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.
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.
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.
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 220.127.116.11 (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. 18.104.22.168 (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)
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. 22.214.171.124 (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)
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. 126.96.36.199 (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
It's a bit of a joke, but apparently someone thinks we don't have enough sources. More sources labeling Drudge report a "conservative" website:
A study in 2005 placed the Drudge Report "slightly left of center".
Should we drop the paragraph on this 2005 study? Calling Drudge "left of center" seems to be a rather uncommon view. The Professor Mark Liberman ref in the paragraph points out that the study made a rather appalling math error in their model. Hell, we could add this same study to the ACLU article with a similar paragraph calling the ACLU "right of center". Alsee (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article or online (that I can find) explaining why drudgereport.com uses the same blue "eye" favicon, aka bookmark icon, as CBS News. Why would he do this? Because CBS was the home of Edward R. Murrow, a pioneering journalist? CBS's logo must surely be trademarked. Has no one in the media noticed this? Strange. 5Q5 (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)