Matt Drudge gets called out over unhelpful Obama postings
In 2006, Mark Halperin, then with ABC News, and John Harris, then with the Washington Post, wrote an astute book on U.S. politics titled "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008."
In one of their more provocative -- and widely noted -- assertions, they wrote, "Matt Drudge rules our world."
They elaborated over many pages, but their point came down to this: "With the exception of the Associated Press, there is no outlet other than the Drudge Report whose dispatches instantly can command the attention and energies of the most established newspapers and television newscasts."
In the two years since the book appeared, much has changed. Halperin works for Time magazine. Harris helped conceive Politico.com, and serves as editor in chief. And with the rise of other leading websites, most obviously Huffington Post, their analysis of the clout of Drudge is much more arguable.
Still, as any blog poster who gets a link on the Drudge page can testify, its influence remains something to behold. So it was with interest that we noted a tidbit today on the website Halperin oversees, The Page.
The item was headlined "Oh, Matt!!!" The tease: "For the second straight day, powerful Internetist tries to tip the flow against (Barack) Obama."
The case is made here. And we're sure we'll be among the many watching to see if Drudge continues the pattern Halperin detected.
-- Don Frederick
You can arrange for free alerts of all new Ticket items sent straight to your cellphone by registering here.
I guess Mark Halpern does not like the idea that Drudge is more important the Politico.
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | October 28, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Huffington Post is backed by George Soros. Enough said.
Posted by: Alessandro Machi | October 29, 2008 at 01:17 AM
The green eyed monster perhaps???? Eh Mark? You betcha!
Posted by: Ghost | October 29, 2008 at 05:49 AM
Oh. Gee. 95% of Big Media, including the LAT, is in the tank for Obama and someone begrudges him Drudge! I am going to need buckets to keep my tears from soaking the carpet.
Posted by: Lily | October 29, 2008 at 05:52 AM
This is unintentionally humorous.
The media have largely served as Obama operatives throughout this election cycle, and you're criticizing Drudge for not getting in line with everyone else?
BTW, can someone tell me who is behind The Politico? It popped up out of nowhere, with lots of money.
Posted by: B Knotts | October 29, 2008 at 06:37 AM
What do these guys think of the MSM being in the tank for Obama? One voice that is fair upsets them? A perfect example why Americans have turned the MSM off. They tried to elect Obaam by themselves....they are in for quite a surprise come November 5th!
Posted by: Margo | October 29, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Hey liberals,
So get your own web based news site.
Posted by: jim | October 29, 2008 at 07:19 AM
Shucks, Mark, I guess Matt forget the 'ABOs' followed by the rest of the media: 'Always Be for Obama.'
Posted by: Dee Wolfe | October 29, 2008 at 07:20 AM
Just amazing.
Drudge joins Hillary, McCain, and Palin among people who are slow to understand that Obama is SUPPOSED to win this election. Get with it, guys. Especially McCain and Palin - they're still trying to win. What's up with that?
Posted by: Laura | October 29, 2008 at 08:46 AM
So the story is...that there is one news outlet that is not actively campaigning for Obama? Well, after the election, the Fairness Doctrine will take care of that.
Posted by: freetotem | October 29, 2008 at 08:56 AM
Are you seriously contending that the Huff Post is non partisan?
Posted by: Todd Dickinson | October 29, 2008 at 09:03 AM
"Follows recent pattern of posting things that seem not to help Obama -- including Biden's Orlando TV interview, the closer sets of polling data and more."
How dare Drudge post "things" not helpful to Obama!
Whatsa matter Mark, Don?? Peeved that at least one influential news site hasn't jumped in the tank with the rest of you? Anyway, it must be getting kinda crowded in there and the water a little fetid by now. Hope y'all can claw your way back out when it's finally over. 'Course you'll have each other's corpses to climb on.
Say, LA Times, how about releasing that Khalidi tape? Maybe Drudge will post that and give you guys some welcome traffic. Did you know there's a $150,000 (at minimum) reward for any Times employee who will provide a copy of the tape? Lotsa you folks facing lay-off. 150 grand could come in handy. And anyway, don't the people have the right to know???
Posted by: SukieTawdry | October 29, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Release the video and then you might have the right to criticise someone else!
Posted by: Ruth Skidmore | October 29, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Gosh, Matt, don't you know you're supposed to fall into lock-step with the rest of the pro-Obama media??? Tsk, tsk. You must have missed the memo that was sent to reporters at ABC, CBS, NBC, WaPo, NYT, LAT, AP, CNN, etc.
Posted by: jacob | October 29, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Drudge is unique only in publishing interesting information no matter whom it hurts.
If the Times did that it wouldn't be (as) moribund.
Posted by: OSweet | October 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Somebody help me...I can't catch my breath.Hahaaaaa. Is this serious journalism? Is even pretense all gone? Uhhhhah. Oh my gosh and by golly.
Posted by: Aching sides | October 29, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Only the LAT would consider Arianna Huffington's Soros bankrolled vanity progect to be a leading website. The postings are the rantings of selected leftist hacks and Hollywood dimbulbs.
Posted by: Robert | October 29, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Hey, check out that picture of Reid and Pelosi that Drudge has on his site now...looks like American Gothic except they forgot the pitchfork and Obama looks like they stepped into his living room without changing boots...a big no-no in cow country.
Posted by: Aching sides | October 29, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Margo,
What do you mean by MSM? Mainstream media?
How do you define it?
By listing newspapers and TV stations and websites that do not agree with you?
Or do you have a set of objective criteria?
Here's mine:
MSM is any media that represents where most people go to listen, watch or read.
So NY Times, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Washington Times, USA Today, LA Times etc. would be the case for newspapers.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be the case for radio.
Matt Drudge, Huffington Post would be the case for web sites
FOX News and CNN would be the case of cable news.
All are mainstream based on the ratings, the viewership, the audience.
Your turn to show that you can think for yourself when all you have done is parrot RusHannity's pejorative use of the phrase MSM.
Posted by: Marconi | October 29, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Todd Dickinson,
No more than your insinuation that Matt Drudge should be considered otherwise because the Huff Post is.
Posted by: Marconi | October 29, 2008 at 05:54 PM