Search | Recent Topics
Author Message
hisllb
Senior
[Avatar]

Joined: June 13, 2008 08:05:52 UTC
Messages: 184
Offline

Drudge is obviously a die hard John McCain supporter. I was on his site earlier and it seemed like a McCain propaganda machine.

As Obama's RCP advantage grew to an all time high of a 7.3 point spread over McCain, Drudge emphasized three polls that tightened within the margin of error. The headline says "READY FOR A COME BACK?" below a picture of McCain.

When it became official that Palin violated the public trust of Alaska, the story didn't appear on his page until a day or two later. It was a mere side note.

During the turbulent 3000 point drop in the Dow, Drudge would give heavy weight to days where the Dow gained 300 points and would claim it was the best week in so and so years. As if we didn't see a 800 point drop in the week before.

Ive always found The Drudge report to be useful as a home page on my browser. Although, McCain's campaign heavily sponsors that website. I wouldn't be surprised if the McCain campaign is asking that he make it seem less apparent that the McCain campaign is falling to pieces.

The narrative is simple - Gas prices are only a little over $3/ gallon, the Dow is only going up from here, the fundamentals of our economy our basically sound, and John McCain is surging in the polls. In fact, he will most likely win..... Seeing this everyday makes me think looking to Drudge for the biggest story at any given time is more and more useless.

on a side note - I was watching fox news the other day and apparently some Democrats forced the Republican controlled congress to block regulation proposals on Fannie and Freddie earlier this decade. I guess anyone smart enough to put two and two together would blame the entire Democratic party for something that occurred when Republicans controlled the white house and congress. I think Fox News as whole prefers a McCain win and will spin anything to death to make that happen. I'm kind of disappointed because I thought they were fair and balanced.
slacker
Novice

Joined: September 18, 2008 00:10:58 UTC
Messages: 30
Offline

Well, I'll just say that if you think Matt Drudge is a McCain fan you haven't paid much attention to his site (or know much of his history). In fact there have been a number of articles written about the cold shoulder Drudge has been giving McCain. If you interpret a few neutral/positive stories about McCain as a sign of die hard support, it just shows how unbalanced the network news has become. Not to flame, just saying...
hisllb
Senior
[Avatar]

Joined: June 13, 2008 08:05:52 UTC
Messages: 184
Offline

I'm used to Drudge being the way you described but in the last couple weeks I've found there to be little good news for Obama and really good news for McCain. Problem is the situation is the complete opposite.

I've been a die hard Drudge supporter but something seems really different now. Today was kind of my tipping point.
slacker
Novice

Joined: September 18, 2008 00:10:58 UTC
Messages: 30
Offline

Nah, if he really wanted to throw the election in McCain's favor he'd start posting links everyday to the various associations of Obama. And, links to stories about many of the other unsavory things that are very questionable about Obama's past. There's no shortage of them, but they aren't making it into the mainstream media. And, I'm not referring to the tin-foil hat crowd material, there's enough legitimate material to really impact the election if Drudge decided to start linking to it. When he starts doing that, I'll agree that he's picked a side, but until then he seems to be playing it pretty neutral (or even anti-McCain).
dmon35
Newbie

Joined: August 01, 2008 11:11:32 UTC
Messages: 2
Offline

I've noticed that Drudge's seemingly increasing support of McCain has corresponded almost perfectly with the selection of Palin. He's one of formerly unenergized base, or so it seems.
hisllb
Senior
[Avatar]

Joined: June 13, 2008 08:05:52 UTC
Messages: 184
Offline

dmon35 wrote: I've noticed that Drudge's seemingly increasing support of McCain has corresponded almost perfectly with the selection of Palin. He's one of formerly unenergized base, or so it seems.


