Reply With Quote
Drudge is no more accurate or honest than slanderer/liar Breitbart.
http://gigaom.com/2011/05/17/why-mat...rk-zuckerberg/
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg might be Time’s reigning Person of the Year, but when it comes to influencing the distribution of online news, he’s still no match for Matt Drudge.
Facebook is closing in on 700 million users, but according to a new study by the Pew Research center, the Drudge Report sends more than twice as much traffic to the nation’s top news sites. According to the report:
Overall, Drudge accounts for 7 percent of all traffic sent to news sites. That’s more than Facebook (3 percent) and Twitter (1 percent) combined.
“Drudge Report drove more links than Facebook or Twitter on all the sites to which it drove traffic” (emphasis added). In other words, for every single news site Drudge was ranked as a traffic source, it maintained its lead over the social networking sites.
Drudge drives traffic to sites across the ideological spectrum. Fox News (11 percent), Washington Post (15 percent), ABC News (11 percent), USA Today (8 percent), and Boston Globe (11 percent) all receive significant portions of their traffic from Drudge.
Only Google tops the Drudge Report as a traffic source.
PBS created an infographic contrasting Drudge with Facebook and Twitter. A caption on the graphic puts it all into perspective: “Five of the top 21 news sites receive more than 10 percent of their audience from the Drudge Report.”
It’s time to give Drudge his due
Forget the wisdom of the crowd. When it comes to online news, Matt Drudge is the one friend that news outlets really need to have.
Given how news outlets have struggled to adapt to the rise of the web, this should make Matt Drudge a hero. He’s sending outrageous amounts of traffic to traditional news outlets, giving them a chance to monetize their professionally generated content. But if you mention Matt Drudge in the tech world, the best you can hope for is a smirk.
Drudge is seldom lauded in Silicon Valley as a web innovator — much less an amazing entrepreneur — which is a shame. Maybe it’s because the design of his website has changed little in 14 years. He’s not on the cusp of the latest web technology to deliver content. Plus, he is politically conservative, which is at odds with the Silicon Valley area’s liberal ethos.
It’s time to give Matt Drudge his due as an Internet pioneer. Before blogging and the rise of the citizen journalist, there was the Drudge Report. In 1998, he was the first to break news linking Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky, a scandal that would later lead to impeachment charges being approved in the House of Representatives for only the second time in our republic’s history. That might have been the rocket that took Drudge to the top, but it’s been his own hard work and journalistic instincts that have kept him there for well over a decade.
Drudge’s game-changing design, data-driven approach
Matt Drudge used the web to change the way media works. He showed us that the Walter Cronkites of the news world — curators working at massive conglomerates — shouldn’t have a stranglehold on information. In that sense, he paved the way for subsequent online content entrepreneurs like Arianna Huffington, Mike Arrington, and Om Malik.
He also set a paradigm for web design that still stands to this day. Critics who call his site ugly miss the point. It’s easy to navigate, doesn’t hide important information under sub-sections, and has a minimalist approach to layout. It’s also data-driven. Visit the Drudge Report several times in a day and you’ll see how he tweaks headlines and moves articles around to get the optimal configuration.
Will the Drudge Report’s importance to online news compared to Facebook and other social networks diminish over time? Of course. Social networking is becoming too big a part of our lives to think otherwise. But that’s missing the point. Matt Drudge is an Internet pioneer who’s been at the top of his game since the early days of the web, and he’s disrupted an entire industry in the process.
Drudge is no more accurate or honest than slanderer/liar Breitbart.
How do you lie when you just aggregate links?
You select the links, no matter how shaky or unverified.
The right-wing media is characterized, dominated by fact-challenged/make-up- /compromised/faith-based bull .
True. Linking to or quoting the lies and propaganda of others is journalistic "coverage." No blame, no need to vet sources for accuracy and truthfulness, right?
I love the misleading headlines on Drudge...... when you read the article you realize the headline wasn't accurate..
^^^happens a lot, actually. Probably part of the business model. The more inflammatory/misleading the headline, the more clicks it gets.
Drudge is a force to be reckoned with -- in the ongoing tabloidization of American journalism.
You mean, like
ABC
BBC
Boston Globe and Herald
CBS
CNBC
CNN
Economist
Forbes
FOX
Der Spiegel
Huffington Post
LA Times
NY Post
NY Times
Newsweek
San Fran Chronical
Seattle Times
Time
Guardian
WSJ
Wash Examiner/Post/Times
Telegraph
Lot's of LIARS, LIARS, Pants on FIRES out there.
Pointing to the open sewer of US journalism only reinforces my point. Not sure what you find so funny about it.
So why does this merit a thread?
Who claims to get their news from facebook?
I wish my FB friends would quit clouding the important stream of Farmville updates with their goddamn news
No . I was wondering the same thing.
You can change the headline of the article you link on your site to give it a political spin or fit your personal agenda.
Here's an example: Yahoo posts a story en led LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms. Some guy who doesn't actually read or understand the story picks out a couple of details he thinks confirms his biases and les his link to the story: Federally mandated LED lightbulbs to cost $50 each.
Even though all he did was link a story, that guy is a liar.
So you admit that you and all other liberals who change the le are liars, since that's your standard.
Thanx, but I find it very hypocritical that you don't attack others the same way you do us to the right
If it's a flat out lie, I'll point it out if others don't. I usually include the original le if I post a full article. Feel free to tell me if I don't.
I find it funny that you want immunity when you lie.
I'm only judging you about your words and accusations by your own words.
You're whining because it seems I'm picking on you and Darrin. It seems that way because you guys try to pull this all the time. I would expect to be called out as much if I did the same.
You want to stop being called a liar?
Stop lying.
I'm only judging you about your words and accusations by your own words.
You're the one that never stops.
True, as long as I post here I will probably be calling out posters like you and Darrin when you lie. I can't shoot if I have no ammunition. The choice is yours.
Darrin, WC and the rest of these goons just can't stand it when they're called out on their own bull .
I see what I said went over your head.
You can stand it when you're called out on your own bull ?
You're kidding, right?
It is you that constantly twist words and portray them as what was not said. In your portrayal of of such, you are the liar.
That's why I put it in the form of a question. I don't believe for a second you can actually stand being called out on your own bull .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
