Behind the News

Drudge Barks, TV News Bites

“YouTube Election” or same old sloppy speculation?

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Thank you, Matt Drudge, for providing us all with a brief respite from what might have otherwise been yet another ho-hum August day of campaign reporting. Because who cares what candidates are saying about Iraq or Cuba or assault rifles when “OBAMA WIFE SLAMS HILLARY?” (as Drudge casually wondered aloud across the top of his web site yesterday morning). Cat fight!

Drudge linked his teaser to a Chicago Sun-Times column in which a line from a recent Michelle Obama stump speech—”…if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House”—was referenced sans context along with the suggestion (Drudge bait!) by columnist Jennifer Hunter that it “could be interpreted as a swipe at Hillary Clinton.” Drudge linked. Bloggers dissected. And predictably, Drudge soon saw his all-caps question mirrored back at him from television screens tuned to network and cable news. Some examples:

“MRS. OBAMA ATTACK?” — CNN’s American Morning this morning

“FAMILY VALUES: Did Obama’s Wife Slam Clinton?” — NBC’s Today Show this morning

“MRS. OBAMA AIMS AT SEN. CLINTON?” and “MRS. OBAMA VS. SEN. CLINTON: Cheap shot or fair territory?” — Fox News’ Fox & Friends this morning

No matter that Mrs. Obama’s “if you can’t run your own house” line could also be “interpreted” in other, less “newsworthy” ways, particularly when read in context (she was talking, as she has before on the stump, about her own family’s efforts to balance work and family time). No matter that Barack Obama told reporters (when asked on a conference call yesterday morning) that his wife was not referring to Clinton. Once flagged by Drudge, the Sun-Times’ suggested “interpretation”—them’s fightin’ words!—was the one that ricocheted around the media echo chamber.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer noticed yesterday afternoon that Mrs. Obama’s words were “generating some commotion” and felt compelled to call two talking heads into The Situation Room to help him “read between the lines here.” Lucky for Blitzer, this sort of “commotion” plays right into the painfully uninformative cable news format of pitting a left-leaning talking head against a right-leaning talking head and treating viewers to an argument. And so “Democratic strategist” Donna Brazile told Blitzer that Michelle Obama was not taking a shot at Senator Clinton and “Republican strategist” John Feehey said that she was taking a shot—“no doubt about it.” And then the “commotion” was revisited by other CNN anchors thereafter (Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, the folks on American Morning today).

NBC’s Today Show this morning dressed up the dustup and presented it as a cautionary tale (one we’ve surely all heard before) about YouTube’s effect on running for political office. (Isn’t it really, in this case, more about the Drudge Effect on campaign reporting?) This allowed Andrea Mitchell to grab viewers in the first hour of Today—the story apparently merited mention just thirteen minutes into the three-hour program—with talk of a “sexy political story” which by the end of her report became “a lesson in how quickly things can be misinterpreted online.” Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director, told Mitchell: “This is the YouTube Election for a reason. You can take a sound bite and cut it off and splash it on YouTube and suddenly create a new version of a story.” Or, as happened here, you can take a sound bite and suggest it has an inflammatory meaning and get your suggestion picked up by Drudge and suddenly create a new version of a story—which will then be picked up by NBC.

Unlike at NBC, Fox News folks made no attempts to conceal their excitement over the Girl Fight (as time wore on this morning, Fox News even dropped the question mark from their on-screen captions such that “MRS. OBAMA AIMS AT SEN. CLINTON?” became the more definitive, “THE CLAWS COME OUT” and “DARTS FLYING”):

Fox & Friends’ Alisyn Camerota: “We’re more than a year away from the election and the fangs are coming out… The wife of Barack Obama is taking a swipe at a fellow Democrat…Is this a thinly veiled jab, Mike, at Hillary Rodham Clinton and her past marital problems?”

Mike Gallagher (Republican strategist and radio host): “Boy, I hope so. This is fun. I’m on the sidelines watching this. Do you think we can talk Michelle Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into doing maybe a cage match or mud wrestling competition? This is real fun. Rumor is Mrs. Obama is much more physically agile than Mrs. Clinton but Clinton has her in the strength department. If they start going doing this now — we are only in August of 2007 — imagine what August of 2008 will be like.”