The timing would make sense. Very profound indeed. Although I always thought of Drudge to be more libertarian than a social conservative that would be excited by Palin.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at October 13, 2008 10:37:35 UTC

silver_surfer
Senior

Joined: September 04, 2007 17:37:16 UTC
Messages: 134
Offline

The Drudgereport web site is obviously pro Mccain.
Ethan
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: June 09, 2008 06:24:05 UTC
Messages: 1454
Offline


Everybody could only gain if some media throw some excitement into this race. Imagine if all media outlets say "It's over" -- then we have no more excitement in checking the polls daily

Anyway, even now -- it's much less exciting than a month ago
Greg
Novice

Joined: April 26, 2008 19:49:11 UTC
Messages: 37
Offline

Ethan wrote: Everybody could only gain if some media throw some excitement into this race. Imagine if all media outlets say "It's over" -- then we have no more excitement in checking the polls daily

Presenting the situation accurately seems like the media's responsibility more than adding excitement to the race. There's obviously a conflict of interest here, but that seems more like a problem than a benefit.
GAW838
Sage

Joined: September 10, 2007 01:39:47 UTC
Messages: 1210
Offline

Yeah, but I don't really think it's a problem worth losing sleep over. People being too engaged because they believe the media hype about a close race is far from being the worst effect of a media with incentives that run against its public obligations.
Delphi
Sage
[Avatar]

Joined: September 11, 2007 06:28:38 UTC
Messages: 2495
Offline

hisllb wrote: I think Fox News as whole prefers a McCain win and will spin anything to death to make that happen. I'm kind of disappointed because I thought they were fair and balanced.


I certainly hope this was meant facetiously hislib.

I frequent the Washington Post online chats where their journalists and editors come on and field questions from readers. On more than one occasion I've seen a journalist respond to claims of bias (toward one candidate or the other) with a no-bones, downright gleeful, "the only bias I have as a reporter is a bias toward a good horse race!". It is always meant to project objectivity, but to the sober observer it is troubling. It means if one candidate is far ahead they will feel the temptation to tilt news coverage to help the underdog. I don't want things tilted, no matter what the state of the race. I want things straight.

It's a faithful echo of the way the MSM covered climate change until very recently. They would report the latest study that found either that warming was increasing faster than we thought, or that anthropogenic causes were implicated -- then the second half of the article was a rebuttal from oil industry-funded voices saying not to pay any attention to the findings. This was their misguided, contorted attempt to be "balanced". Even when the "other side" represented a tiny minority of the scientific community - usually fringe types who hadn't had a peer-reviewed article published in a relevant journal - their words populated half the article. It gave people a false sense that there was a "debate" going on in the scientific community. That debate died down in the late 90s, but from following mainstream news you would think it ended when the IPCC statement came out two years ago.

"Next up: Is the world round? We'll have a mainstream geographer on to battle it out with the president of the Flat Earth Society. We report, YOU decide."

No, really it's: "you distort, society subsides".
GAW838
Sage

Joined: September 10, 2007 01:39:47 UTC
Messages: 1210
Offline

Delphi, I totally agree the excessive striving for balance often gets in the way of accurate reporting of what's really going on. I think that's a lot more damaging, and qualitative different making a not-so-close electoral contest sound like a genuine horserace.
Tamalak
Senior

Joined: November 08, 2007 15:48:37 UTC
Messages: 488
Offline

A major pet peeve of mine is the confusion between political leanings and factual inaccuracy. There may be a slight statistical positive correlation between the two but they are not the same. There are very politically slanted outlets that are highly reputable (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) and politically neutral outlets that have a wildly bad record (e.g. National Enquierer).

This is probably why Andywend drives me crazier than he means to, because he embodies this confusion.

I agree with the suggestion that news outlets give up on the whole idea of being "unbiased" altogether, because trying to be "fair" too often leads into crafting laughably delusional false equivalencies. Let Fox be what it wants to be. I really don't mind that it's conservatively "biased", I just hate how factually inept it is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at October 13, 2008 22:34:52 UTC

Go to:   
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © JForum Team