How can these two things both be true?

Chris Cillizza last year:

What explains Drudge’s reach?

In interviews with more than a dozen operatives — many of whom are rightly classified “Drudge-ologists” for their intimate study of the likes and dislikes of the man and the site — two major reasons are offered.

First and foremost, is the depth — and the quality — of Drudge’s readership. Drudge’s number of unique visitors is regularly touted but what is more important, in terms of his ability to drives news cycles, is that every reporter and editor who covers politics is checking the site multiple times a day.


Clark Hoyt of the NYT today
:

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.

How can it be that, on the one hand, most national political reporters spend all day on the Drudge report, and, on the other, reporters pay insufficient attention to right-wing issues?

Update. Whoops, I see that there is an almost identical post at TPM. Oh, well.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






28 replies
  1. 1
    Shygetz says:

    Because they don’t spend ALL their time on Drudge Report and right-wing issues.

  2. 2
    JK says:

    Great question. I wish you had an opportunity to raise this issue with Hoyt or Cilliza in an online forum.

    I tend to believe Cilliza and I think Abramson is just doing a piss poor job of damage control.

  3. 3
    DougJ says:

    I tend to believe Cilliza

    Me too.

  4. 4
    Anne Laurie says:

    It’s not about “true”, DougJ, it’s about truthiness! Matt Drudge is a Jedi master of truthiness, and resorting to continued perusal of the Drudge Report saves many a Media Village Idiot hours of time and effort at “reporting”, which they figure can better be used polishing their CVs and attending cocktail parties.

  5. 5
    Mike G says:

    “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio Republican party propaganda arms.”

    What the fuck makes these ‘newsworthy’?
    This is lazy second-rate journamalism, where the loudest megaphone gets the attention, absent any analysis of how stupid or bullshitty its content.

  6. 6
    Delia says:

    What is it about Drudge? I haven’t voluntarily looked at Drudge for about four years now and I consider myself pretty well-informed.

    Oh wait. I’m neither a gooper nor an MSM reporter. Nevermind.

  7. 7
    Tim (The Oher One) says:

    Journalism meets the National Enquirer

  8. 8
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    How can it be that, on the one hand, most national political reporters spend all day on the Drudge report, and, on the other, reporters pay insufficient attention to right-wing issues?

    I can see this. While reporters and editors might “monitor” Drudge, that doesn’t mean that they pass on that information to their higher-ups because the reporters and front-line editors make value judgments that “this is batshit insane, and I don’t want to have anything to do with it.”

    I also think Cilliza is overstating the case when he says “every reporter and editor who covers politics is checking the site multiple times a day.” Every? Really? Did anyone check that fact?

  9. 9
    Brachiator says:

    How can it that, on the one hand, most national political reporters spend all day on the Drudge report, and, on the other, reporters pay insufficient attention to right-wing issues?

    Hah! Good point. But early on, Drudge picked up on the rhetorical scam used by Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, to proclaim a legitimacy that you really don’t have, and let the rubes run with it.

    I don’t think I’ve ever looked at Drudge’s site? What would be the point? And when someone has referenced him, they usually are referencing a news story, reported elsewhere, that he picked up.

    Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.”

    This further proves that the old trick works. Who says that what dominates Fox News is newsworthy, by any rational definition of the term?

    The capitulation to the propagada press by the tattered remains of the mainstream media is just appalling.

  10. 10
    jwb says:

    Hoyt, on the whole, hasn’t been a horrible public editor (that’s a high compliment given the truly wretched state public editing these days), but I must say that I found this column to be just utterly appalling.

  11. 11
    The Moar You Know says:

    How can it be that, on the one hand, most national political reporters spend all day on the Drudge report, and, on the other, reporters pay insufficient attention to right-wing issues?

    Shut up, that’s why.

  12. 12
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Papers are hurting financially, as are teevee news outlets, especially cable news. They grew fat and happy for decades with limited competition for customers. Now Fox News and then the internets come along and take away even more readership. Drudge got in early and during the Right Wing ascension in politics and he represented a large following of wingnuts tired of getting libtard news with facts they didn’t like and didn’t want to believe in/ The wingnut hordes forsake the liberal MSM in droves and declared a narrative war and spent all their time snuggled up to Fox and Drudge et al, as dependable and persistent consumers of their brand of news.