Imagine.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

judyjay1964

Wed 22 Aug 2007 05:59 PM

When I first heard the headline on this story, I assumed it would be spun as a slam against Guiliani. Seems like his house is in much worse order than Hillary's.

judyjay1964

Wed 22 Aug 2007 05:59 PM

When I first heard the headline on this story, I assumed it would be spun as a slam against Guiliani. Seems like his house is in much worse order than Hillary's.

Steven Andrew Miller

Thu 23 Aug 2007 08:54 AM

I've watched the video of Michelle Obama saying this. After she delivers the line she smirks. There is little doubt in my mind, after seeing the video, that it was a jab at Hillary Clinton.

American Eagle

Thu 23 Aug 2007 09:19 AM

There is no question that Michelle Obama was attacking the Clintons, which is why everyone picked up on the story. She wasn't talking in the abstract and the current resident of the White House could teach the Obamas a thing or two about family and family values. If the Columbia Journalism Review missed the context that the rest of us understood quite well, they need to read the Chicago Sun-Times of today,

bighead227

Thu 23 Aug 2007 09:28 AM

I don't know if anyone's house is in worse order than Hillary's or not. The point, as I see it, is that CJR doesn't like when Drudge decides something is newsworthy. I can't recall this protest last week when the media ran with the Guiliani's daughter supporting Obama story for days and days. No protest for the "trophy wife" story either. I guess those issues met CJR's standard for what is newsworthy. Hmmmm.

Maxvolt

Thu 23 Aug 2007 09:38 AM

Does common sense and logic stop at the doors of The Columbia Journalism Review (CRJ)? I say yes, and so does objective journalism. There is ZERO question whether or not Michelle Obama attacked Hillary on behalf of her husbands campaign...she is the only safe one in Obama's campaign who could pull it off without it being a negative to his campaign...duh!!! Dont be so niave and idiotic. But thats not the real question here...the real question is CRJ's NEED to bash Matt Drudge...now that speaks mountains to the media bias that CRJ possesses! Matt Drudge only links to existing stories, he doesnt write them, yet they bash him for linking the news?!? What is CRJ afraid of? Funny how CRJ isnt up in arms over the Huff post links to the same stories...CRJ your obvious bias is showing, you are going to put yourself out of business and you wont have a clue why it happened...liberals...so pathetic.

buck07

Thu 23 Aug 2007 09:49 AM

Remember this is from a school of journalism. This article isn't about Obama or Clinton. It's about Drudge. Liberal Hate Drudge because he doesn't see himself as some self-righteous, elitist media clown. What bothers these elitist media snobs is that drudge does a better job of reporting stories that they could ever imagine. He doesn't editorialize or spin the story or as most of these clowns do, attempt to be the story. He points it out and we read it.

Keith Curtis

Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:08 AM

This article is quoting a very small part of Michelle Obama's speech. If you look at the full context, it becomes clear what she is saying.

Here is some more from her:
"part of what we want to do as a family is to make sure that our children are sane, but also to model what it means to have family values in this country, and we haven't seen that for a long time"

It is a lot easy to say something was taken out of context, when you take it out of context!

ehill

Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:21 AM

Ms. Obama, if you missed it is a lady of many academic accomplishments, but subtlety is not one of them. I suspect, she like her husband are sorely lacking in beltway political savvy. Her remark could not have not been misconstrued even the most imbecilic of her spouses constuients. Columbia School of Journalism, leaders of the fourth estate. Shame on you.

Keith Curtis

Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:22 AM

This article should be retracted, or have a correction issued. The "set of facts" to support her thesis is less than one sentence!

DesScorp

Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:42 AM

Was the Michelle Obama story hard news on the level of, oh, say Chernobyl going poof? Obviously not, but was it news? Yeah, of course it was. We're in campaign season, and people from the campaigns are saying provocative things. So if this kind of coverage offends the CJR staff, I trust then that they won't do stories about Guiliani's kids bickering, or Fred Thompson's "trophy wife"?

wisebeard

Thu 23 Aug 2007 11:01 AM

Well I,for one hope the Drudge Report facilitates the dems implosion.

wisebeard

Thu 23 Aug 2007 11:02 AM

Well I,for one hope the Drudge Report facilitates the dems implosion.

Mike DeMarco

Thu 23 Aug 2007 11:10 AM

From the original author quoted by Drudge:
"''The whole thing about Hillary has been completely fabricated,'' Obama added. ''You guys have got to get it off your minds.''

OK, but as I stood there in Atlantic, Iowa, listening to Michelle Obama talk and hearing the cadence of her speech, my immediate reaction was that she was obliquely referring to the Clintons.

