Drudge is harmful, but his reach and credibility only counts for something once the controversies surrounding his scoops get picked up by the big papers. And this is really the question we want to pose: Is it right for newspapers to ignore these affairs if their stench is in fact a manufactured one - a Karl Rove stink bomb, for example - and clearly not based in reality?


It’s a question without a clear answer. If people are talking about it then it’s de facto news. And most newspapers want to report about the chatter. But what if these papers decided to lead rather than follow? What if, for example, they decided to smash this piece of irrelevant information about Webb? In this instance, at least, it seems a no-brainer. But can we really imagine an editor being brave and maybe reckless enough to come to the principled conclusion that the fictional output of a man does not reflect on his character, and that therefore even though there’s a politician who wants to make an issue of it, his paper will not write even one story about the “controversy” so as not to further stoke the flames?


This would be leading. Not following, following, following. Something to think about.

  • 1
  • 2