    Poor management of not paring back and adapting their operations for the change in market and slowness and general dumbfuckery has seen these msm former kings of info do a lot of stupid shit in trying to get those customers back, hiring people like Kristol, trying to glean wisdom from drudge and giving Beck his own CNN show are but a few of the desperate ham handed efforts, It’s about money, and an unwillingness to see clearly and accept that the Drudges and Foxes and Malkins are not about news at all. They are about a winning political narrative for elections and fooling the Rubes as to what they are really up to. Which is getting power and using it on their arch enemies, liberals, brown people, the poor, etc////

    And every time they (msm) noodle around trying to keep some integrity while also appealing to the right wing asylum, they end up making fools of themselves. It is a niche market these days. Right wing mythology or actual news, and not much in between, and they just haven”t figured out you can’t put the wingnut jeannie back in the bottle./ They have to adjust in other ways to compete with the reality based part of America, and that pie is smaller than it’s been, and so will they have to be. MSNBC is figuring this out, and some other papers like McClatchy.

    And CNN is just becoming a non stop morning show program like Today, and the like, at least for domestic coverage. They still have a decent foreign news operation though.

  13. 13
    JK says:

    Chris Cillizza’s comments fly in the face of Eric Boehlert’s column from almost a year ago

    Drudge unplugged: How his campaign influence has collapsed
    http://mediamatters.org/column.....05?f=h_top

    Gawker echoes Boehlert
    Poor Sad Drudge No Longer King of Information Age
    http://gawker.com/5066811/poor.....mation-age

    I like Boehlert’s work, but I think he’s engaged in wishful thinking. But even if he were correct about Drudge’s influence being diminished, it doesn’t matter because Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are available to pick up the slack.

  14. 14
    Steve says:

    Isn’t it remarkable that we’re actually discussing if the media is out of touch with the Teabagger Media when the discussion should focus on how the Teabagger Media is out of touch with reality?

  15. 15
    Corner Stone says:

    @Delia: I agree. The site is garbage. Why would anyone want to wade through all that $30 website formatting software?

  16. 16
    JK says:

    Who says that what dominates Fox News is newsworthy?

    For anyone who values truth over truthiness, the continued commercial success of Fox News is an unmitigated and profound tragedy. When Bush was president, they had a front row seat and unrivaled access to the White House. Today they are the main promoter of the teabaggers and the chief prosecutor of Obama. I long for some person or group to come along and formulate a plan to take the wind out of Fox News’ sails.

  17. 17
    WyldPirate says:

    What is it about Drudge? I haven’t voluntarily looked at Drudge for about four years now and I consider myself pretty well-informed.

    I thought it was because drudge broke the beginning of the Adventures of Monica and the Clenis.

  18. 18
    different church-lady says:

    Probably a sample size error: Cilliza and a couple of his pals check Drudge religiously. Abramson and her pals don’t.

    Extrapolate, bolviate, repeat

  19. 19
    Mike P says:

    @arguingwithsignposts: I consider myself to be a political junkie and I think I’ve been on the Drudge Report a total of six times in my entire life. This article actually goes a long way into describing the site’s waning influence.

  20. 20
    Enceladus says:

    This is probably giving our obtusely literal-minded and ethnocentric national journalists too much credit, but:

    I wonder if the reason why the NYT is not identifying this special new editor to monitor the excrementum that comes from the likes of Beck and Fox is because…

    There is no such editor?

    Maybe they’re just saying this because they hope Malkin will stop being mean to them? (And, as TBogg has noted, if that’s the strategy: Well played, guys!)

  21. 21
    Deschanel says:

    The NYT is the one paper I do read each day on physical pulp. But this ,,,apology? to not paying more attention to right-wing fake-ass created “scandals” just annoys me to no end.

    The Times has already been bending over backwards: Saturday’s paper had a front-page Valentine to the head of “Americans for Limited Government”. Basically, a nonstop right-wing smear machine, generously funded with a staff of 17 to flood the Internet and media with their complaints. How does the Times describe him in their headline? As a mere “critic” of Obama. While the article goes on to describe him as quite the well-funded rightwing activist.