Why did I think that?

Well, she said she and Barack were modeling "what it means to have family values in this country and we haven't seen that for a long time" [emphasis added]. Wasn't Bush the family values guy? What did Michelle mean by "we haven't seen that [family values] for a long time"?

Then she talked about the future president being someone who "respects family . . ." Did Bill Clinton show respect for his family with his bimbo eruptions? Did he consider the impact on his child, let alone his wife?

Michelle Obama added: "So our view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."

Bang! "
Kieth Curtis, any comments???

Mannie

Thu 23 Aug 2007 11:14 AM

Is THIS how you "do journalism" at CJR? Attribute someone else's ideas to Drudge and resort to the "Ridicule it, it'll go away" tactic whenever any question about Hillary's "record" arises? Do you "teach" this to your students? Is this why most Americans hold "Journalists" in such deep and abiding contempt?

Jennifer Hunter raised an excellent question in her column at the Chicago Sun-Times. In fact, I was amazed to see someone in the print media actually have the guts to report a newsworthy event that must have infuriated the Clintons. That's really supposed to be verboten in the mainstream media, isn't it?

Well, the mainstream media may have granted Hillary a blanket pass on anything in her record that she may find embarrassing, but clearly Ms. Obama hasn't. It's about time someone newsworthy started wondering aloud about Hillary's fitness for executive office.

A "journalist" carrying water for the Clinton -- or indeed any -- campaign machine is merely practicing the worlds oldest profession and deserves all the respect that goes with it.

Tom is political

Thu 23 Aug 2007 11:18 AM

What Would Drudge Do?

If this were pre-internet days, this statement would have never left the venue at which she was speaking. Drudge posts the headlines and the media MUST report it because so many people read Drudge and the linked articles, (including this one) that the media audience will know such information is being purposfully left out of the news.

Drudge is the great equalizer.

Tell your media buddies. "Before you write it, ask 'How will this look on Drudge'"???

chris

Thu 23 Aug 2007 12:01 PM

Liz the only reason we read your tripe is because it is posted on Drudge. The media jumped on his comment and started the show because that's what the media does and always has, Drudge or no Drudge. I love your whine about how the real issues get lost in the mix as if any of these candidates are bringing real issues to the table. It's all about the show. Do you really think we could put up with two years of campaigning without the show?

haphog

Thu 23 Aug 2007 12:05 PM

"If you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it".....
Has someone missed something, or are you just validating the premise of this article..? It's not about Hillary, or Obama .. or Drudge for that matter..its about this 24 hr self feeding news cycle circus that has replaced journalism in this country. A single interpertation whether right or wrong, devoid of any context, gets picked up on this roller coaster and by virtue of repition becomes a fact that will be argued by every talking head in print or on the air... It would be funny if this was not the way presidential elections are won and lost in this country.

Reader11722

Thu 23 Aug 2007 12:05 PM

Obama's wife slams Clinton, Lohan jailed, Paris Freed,Whoopi and the View, global warming, all distractions. While the mainstream media creates illusions, der fuhrer steps on our throats by opening our mail, arresting reporters for asking about 9/11 (Lepacek) and convicting reporters for exposing 9/11 (Chris Bollyn), suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars for a foriegn gov't. Soon, the sinking of an Aircraft Carrier(by Mossad) will occur and the US will 'retaliate' against Iran. Which AIPAC-lobbying country benefit's from that?

Scott Huber

Thu 23 Aug 2007 12:06 PM

Dear CJR,

First, thank you kindly for allowing comments. So few places do. I hope you are able to learn from some of the comments.

Second, the most interesting aspect of your story is how well chronicled you take the story from Drudge and on through the media. The reason this amazes me is now I know you are capable of reporting how a story plays out.

I agree with many of the above that you take exception with Matt simply because you don't like someone else (other than the established MSM) in control of the news.

This election will be the end of the MSM, especially as it will go all out to elect Hillary. There's almost nothing you can do to stop the massive drop in credibility the MSM and particularly newspapers are about to experience. Your tipping point for failure is coming. Soon revenue will be too hard to generate for the cost of printing the paper.

Now, that said, and regarding the article above. If I were Obama's campaign manager and Hillary is that far in the lead, I would do something very similar. But even moreso, I would deny the heck out of doing it the next day.

