If you visited the Drudge Report on July 1, you’d be forgiven for thinking that nothing had changed. A BILLION THANKS FOR MAKING JUNE 2009—TOP JUNE IN DRUDGE REPORT’S 14 YEAR HISTORY!? PAGE HIT 675,406,735 VIEWS FROM 129,922,878 VISITS … TRAFFIC ROSE 21% FOR MONTH OVER YEAR AGO blared the headline on the right of the home page. Matt Drudge’s Web site appeared to be chugging along, sinking its teeth into the news cycle just like it used to.
In the aftermath of Bush v. Kerry in 2004, Drudge’s place in journalism had no parallel. Mark Halperin and John Harris, two major machers of the Washington, D.C., press corps, jointly declared: “Matt Drudge rules our world.” Over the course of a decade, Drudge’s no-frills approach—his original delivery method was e-mail, and some of his early content was gleaned from the trash cans at CBS News—had turned his Web site into a world-beater. In 1998, his exposure of a spiked Newsweek piece on Monica Lewinsky nearly knocked down the Clinton presidency, and six years later, by amplifying the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, he helped torpedo John Kerry’s candidacy.
Drudge was the right’s one-man wrecking crew, feared by liberals and respected by bookers and editors around the country.
It’s easy to look back now and laugh at the hyperbolic quality of Harris and Halperin’s claim, but here’s the thing: at the time, it was strikingly close to the truth.
Since then, though, a number of things have changed in ways that have diminished Drudge’s power. The field of online news has welcomed several explosive upstarts, such as Politico and The Huffington Post (Talking Points Memo, which launched in 2000, has also expanded rapidly since 2004). Such sites have built on the promise of Drudge, mixing hard news and chatter into a stew that generates enormous traffic and an ability to shape the conversation. Meanwhile, the Republicans, to whom Drudge hitched his star, have fallen into disarray, and the mood of the country shifted dramatically with the election of Barack Obama and the onset of the financial crisis.
One sign that Drudge’s influence is on the wane is that he goes to such great lengths to deny it. Take his July 1 boast about page views, which sounds impressive—for a moment. Page-view counts aren’t taken seriously when a site automatically and completely refreshes between fifteen and twenty times an hour, as Drudge’s does—a practice that artificially inflates page-view counts. Moreover, unlike unique visitors, page views are not an accurate reflection of engaged eyeballs, which is what advertisers look for above all else. In fact, if you go strictly by the numbers, Drudge is now a middle-of-the-pack niche product. As of this writing, Alexa, Amazon’s Web site counter, lists Drudge as the 704th most popular site on the Internet. (Politico is 2,078 and The Huffington Post is 331.) Compete.com, which tracks Web traffic over time, tells a fuller story: in June of 2008, all three sites had around two million unique visitors. Since then, The Huffington Post’s numbers have soared, reaching 6.7 million in June. Drudge and Politico have both seen their traffic rise slightly, yet remain under the three million mark monthly.
As his competition has grown and become more dynamic, Drudge’s formula has remained essentially unchanged. There are the links to stories that affirm his brand of conservatism, with its focus on the tyranny of taxation, the media’s liberal bias, and the weakness of Democratic politicians, especially on matters of foreign policy. There are the links to stories that reflect his idiosyncratic tastes—JAPAN ROBOTS ON MOON BY 2020! screamed the site on April 3. The Drudge Report is stubbornly invulnerable to user participation—no one blogs, no one comments. The Huffington Post and Politico, meanwhile, host large and loyal armies of readers who interact with one another and with the site’s writers. (And TPM’S readers famously helped the site drive the U.S. attorneys scandal in 2007, for which TPM won a Polk Award.) In the age of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, community building is the name of the game. But not at the Drudge Report, which remains Drudge’s private kingdom.
Yet another Drudge obituary, likely written with the hopes of getting a Drudge link so someone might find the CJR relevant.
Yawn.
#1 Posted by JWF, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 03:19 PM
"“Drudge gets so worked up every day about such petty stuff,” one New York newspaper editor told me. “That’s appropriate for carnival/campaign season, but it doesn’t as effectively fit the mood in a country that is serious about sober governing."
I'm willing to bet that Drudge will be around making millions long after the unnamed newpaper editor has gone to his reward.
The brilliance of Drudge is that is doesn't change and it doesn't get pretty. It is just there. It is simple and direct in a world of blathering apps and fonts and pix design.
The beauty of the Drudge business model is that it doesn't depend on liberal angels for money and doesn't run at a loss and doesn't have to hire and hire and hire yet more bloggers and reporters to try and make itself felt.
Oh, it also doesn't depend on phony celebrity blogs and free ranters to get page views. It just gets them.
#2 Posted by vanderleun, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 03:37 PM
I used to look at Drudge everyday but now I'm all RSS feeds and Twitter.
#3 Posted by alex, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 05:36 PM
Drudge also doesn't break original news the way he used to. I feel like it's rare to see anything on that page that isn't just a link to someone else's work.
#4 Posted by surlybastard, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 09:46 PM
"SHOCK: McCAIN VOLUNTEER 'ATTACKED AND MUTILATED' IN PITTSBURGH - "B" CARVED INTO 20 YR OLD WOMAN'S FACE."
Hard-hitting stuff... really raking the muck.