    Oh, but he’s just a “critic”! Grow some balls, New York Times, or I shall surely cancel my paper subscription.

  22. 22
    jl says:

    My guess. Because the majority of the population is ignoring Drudge’s puerile drivel, either directly from him, or as transmitted by the illiterate and innumerate snot nosed punks and creeps that dominate the national affairs press corps.

    Because a majority approve of how Obama is doing his job.

    Because almost 2/3 still want a strong public option.

    Because most people are ignoring hysterical incoherent nonsense?

    Drudge and his minions will never give up. Only thing to do is to go in opposite directon of Rove’s political genius. Build a coalition of the sensible that is far larger than 50% plus one vote.

  23. 23
    Derelict says:

    How can it be that, on the one hand, most national political reporters spend all day on the Drudge report, and, on the other, reporters pay insufficient attention to right-wing issues?

    Because in the ring-wing universe, nothing short of total unquestioning regurgitation of the day’s party line–together with non-stop fawning coverage of the leadership–is acceptable. Merely printing articles containing facts the right does not like (i.e., data proves conclusively that Earth’s average temperature is rising, or former Secretary of the Interior faces possible criminal charges) is proof positive of the most blatant and outrageous liberal bias.

  24. 24
    PeakVT says:

    and the quality—of Drudge’s readership.

    Wait, what? Since when does a pack of Villagers define quality?

  25. 25

    What is fascinating about Drudge is that he has ANY credibility at all. I understand that wingers would slavishly follow him, but anytime the establishment media types get even the smallest detail wrong it flies around the entire blogosphere in a matter of minutes. Literally, as soon as the fact check is done and it appears on any blog that has a significant readership …. WHAM. It appears everywhere. The media source is then roundly mocked. But Drudge has time and time again linked to a report that is patently false and … crickets. I’m sure others will have examples but the one I recall that truly stands out is when during the 2004 general election campaign a Kerry staffer was supposedly sent in exile to Europe because she had been “discovered” to be having an affair with the Senator. It was absolutely false.

    Why can Drudge get away with this shit? Because most of the establishment media types are candy asses, and that subset known as Villagers are worse. They don’t care if he is the National Enquirer of political news. He got one big story link. Just like economists who predict only one bubble are henceforth worshipped as gods–although they may never get anything right ever again–so to is the scandalmonger trash linking fucker known as Drudge.

    Drudge made a career off of one blue dress. I hope he gets buried in it.

  26. 26
    Kryptik says:

    The answer, Doug, is just like the axiom about Bipartisanship in the US.

    A Republican administration means news is not paying attention to the right-wing POV enough.

    A Democratic administration means news is not paying attention to the right-wing POV enough.

  27. 27

    I was in J-school back in the dark ages, as Watergate was playing out and everything changed. What goes for news these days is not. News is facts, and now it is not facts but interpreting.

    Fox News is the driver for everything. They have one agenda, and that is power. Maintaining it by any means necessary, after having achieved it by any means necessary. Drudge is nothing more than the online extension of the propaganda machine. Keeping the peasants on track is the purpose and they are very, very good at it.

    The MSM still follows the canons of ethics–so to speak–and presents both sides so reasonable people, rarely referred to as moderates and progressives, can make up their own minds. The facts are so far from supporting the Right that they cannot sustain any presence at all without lying about the facts. Should the MSM say that, it would then be adding another brick in the wall.

    As said above and well said, the MSM is reporting on what the Right-wing says, not whether it is ridiculous or not.

    I really think Fox News may destroy the Republic, if it cannot succeed in destroying the Republic.

  28. 28
    Kenneth Almquist says:

    “Who says that what dominates Fox News is newsworthy, by any rational definition of the term?”

    People in the United States government. The House of Representatives responded to the news by voting to block federal funding to ACORN. Additionally, I believe that two federal agencies decided to stop outsourcing work to ACORN. The reason that the New York Times is questioning its handling of the story is that it initially ignored the story, and official Washington didn’t.

Comments are closed.