I've read it in context. I can't say for certain if it was an attack aimed at Hillary. It may well have been, but maybe not. I would suggest either Obama or Matt have successfully launched the idea that the Clinton's are unfit for office again based on their 'values' which, in the case of Obama, seems very interesting that 'values' are a campaign issue for the left.

But overall, your piece above rests solely on Obama's word that his wife did not mean that. And without additional substantive context or quotes from the players, you are simply reporting one 'journalist' source as false based on one refutation of that comment, by someone who does stand to benefit by your attacking the initial reporter.

Sorry, CJR, that's an 'F' according to all my J teachers.

wumhenry

Thu 23 Aug 2007 12:39 PM

This bit is cute, too: "the painfully uninformative cable news format of pitting a left-leaning talking head against a right-leaning talking head." So which would CJR would prefer: an interview with the left-leaning talking head alone or with the right-leaning one alone? My money says the former.

Trochilus

Thu 23 Aug 2007 12:47 PM

This pointedly piqued post reads a bit like the expression of indignity launched by CJR’s Corey Pein over the Rather affair - ignoring the obvious (that the documents were forged) by grousing instead about the fact that it ended the further exploration of the President’s guard service.

For as long as I can recall, attributions of venal personal motivation to various "off-hand" comments made by Republicans over the years, have simply been fair game in the media. Am I correct that such "analysis" pieces have never been the subject of a “put-out” post, such as this one, by the Columbia Journalism Review?

Because various news outlets pick up on a juicy little story like this one, CJR comes roaring to the defense of both Michelle in her unconvincing denial, and Hillary, the poor dear, for having to endure the indignity of what was pretty clearly a cheap shot across her bow.

But regardless of whether it was or was not, your post attempts to sidestep the obvious issue. Hillary is fond of being critical of Obama for his lack of experience, which rather effectively masks the obvious - she has no experience successfully running anything at all. She deserved the barb!

Can you folks actually keep straight faces when you discuss such things amongst one another up their in the dizzying Heights? Or, do you titter and smirk knowingly, in the belief that you are once again putting one over on your self righteous readership?

Torquemada

Thu 23 Aug 2007 01:00 PM

This tempest in a teapot brings to mind Michael Savage's description of liberalism as a "mental disorder." He might as well have included American politics and American journalism under that same diagnosis.

maxziel

Thu 23 Aug 2007 01:00 PM

Me thinks that perhaps this is the most traffic that CJR has received to date, due to the Drudge link. Your 15 minutes of fame is ticking Ms. Barrett. If I were in your shoes, perhaps I would suggest bestowing an honary journalism degree upon Mr. Drudge to your professors.

MSBassSinger

Thu 23 Aug 2007 01:02 PM

I think there is no doubt she was aiming at others, including Hillary. She was specifically referrring to whomever is running for President needs to have shown their ability to manage their own family first. That is, if unintentionally, straight from I Timothy in Scripture. Conservatives should love that.

I think it applies to not only Hillary, but Chris Dodd (remember the much publicized sandwich with Ted Kennedy and a waitress), Guiliani, and Newt Gingrich, as well.

I have yet to see what Hillary has done of any significance in her life. She has ridden Bill's coattails into any responsible positions she has had, and relied on the accomplishments of others. The one time she had something of her own (the attempt to socialize medicien in the US), she failed miserably. She has to be carefully managed by her handlers lest her volatile temper show publicly.

I would never vote for Obama for President, but Mrs. Obama was spot on that whomever will be President should have shown the ability to manage his or her own household.

NMR

Thu 23 Aug 2007 01:03 PM

Columbia Journalism Review. Wow! That sounds impressive. But, I'm a bit confused regarding terms. My take on the Drudge Report article is that Drudge doesn't make the cut as a journalist, but it is not clear why. Help me understand this. Are reporters, columnists, essayists, commentators, bloggers all considered to be journalists? Are propagandists journalists, too? Can journalists be propagandists? What does it take to become a journalist? Must one take classes in journalism to justify certification as a journalist? I know what the terms physicist, chemist, biologist, mathematician mean, but I don’t know what is meant by the term journalist.

Skipy

Thu 23 Aug 2007 01:04 PM

Did she slam Hillary or Not? I don't know! But one thing is for Certain CJR owes Drudge, for they never had this many hits to the website as they did today. it defiantly makes for great advertising. "Slam Drudge & Be noticed!"
Drudge Rules!

Peeved

Thu 23 Aug 2007 01:13 PM

This only became a story because Fox News invented a connection, i.e. lied. This is a stomp speech Michelle uses all the time to talk about the difficulties of balancing family and work.

