the introduction could do a better job of reflecting the article contents including the criticisms. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the table in the article that lists more prominent news sources. Then show us how similar claims are made in the intros to the wikipedia pages on those news sources. If you can find a set of pages that include "this is a major news site and very influential" in the intros, I'll agree. If not, please don't waste our time. ► RATEL ◄ 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently you do censor comments because all of my additions were deleted, and since they were factual and cited it further underscores that there is an agenda here to turn a Wiki entry about Matt Drudge into an attack on Matt Drudge for all things related to the newly elected President. Which member of the Obama damage control team do you work for? This article is about Matt Drudge's company The Drudge Report, not about recent news events which are not even historical in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.251.242 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I wish to state for the censors that Wikipedia says anyone can edit the articles, so I am always amazed that some persons who have just as much right as I do to edit here, seem to have total control over an article and says we have to ask their permission first to edit. Where does it say that Wikipedia is permission based? Also, who determines what stays and what goes when the person wielding the power obviously has NO authority to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.251.242 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I shall remove this tag unless the facts in the article can be proved to be unbalanced in a reasonable time period. Please provide proof of unbalanced editing in this section. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Errors and unsourced stories" This section is way too long and only gives one side of each story. It needs to be cut down and balanced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you find sourced statements that "balance" the data presented, fine. But deleting for the sake of deleting is not on. The site has a long history of errors and unsourced claims, and wikipedia will reflect that. ► RATEL ◄ 13:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But a section on each "mistake" is a bit weird. I think a section saying that they've been accused of sloppy editing or that their mistakes have been noted by other papers and listing some of them would be fine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You could be right, and it would be nice to see a proposed edit to solve that. However, some of the "errors" on the site are so egregious and so engineered to either blacken someone's name or achieve a political end that we need to make sure that the essence of what took place is not lost in the synopsis. ► RATEL ◄ 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you read the "John Kerry's alleged intern scandal" section and tell me if you think it's worth including? I don't see that there's anything significant there. Clark made an allegation, Drudge reported it, other papers started to run with it, then they all dropped it. So? What is the allegation? Is Drudge not allowed to report on allegations people make? What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I never added that section, but I've just read the source at [7] and it's an ugly story that could even be expanded to show what happened. Drudge was at the heart of getting this lie spread around during an election. Suggest you read source and have a look at notability, which is quite high in this instance. Section should be rephrased to show what actually happened. ► RATEL ◄ 10:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny of Consenus Building

I found the following thread buried in the edits for the main page:

NOTE: DO NOT REMOVE THE WORD "CONSERVATIVE", WHICH IS WELL CITED AND SOURCED IN THE SECTION ON BIAS BELOW, AND WHICH IS A CONSENSUS INCLUSION (SEE TALK PAGE)

First question: Yes, Matt Drudge is a conservative by self-admission; however, how can a 'news aggregation website' which only provides links to mainstream websites be called 'conservative'? It is ridiculous reasoning to call the website conservative.

Second question: What gives you the right to dictate the terms of this entry? It is not a consensus inclusion that the website is conservative, it is only a consensus conclusion that Matt Drudge is a conservative. Stop playing wiki-genie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.251.242 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third question: all of my edits PLUS my comments here on the discussion page have been deleted. This smacks of your agenda when the discussion notes even get deleted. You have Ma COM and Pa Ratel who have taken over this page by tyranny. Sic Semper Tyrannus.

In answer to your questions, sometimes editors leave notes for each other in an article. In this case, since that word was removed repeatedly, Ratel left a note. Regarding your second question, Drudge's website can still be conservative if the news stories they choose to include are chosen based on a conservative agenda. If you think this characterization is wrong, it doesn't matter :), what you have to do is find a source that says his website isn't conservative, or calls it something else. You can also discuss the issue here, but if there aren't sources to back up your position and there are sources to back up the characterization of the website as conservative (and there are), that's not an argument you're likely to win. My first suggestion is to accept that what you know, or what's common knowledge is irrelevant. It's what reliable sources that can be cited say that matters. Secondly, make sure not to criticize other editors. It may seem weird, but you have to focus on the content. It doesn't matter whether anyone else does or doesn't have an agenda. We all have to abide by the rules and treat their arguments as if they are motivated by the most wholesome and loving of intentions. In the end it doesn't matter what the intentions are anyway. It matters what the sources say and what editors agree on based on those sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with CoM. ► RATEL ◄ 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Man who is this guy? Like practically the only person in America who thinks the DR is anything but conservative. Jason Parise (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Firstly, the phrase "infiltrated by liberal bloggers" is an attack that is specifically disallowed on Talk pages"

