Talk:Drudge Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drudge Report article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] "Opinion Website"?

The Drudge Report, while purporting a certain viewpoint in the articles it links towards, certainly doesn't classify as an opinion website. It is a news site, and the main summary of the page should reflect this. Corduroyblack 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] study showing "liberal bias": a closer look

I looked at that study that it mentions seems to show a liberal bias, and in their results tables, of the 20 news sources they looked at, all but 5 had a more liberal score than the Drudge report. In fact, only two of them (Fox News and the Washington Times) indicated a conservative bias. Given that this shows that the average news source gets a more liberal score than this site mainly devoted to posting links to other news sources, in all reason the accusations of liberal bias are clearly opposite to the evidence shown by that study.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.222.180 (talk • contribs)

  • Please sign your posts. This is not a page to debate whether the study is accurate or not. We are not the arbiters, and others have found it wanting. In any case, if you disregard where the links go and only look at reports Drudge himself authors, the tone is overwhelmingly pro-Republican and anti-Democrat. But I think the WP page does adequately reflect the political leanings of the Drudge Report, and you'd have to be peculiarly insensitive not to pick that up. Skopp (Talk) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I didn't say the study was innacurate, but that based on the studies results, it is grossly inaccurate to say it shows the Drudge report is more liberal than most media outlets. Also, how can you say this page "adequately reflect the political leanings of the Drudge Report" when no where on the page does it claim it has a conservative viewpoint? This despite the fact that the guy who runs the Drudge Report used to have a show on Fox News, that was canceled after an incident where he wanted to be too extreme in opposing abortion, and has gone on record saying that he is a conservative, and yet the only allegations of a liberal or conservative bias claim the site is liberal?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.222.180 (talk • contribs)

There are numerous quotes and passages indicating Drudge is conservative. If you want to find another one and insert it, it's your prerogative.   Skopp   12:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No it's not our perrogative, because jokers keep reverting it to the ridiculous article at present where the main claim made about it's political leanings is that it leans left (with the recent coup of at least getting "sometimes right" to stick), with a few gadflies dissenting. The study is patently ridiculous: rating whether a news source is liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the selection of stories, how they are titled, how those titles are arranged to tell a story, and so on. Are we going to cite creationist stories on the evolution pages next? Can anyone come up with a "study" that says anything, and have it influence an entire article? If I make up with a study that shows that John McCain is actually a Democrat, can we remove all references to what party he's a member of from his bio page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming section

"Drudge has faced criticism for his skeptical view of global warming, as evidenced by his frequent juxtapositioning of links to articles on global warming with links to reports of unusually cold weather.[20]".

The source cited there doesn't support that statement. It only mentions Drudge once, and it criticizes him for running lots of bad reviews of the concert. No mention at all of justapositioning links of cold and hot weather, or criticism for doing so. I'm not arguing that he doesn't do that. But are there reliable sources that point out that he does that, or criticize him for it? Just because we may observe that he does something does not mean it is not original research if we include it in the article without a proper source. - Crockspot 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed, relook at link, it says of the DR: "It loves winter cold snaps in Washington, D.C., and has taken to publicizing freak snowstorms in warm places."   Skopp   12:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. - Crockspot 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording slightly in this section to highlight the fact that he does this almost on a daily basis, which seems to me to be more than just a trend but more of an obsession. Jason Parise (talk)
The wording has been reverted. It seems more opinion that is supported by the citation. --Rtrev (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you just don't want the fact known, and have used the lack of additional sources cited as an excuse to delete what I added. I know this, as does everyone else who reads the DR, to be a fact by experience. Shall I publish a report on the web about it, then cite it, would that be good enough for you? Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Matters line

Calling Media Matters "progressive" is a bit POV, isn't it? I mean, they're Liberal, for sure, but to call them outright progressive is an expression of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.249.133 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the eye of the beholder. "Progressive" is a dictionary synonym for left-leaning or liberal, and an antonym for conservative.[1]   Ratel   10:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Progressive is the new Liberal. Don't worry they'll have a new name in 5 years. 151.203.224.233 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Jax

[edit] Global warming bias

The Drudge Report seems particularly biased towards climate change. Not only are the headlines routinely misleading and misrepresentative of the actual truth of the matter (i.e., he tends to deal in obfuscation of what AGW actually implies by highlighting localized cold snaps), but at times deliberately inaccurate. Since yesterday evening, for instance, he has had a headline highlighting the recent arctic snap in the contiguous US (which really isn't all that surprising considering it's the middle of January and, in any case, nationally temperatures are still well above normal for the month). The headline purports to link to a temperature map; when you click on the link, it actually goes to a map of wind chills which are easily up to 20 degrees lower than the actual air temperature depending on wind speeds. I don't know if this is noteworthy; I know there's already a section on his global warming bias in the article. Perhaps it would be appropriate to link to the Drudge Report Archive to use this as an instance of a blatant error. Anyways, Fair and balanced a la Faux News, I suppose. It's really quite comical. Soon as Drudge links to an article on Global Warming, you can expect the comments to be filled with juvenile remarks and complaints about Al Gore. LOL. 128.237.246.217 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton Coverage