And if she were talking about bad family values of a candidate, why not interpret it more as an attack on Giuliani. He's got the numerous marriages, affairs, kids who won't talk to him and one in fact who supports Obama. Good Grief.

Turambar

Thu 23 Aug 2007 02:18 PM

But Drudge linked to the video of her speech at the state fair.

How is that "referenced sans context"? It was 5 minutes of context.

In fact he didnt just link to it- it was an embedded video at the top of the site that you clicked on to play.

It seems to me that Barrett would be better off reading the drudgereport before she writes the stories to avoid embarrassing herself.

Trochilus

Thu 23 Aug 2007 02:32 PM

Peeved, who hails from the left-leaning MediaMatters says:

"This is a stomp speech Michelle uses all the time to talk about the difficulties of balancing family and work." (my emphasis)

Gee, what is a "stomp speech?"

Is that one containing seemingly innocuous references, that also steps real hard on the momentum of your opponent(s)?

The suggestion by Peeved (and others) that it might be aimed at Rudy Giuliani hardly convinces anyone with a grain of sense that it is not primarily aimed at Hillary.

After all, B. Obama must win the primaries first in order to have the opportunity run as the Presidential standard-bearer. And especially given his slide in the polls, Hillary Clinton is very much the more important opponent right now.

When candidates get behind, the common wisdom is that they are tempted to go negative. But as "Mr. Positive," he could not afford to do so directly.

dcunning30

Thu 23 Aug 2007 03:46 PM

Why is there such a desire to believe Mrs. Obama wasn't slamming Hillary? Because Baraka said she wasn't? What was he supposed to say? "Yea, my wife slammed the Clintons!". Come on, let common sense prevail. Baraka is trailing Hillary. The Obamas HAVE to try to chip at Hillary's lead. Of course she was referring to the Clintons. (rolls eyes)

dcunning30

Thu 23 Aug 2007 03:52 PM

Peeved said:Thu 23 Aug 2007

"And if she were talking about bad family values of a candidate, why not interpret it more as an attack on Giuliani."

Peeved, you gotts think this through. Baraka IS NOT running against Guliani. Based on the polling, am attack against Guilani is a wasted opportunity. Guliani isn't polling well with Republicans. Plus, Baraka has to first win the democratic primary before even has an opportunity to be concerned with Guliani, or ANY republican, for that matter. In context, and also importantly, in strategy, it's clear she was taking a swipe at Hillary.

MSBassSinger

Thu 23 Aug 2007 04:18 PM

Barak may not be running against Guiliani now, but I am sure even a naive Democrat like him can figure out that if your single verbal bullet can hit 4 targets at once (Hillary, Dodd, Guiliani, and Gingrich), the latter two who could be potential opponents (from his point of view of beating Hillary and Dodd), why not take advantage of it? Republicans (though not to the degree Democrats have) have not had a good track record with some of their members' morality.

Trochilus

Thu 23 Aug 2007 04:31 PM

dcunning30

Agreed.

And, people also need to realize that Peeved (of MediaMatters) has a real agenda here. He/She opens with:

This only became a story because Fox News invented a connection, i.e. lied.

The fact is, however, that the whole kerfuffle began with a suggestive comment in a column -- Michelle gets stronger all the time -- published in the Chicago Sun-Times, and written by Jennifer Hunter. If you survey her writings, you get the strong indication she is a Barack Obama supporter.

In fact, she went back today and reiterated her suspicion in another column, A swipe at the Clintons? Here's how I saw it , where she pointedly noted:

OK, but as I stood there in Atlantic, Iowa, listening to Michelle Obama talk and hearing the cadence of her speech, my immediate reaction was that she was obliquely referring to the Clintons.

Why did I think that?

Well, she said she and Barack were modeling "what it means to have family values in this country and we haven't seen that for a long time" [emphasis added]. Wasn't Bush the family values guy? What did Michelle mean by "we haven't seen that [family values] for a long time"?

But Peeved, and to some extent, Liz Cox Barrett at CJR try to aim their "blame" at Fox News and/or Matt Drudge.