This made me laugh so hard. Not only is that not an attack, but it's the truth. This page is carefully moderated by liberals, including the king, Ratel. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a change you want to make go ahead and make it. If it's reverted explain it here. Please make sure to include citations supporting the content you're basing your information on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth Is Contingent On Internet Consensus Between Narrow Demographics

MOB RULE like this reinforces why everyone should read ideologically significant Wikipedia entries not just with skepticism, but with utter incredulity. Note that while the bio and site entries for Drudge, news aggregator, acknowledge him as "conservative" in the very first sentence, entries for proudly liberal pundits like Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington make sure to omit the "liberal" distinction from the entire first paragraph, instead burying it later in the article or avoiding it altogether with sleight of hand (e.g., replacing "liberal" with "critical of Republicans"). Can you liberal editors wearing the thinnest facade of concern for truth--RATEL, this one is apparently your baby--really feel good about this, or about the self-aggrandizing comments, or about BANNING conservative editors? I won't try to change this article because I know my type is outnumbered 5 to 1 by liberal editors who revel in asserting their INTERNET TRUTH. I do, however, challenge you: change the above mentioned liberals' pages. After all, they're proud of their liberalism, and you're proud of your truth. I'll wait. Or maybe be deleted, or banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipdouglas (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This lead sentence for this article is the result of a few editors stringing together selective sources to promote a particular POV. A Google books search shows that the substantial coverage about the website does not typically describe it in this way and it violates undue weight and NPOV guidelines to write this article this way and is inconsistent with other articles on Wikipedia. That being said, I enoucrage you to focus on content and citations rather than making generalizations about editors. You might enjoy working on non-controversial articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Chip, I'm the one who dug up most of the sources and fought with Ratel at the end and proposed the compromise. I'm a conservative so really you're just full of hot air. Soxwon (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sox, what was the compromise? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

CoM: I'm aware of the rules; I've been a user for several years now with [limited] contributions and discussion on controversial and non-controversial topics. Perhaps I broke the rules here... a bit like the article itself, as you noted. The pedantic editor subculture here is a strange one with people dutifully turning away pleasure craft as aircraft carriers slip by without protest. Sox: I'm not interested in your political affiliation as it doesn't change the contradiction I pointed out initially. Not blaming anything on you, but in the interest of consistency it only seems fair to drop the label from TDR or add one to the pundits. Chipdouglas (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, this is not the place to rant about other editors or what's wrong with Wikipedia. Please stop re-opening disruptive discussions. Any substantive part of this discussion about use of the "conservative" designation is already underway in earlier sections. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Describing the good faith comments of inexperienced editors as rants violates several guidelines including the one about personal attacks Wikidemon. Please try to focus on the content issues he has brought up instead of soap boxing. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with CoM and CENSEI on this Wiki, plz don't do that. Soxwon (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing is the right thing to do; as explained the discussion is a rant against other editors, and any substntive content there is already under discussion in other sections. Even if you did not agree with my closing, it is improper to re-open a disruptive thread and, as these editors have now done, escalate the issue by complaining about me on this talk page and now AN/I. This whole thing is disruptive and never should have happened if editors would follow some basic approaches to civility and collaboration. At this point can we please close or remove the thread and deal with it at AN/I? Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion was really closed, then why did so may people still want to talk about it. CENSEI (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion and WP:BATTLE. The talk sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 sections above this one are all devoted to the same topic, minus the disruption. Venting about other editors is not appropriate on this page; any useful discussion can be had in discussions already open. Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Now may we please close this, or move it somewhere else where it does not get in the way of work on the article? The question of whether to call it "conservative" is open and underway elsewhere. Why not talk about it there, where people have already expressed there thoughts. Or start a new subsection there? Wikidemon (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)