I think the Drudge Report's anti-Clinton bias is pretty well known and attested to in the media, and for anyone who reads it regularly this is plainly obvious. It is very much worth mentioning and highlighting this fact because it plays on the top headlines almost every day lately during this primary season. For every 10 anti-Clinton links or suggestive pictures there is one link on another candidate, complimentary or otherwise. DON'T erase my work unless you can back up otherwise, but good luck trying. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with above user. I'm politically apathetic and don't care but there is an obvious anti-clinton or pro-obama rhetoric to the site. When the Obama dressing like a Muslim story broke out, he went out of his way to say a Clinton Staffer supported him with that story, but did not reveal the source. Additionally he went out of his way and put in an editor's note saying it wasn't a big deal because many leaders dress in other culture's wardrobes. Additionally every picture of Clinton he puts up seems to very unflattering and he headlines the page with many "Clinton Weaps" type stories. Todays lead story is Obama winning the unofficial polls of Wyoming's primary. How is that the most important story in the world right now? Wyoming is perhaps the least influential and either the least populous or second to, state in the country. I want to see Clinton leading in Guam be a headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iosimcash (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable exclusives

I think it is appropriate to add a list of stories which Drudge broke first. I am going to add the Lewinsky affair along with a few others, but I think it may be slightly redundant as it is already mentioned two other times in the article, perhaps one of these other references should be removed?This.machinery (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To the recent vandal:

Yes, yes: a lot of Brits (and others) are similarly hacked off that the Drudge Report took it upon itself to break a story that the British media - in a rare show of cooperation and common sense - had agreed to keep quiet on; namely the deployment of Prince Harry to Afghanistan. I'm sure lots of people have lots they want to say to Drudge. But let's be grown up about this: if you're not happy with the site, then send an email - don't attack Wikipedia for it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph has commented on how the entry has been changed. Woody (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So I see. "[Drudge] revelled in the controversy he provoked by breaking the news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment." No doubt he did: it's great publicity for him, and hang the potential consequences to anyone else. Still, the vandals need to appreciate (and I know they won't, so I'm just wasting keypresses) that Wikipedia is only damaged - if briefly - by what they do. It doesn't help anyone or anything. Therefore, it's an entirely self-serving activity on their part, and yet that's supposedly what their criticisms accuse The Drudge Report of. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is changing the Wikipedia entry to state that the Drudge report is an irresponsible news site vandalism? Surely putting the life of one of Britain's royals and the lives of many of its soldiers in danger is irresponsible to the extreme? It has been reported in the press as irresponsible, and this has been agreed by the army, as such it is fact and therefore can be included in the wiki article. Where, therefore, is the vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.195.14 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia in dealing with news reports is to report what happened, not to pass moral judgement on it. Opinions without proper citation therefore constitute at best inappropriate content, and at worst vandalism. Wikipedia could convey the opinion that this was irresponsible journalism if - and only if - a notable source can be cited as having said so. Even in that case, the opinion - the point of view (POV) - must be that of the source cited, not of Wikipedia itself; and it would be incumbent on editors to ensure that all points of view are covered. If you have no such a source to present here (and I'd be astonished if that were the case), then you're welcome to express your feelings on the matter on your own website or blog, or write a letter to the papers, or complain to The Drudge Report directly.
Bear in mind also that my comments here followed an example of very clear vandalism: not simply an unsupported opinion, but several instances of profanity and personal abuse. This is certainly not the place for that. - Shrivenzale (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Harry "Exclusive"?

Why is this listed under the Notable exclusive section? This clearly was not an exclusive in any way, shape, or form! The article itself states this. I would think that it could be re-listed under "Errors", but that may be a NPOV issue on my part. Either way, I think that it needs to be changed.BWH76 (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The section is just meant to list a brief number of stories which Drudge was the first, or was one of very first to publish. Drudge reported on Prince Harry in a questionable manner, and I think the comments by the Ministry of Defense reflect this. However, even if Drudge affected the Prince's deployment by the superseding the blackout agreement (which he was not a part of), the initial pretext of the story- that Prince Harry was fighting in Afghanistan, is not an error.This.machinery (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unquestionably notable and for good or bad (the latter IMO in terms of PH) this has made the Drudge report notable in the UK much as Lewinsky made it notable in the US. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't questioning the notability - I was questioning why it was titled as an "exclusive". This is immaterial as someone has edited the section to read "Notable stories" (as opposed to "Notable exclusives"). BWH76 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of journalistic integrity

I kind of feel that there should be a section on Drudge's lack of journalistic integrity--reporting stories before the facts are clear, injecting personal bias, not sourcing statements, etc. For instance, following Apple CEO Steve Jobs's appearance at the WWDC in 2008, Drudge linked to a Yahoo! news photo of Jobs seemingly leaning against a table for support (though the caption didn't state this). Then, the Wall Street Journal said that "blogs" were discussing Jobs's health, though the Journal only specifically mentioned Drudge. Drudge then linked to this Journal article, replacing the link to the photo. In essence it would seem he manipulated the mainstream and fabricated a story. Theshibboleth (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree but it's OR for us to say so. If someone in the media reports the facts as you have speculated above, then it may be included. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)