Talk:Drudge Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Why the facade of acting like Drudge Report is anything other than a conservative news media outlet?[edit]

He is a major GOP news outlet who pushes and links to other conservative news media stories. This isn't really up for debate. These are news stories re Drudge Report just over the past week or so: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/the-notes-must-reads-for-wednesday-october-3-2012/ (Drudge Report a conservative news aggregator) http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/debate-raddatz/index.html (Drudge Report a conservative outlet) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-video-pastor-hurricane-katrina (Drudge Report part of conservative media) http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/04/echoing-rnc-conservative-media-converts-5-year/190368 (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://gawker.com/5948428/two-reasons-the-drudge-report-video-might-still-be-worth-watching (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/10/02/drudge-teases-obama-video.html (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/12/pollster_explains_why_he_asked_voters_whether_conservatives_were_race_baiting.html (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20121002/NEWS/121002050/Drudge-Report-Hannity-seize-2007-Barack-Obama-video-from-Hampton-University-speech-cite-racism?odyssey=nav%7Chead (Drudge Report a conservative critic of Obama) http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/259579-obama-phone-video-puts-spotlight-on-fcc-program (conservative Drudge Report)

Excwpt for the fact that it links to a great many non-conservative news stories. BTW, some of your "sources" do not support the claim you wish to ascribe to them. Collect (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

using Wikipedia's voice to call the site 'conservative'[edit]

Has been discussed on this talk page at [1] (note User:Ratel is banned for socking), [2]] User:Ratel is banned, [3] User:Ratel is banned, etc. Wikipedia's voice can not be used to make any absolute claim of fact based on opinions - the curent wording is accurately sourced, and there is no reason to try overturning what was clear consensus even though repeatedly pushed against by a banned user. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

sources used to cite Drudge as a "populist" do not indicate that he self-describes as a populist[edit]

they are bad cites and are misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a book cite for the quote - I suspect that it had been in before and had been removed by someone in the past - but it is a quote now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of "some" vs. "many" or "most"[edit]

The insistence on stating that only "some" consider the website conservative in tone is misleading, as it implies that only a minority view it that way---where in fact I have seen very few, if any, sources describing it as anything other than a conservative news and commentary website. A sentence such as "DR is widely considered conservative in tone," or "many consider it conservative in tone," or "most consider it conservative in tone," is more accurately descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source making the explicit claim of "most". That is how Wikipedia works - using material from reliabkle sources, and stating opinion as opinion. Opinions != fact. Since we have a directly contradictory source for the claim, the use of "some" is warranted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please describe your "directly contradictory source" against the claim that The Drudge Report is a conservative new aggregation website. A second hand quote from a book that describes Matt Drudge the person as a conservative populist isn't even per se contradictory. In the same passage, he plainly calls himself a conservative. A direct source stating that the Drudge Report is *not* a conservative news aggregator would be "contradictory". I have yet to see such a citation. 137.200.0.103 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A 2005 study placed the Drudge Report "left of center." The study compared various sites, and Drudge was clearly not the right-most. And calling a person "conservative populist" does not make the website "conservative populist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A ThinkProgress study of the the Drudge Report reveals the popular internet aggregator has linked 184 times to InfoWars and World Net Daily, two right-wing conspiracy websites.http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/07/18/532051/report-drudge-linked-to-conspiracy-websites-184-times-in-the-last-year/?mobile=nc

Check out his site right now and tell me his headlines/images do not promote a partisan, right-of-center message, an uncited 8-year-old study notwithstanding. I'm starting to wonder if DR employees are editing here. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! You consider all right-of-center sites to be "conspiracy websites"? Sorry Charlie - the two sites you so quickly dismiss are not "conspiracy websites." I think that may indicate where the problem is. The New York Times mentions WND 66 times, and Infowars 33 times. Infowars routinely links to the Huffington Post! Looking right now - the main link is that notorious right-wing website - Gallup. Second is the New York Times. Top of first colum - Rasmussen Reports. Top of second column - Politico. Top of third column - The Weekly Standard. Looks pretty well balanced from here, to be sure. Yet you think these are "right wing sites"? Not. Collect (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
lolwut? Unfamiliar with Alex Jones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.247.227 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the website - and noted it links to Huffington Post. Not the sign of a "right wing conspiracy website" - while Jones may be characerised by some in that manner, that does not mean the website should be so characterised. Collect (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at DR and tell me what headline he has on his entire page that is positive towards Obama or Democrats. Pick any day of the week. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So you consider Gallup to be "right wing" in some way? Politico is "right wing"? Huffington Post is "right wing"? Your position that anything which is not specifically pro-Obama is "right wing" is ludicrous silly season bloviating. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

More sources labeling Drudge report a "conservative" website[edit]

It's a bit of a joke, but apparently someone thinks we don't have enough sources.[4] More sources labeling Drudge report a "conservative" website:

FurrySings (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)