#5 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 10:08 PM
The real story is that Apple Computer is going out of business:
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
#6 Posted by Sandy, CJR on Wed 9 Sep 2009 at 11:45 PM
Yep...Drudge (and by authorial implication other conservative bloggers) sure have lost their influence.
I mean that's why Van Jones still has his job, right?
Or, was it the thousands of liberal MSM hacks (working for liberal institutions in bankruptcy or in the process of bleeding out) who brought him down?
Considering the almost universal conspiracy of silence among the MSM (guess those thousands of "journalists" can't get their heads out of their collective asses long enough to learn how to Google) on the Jones story, I think I'll assume that that Drudge et al still have plenty of influence.
#7 Posted by CAS127, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 04:43 AM
Drudge is the first place i go in the morning when i fire the computer up. While the liberal press and Huffpo were ignoring the Van Jones story, Drudge was hammering away on that story for over a week.
Politico covers alot of stuff the the liberal msm ignores, but they are still slanted to the left and don't cover stories that they should.
#8 Posted by Dave, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 06:03 PM
Yes, Drudge gets eyeballs in the same way that an overturned car on the freeway gets eyeballs. In the end of course it is not the MSM that has a liberal bias, it is reality that has a liberal bias. The fact that many people don't want to accept reality, does not make it any less real.
#9 Posted by theotherjimmyolson, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 09:45 PM
I used to go to Drudge because I thought he was a good source of news and the conservative position. Over the months he has lost any credibility as a source of news - e.g. - today he never mentioned that Wilson had apologized. Even if you're going to be slanted, you can be thorough.
#10 Posted by Tilliemom, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 09:50 PM
Why not compare Drudge to the NYT. Then we can have an excellent dialogue about the waning readership occurring between two media outlets. Tilliemom, Drudge linked a story including the apology last night around 2130. Did not see the link today though. It was up through this morning though.
#11 Posted by JD, CJR on Thu 10 Sep 2009 at 10:22 PM
Any article about the Drudge Report that doesn't mention Andrew Breitbart is not a complete article on the Drudge Report. Breitbart has been running Drudge for the last few years and is the reason that Drudge had that perfect mix that was so powerful. As Breitbart is gone and doing his own site, the tone has changed and the selection isn't the same. The shift is subtle. That's your story. Too bad you missed it!
#12 Posted by Tricia, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 03:01 AM
Why Druge when you can find all the links you want on Twitter?
#13 Posted by MissTheda.com, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 08:59 AM
Another pseudo intellectual article hoping to distract from the facts of realism. Your seem to be caught up in the media world of fantasy. Nice try CJR.
#14 Posted by Emil, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 09:27 AM
Drudge is a loser (dumbass) with a gruge, that's how you get his last name. Somehow the rest of you missed that, which makes me question your IQ as well. I'm neither liberal or conservative and I think we won't have to worry about such petty crap as this for long. they both are destroying the country rapidly. I'm sure that the cancer is about spread 89% with both parties to blame. Death 2 both Parties.
#15 Posted by Bee, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 11:05 AM
Another sad case of Drudge envy. Let's face it. The beauty of Drudge is all he does is provide the text for links. When people accuse him of "being all worked up" and "going ballistic", it is because he wrote a three word headline or, egads, posted two links on the same news item.
Unlike Huffpo and Politico, Drudge does not have to blog thousands of words of rants to make his point, he has to post two or three.
Who was it who said that the one who writes the headlines is the most powerful person at the newspaper?
#16 Posted by Bob, CJR on Fri 11 Sep 2009 at 11:49 AM
I like Drudge.
#17 Posted by Joyous, CJR on Sat 12 Sep 2009 at 06:29 PM
This story might be more persuasive if CJR were not so dedicated to carping at the conservative media ghetto. Talking Points Memo is only effective in the Beltway with predictable liberal journalists; Marshall`s big, uh, "scoop" to date has been the inside-baseball-level firing by the Bush administration of some U.S. attorneys - which may have been maladroit political hardball but was not illegal. In the meantime, outside-bsaeball cables and blogs including Drudge have just embarassed ACORN, gotten Van Jones sacked, and discovered political interference in how arts grants are approached by the Obama-ites, resulting in another resignation. The Huffington Post is read by liberals who just talk to each other - it generates no real news. As long as Drudge and the like are willing to go where the MSM will not go - to that place where liberals are also bigoted; greedy; hypocritical, etc.5sometimes known as the real world) - Drudge will have strong influence. How about a story on the connection between MSM antipathy to framing liberal bad guys as, you know, bad guys, as opposed to the conservative; media, and the toll it takes on MSM credibility? With speculation that this is a factor in its decline in influence?
#18 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 16 Sep 2009 at 12:28 PM
Drudge rules our world! No doubt.
#19 Posted by Dan, CJR on Wed 23 Sep 2009 at 04:19 PM
haha Drudge?
His site hasn't been useful since he was breaking the Clinton- Lewinsky story.
In 2004, the internet didn't play a huge role, it was the television commercials.
Drudge is the AOL of news on the Internet.
#20 Posted by Boston Dan, CJR on Wed 30 Sep 2009 at 12:29 AM
Hey Ethan, have you noticed that that idiots like Alec Baldwin write for the Puffington Post??
#21 Posted by Dan, CJR on Tue 20 Oct 2009 at 07:45 PM