urltea.com/s2x -> electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/15/drudge_kept_pushing_false_attack_on_bill_clinton_12_hours_after_it_had_been_debunked
this debunking of it in the late afternoon or early evening yesterday, proving that Bill's schedule showed that he'd given the speech the day before, on Sept. But Drudge still had the above headline going strong this morning, pushing a false story for a full 12 hours after it had been proven to be thoroughly bogus. Not long ago he linked to an article in the Boston Herald that purported to show that Hillary may have had botox. The paper did this with before-and-after photos -- but it turned out that the pics had been reversed. Hours and hours after The Herald put the photos back in the right order, rendering the visual entirely bogus, Drudge still had them up on his site in the wrong order. Many of you will ask why we bother with this when we've all known for years and years that Drudge is chronically mendacious and dishonest. Here's why: Because many people at the big news orgs, particularly at the TV networks, take their cues from Drudge and even treat him as their de-facto assignment editor. So we point it out whenever Drudge leaves false information up on his site for hours and hours in (perhaps vain) hopes that the good people at these news orgs will take note of it one of these days.
Did Drudge contribute any of the money he made that day to the families of 9/11 victims? Did Drudge have an affair with Ken Mehlman when he was making money on 9/11? You would have to be anti-free speech, and pro-Islamofascist to deny it.
Greg Sargent said: well, it isn't because he deserves attention, it's because the big news orgs, especially TV, still take their cues from him. I'm hoping pointing out this sort of thing will make them more reluctant to do this, see what I mean?
Thelonious said: Drudge is indeed the go to guy for big media, according to Mark Halperin and John Harris. Seriously, someone please explain to me how this state of affairs can persist.
VictorLaszlo said: This is a classic trick for GOP-types: Put out a story about the other side that is BOTH false and irrelevant. The language should suggest that the target has something to be ashamed of, or something to hide. Then sit back and laugh as the confused target refutes the charges, saying that he would NEVER do such a thing. This is even funnier when said 'thing' is something perfectly normal that the smearers do on a daily basis. Of course part of the problem on our side is the utter inability of our politicians to speak plainly. The story happens to be false, but what if it were true?
audiophileguy said: From the initial Drudge Report link to TPM's discussion above, I find this to be the silliest series of posts in recent memory. It appears that anybody who wishes to be President needs operatives, all of which seem to be produced by some big factory that spews out amoral, lying, cheating, anything-to-win drones. This is what political operatives do, and they use whatever means available (Drudge, TPM, fill in the blank) to support their efforts. I am a Gore fan, but if we have a choice between either Clinton or Obama, Mr Obama wins hands down. Mrs Clinton is the Democratic version of Mitt Romney, a slick amoral Blade Runner replicant who will say anything and do anything necessary to become President. Watching the operatives of any current candidate is analogous to watching legislation being made or watching sausage being made---not for the faint of heart. Please, please---let's cease with the "I am shocked--shocked that somebody has told a lie" comments in the context of a Presidential campaign.
said: You write: "big news orgs, particularly at the TV networks, take their cues from Drudge and even treat him as their de-facto assignment editor." Do we really have evidence of specific MSM outfits taking cues from Drudge?
|
http://csua.com/feed/