The trouble is, they cannot support those allegations at all.

oversight

Thu 23 Aug 2007 04:36 PM

I, too, thought Michelle Obama was slamming Giuliani - especially after his Ed Muskie moment in New Hampshire -- 'Leave my family alone.' Is it true that Giuliani was crying, too?

iritegud

Thu 23 Aug 2007 05:46 PM

The spilage from one Drudge and one Fox News do not equal the torrent of sludge delivered by other media sources. In this case, CJR has singled out the Drudge phenomenon while (as typifies the lib press) failing to present an objective, fair and balanced viewpoint that compares or contrats its influence with the influence of the liberal perveyors, who suck at the teet of moveon.org and klaus. I'm a conservative Republican and a fan of Drudge and Fox News, but (and I hate to say "but")I deplore the dumbing down of the news, and both are guilty of doing it. Still, I prefer it to the outright prevarication in the "mainstream" (i.e., liberal) press (CNN, NYT, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, ad inf.), which dumbs down, lies, distorts, and denies its left-leaning agendas. Oh, you know it. Get outahere.

catholicnurse

Thu 23 Aug 2007 05:52 PM

MSBassSinger, we should not divert away from the topic. Let's say, let's not even go there. You want to discuss which party has more morals? To bring up the era of an impeached president again, is heartbreaking. But since he and the wife are running for office again, maybe you're right, we should bring morality back on the table!
What I really want to say is: Hurrahh for Matt Drudge! The Walter Winchell of our times! Go Matt!!

AB

Thu 23 Aug 2007 05:53 PM

My goodness! Ms. Barret's point wasn't about what Mrs. O meant. She seemed to urge focus on what the next president is going to do/not do, rather than become distracted by ephemera. Commenters here have critisized her. But why? I'd bet there isn't a more paleoconservative writing here than I, and I agree with her.

wumhenry

Thu 23 Aug 2007 05:58 PM

[quote]I, too, thought Michelle Obama was slamming Giuliani - especially after his Ed Muskie moment in New Hampshire -- 'Leave my family alone.' Is it true that Giuliani was crying, too?[/quote]

Have you seen any report that he did, oversight, or are you slyly attempting to start a damaging rumor?

semreportcard

Thu 23 Aug 2007 08:00 PM

And I suppose John Edwards' quote about the Lincoln bedroom had nothing to do with Hill-Billy either...

semreportcard

Thu 23 Aug 2007 08:00 PM

And I suppose John Edwards' quote today about the Lincoln bedroom had nothing to do with Hill-Billy either...

GOPrules

Thu 23 Aug 2007 09:13 PM

Mrs. Obama meant it about Hill and that is obvious.

Just as obvious has been the Liberal media (MSM) attempt to cover it up and deny it. This article is a perfect example of exactly that - liberal denial of reality.

In fact, this article is not journalism at all - it is propaganda.

It's interesting that Liz Barret attacks the very methods that Michael Moore wins liberal awards for doing. I guess it's only bad when it is done by the other side.

Drudge is but one man who exposes liberal media dishonesty. It's not hard to do given its pervasiveness.

thomaswheatley

Thu 23 Aug 2007 10:57 PM

NMR

Drudge has flip-flopped as to whether or not he is a "journalist." (I'm one myself, and I would consider Drudge one as well--when he tackled Monica Lewinsky's infamous "blue dress" and relays original reporting, he steps into that role.)

In a lawsuit filed by Sidney Blumenthal against Drudge, in 1997 I believe, a federal judge said, "[Drudge] is not a reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer. He is, as he admits himself, simply a purveyor of gossip." (Emphasis mine.)

In the age of blogs, it doesn't take a desk and phone line at the New York Times to be considered a journalist. If you're relaying information, I consider you a journalist.

So this isn't about the media watchdogs attacking what they believe is a threatening outsider. He is one of them, now, and they're holding him to it.

Jon

Thu 23 Aug 2007 11:38 PM

Drudge became big and confounded the media elite by reporting matters the elite used to be able to cover up. It is very satisfying that a grass roots, one man operation can beat the elite such as CJR in readership. Drudge has intellectual honesty, unlike many journalists today who live and work in their agenda driven, liberal bubble. So go ahead and bash him, CJR, many of us will just laugh at your irrelevance.

totalcommonsense

Fri 24 Aug 2007 12:00 AM

Look at today's and yesterday's headline on Drudge.

IT'S ABOUT LINDSEY LOHEN FOR GODSAKES!!!!

Drudge is about on thing and one thing only: Protecting the criminal face of the criminal Far Right by distracting the dumb sheep of the Far Right away from the criminal activities of the powerful Far Right.

As far as I'm concerned Drudge is Far Worse than the National Inquirer.