Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 1

message: I still maintain that the Drudge Retort is not an educational site related to the Drudge Report.  I do not believe the link belongs on this page.  Could someone please help me understand/explain to me why it does?  Any light one can shed on the matter would be appreciated. Zenosparadox 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drudge Retort

message: This whole article is ridiculous, and in need of some serious revision. TDC 01:43, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Want maybe to substantiate this claim, or are we expected to take your word for it? Bds yahoo 03:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it has been expanded on.  Muckraker absolutely contains a POV.  Furthermore, the "Drudge Retort" is not a retort, it is merely a parody, and I maintain that it is not a link of interest. Zenosparadox 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider it worth including if it was clearly indicated as a parody site?  That's how it currently is linked in the article.  A search of Wikipedia for parody (like so)finds quite a lot of articles with parodies linked or mentioned in their text.  Alternatively, would you consider a stub article on Drudge Retort linked from Matt Drudge or Drudge Report more acceptable?  --ABQCat 01:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in this article

message: I have spent the last several days reverting unjustified or inadequately justified deletions on this page.  Those who think the facts presented on this page unfairly characterize Drudge as a right-wing puppet ought to counter those facts with more facts, rather than make facts they don't like disappear from the record.  I'm not going to sit back and let that happen.  Lately, an anonymous editor deleted a link to an article claiming that it doesn't reference Drudge, when Drudge is referred to just seven short paragraphs down!  [NB: I wrote 'first' paragraph on my edit summary -- sorry, my mistake.]
Now I'm not calling all edits I personally disagree with "trivial."  I thought Marteau offered good reasons for his edit, even though he and I don't see eye-to-eye on Drudge.  Last time I reverted, I reverted to his version of the page.
So to sum up: those who don't like the evidence in this article should counter facts with facts.  As far as I know, in working on this article, I have only added, not deleted.  If something doesn't look like a fact to you, take it up on the talk page and let people discuss it rather than presuming to know better.  If there's one thing supporters of Drudge should believe in, it's freedom of fact from censorship. Bds yahoo 04:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivial Deletions

message: Just in case anyone was wondering when he was born (some sources say 1966, others 1967) The Smoking Gun has a copy of a traffic ticket Drudge received in 1987.  It shows his birth date as 10/27/66. --Minesweeper 18:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date

message: I deleted the claim on the Drudge Report article that the Kerry Affair story/rumor was repudiated.  I'm not claiming that it wasn't, but there was no sourcing to that claim. Equinox137 13:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Drudge says, "In retrospect, I should have had a sentence saying, 'There is no evidence to tie Alex to John Kerry.' I should have put that." http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/001340.php So why don't you put the article back the way it was? 68.110.199.122 06:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry Affair Repudiated?

message: Far be it from me to give my little old opion but I have been under attack because I dared to say that Drudge should be labeled a conservative in an article which used a quote of his. He may sometimes come off on the conservative sides to issues but he is more of a libertarian than a conservative. Of course labels are pretty much opinion anyway but anyone who supports Michael Jackson to the hilt is not a conservative.
:Drudge "supports Michael Jackson to the hilt"? What on earth are yout talking about?
: He's obviously a libertarian, however, the lable is so misunderstood as to be almost useless (unless the subject applies it himself, or by his affiliations, not just his views, or unless they are 100% lock-step with Libertarian Party dogma, which Drudge's are not.  Close, but not 100%).  I'd avoid labeling him at all.  That, of course, will be impossible with so many different agendas here, so I'm staying out of the fight. My two cents.  Marteau 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree he's "obviously" libertarian if he supports expensive foreign wars and assists in the smearing of anti-government protesters. I do agree we should avoid labelling him and just provide facts about what policies and politicians he supports in his Report, and which he is critical of. 68.110.199.122 06:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Drudge the Libertarian. 

message: The link to Drudge's flash where he misleadingly (and selfpromotingly) passes off an 8-year-old magazine fluff piece as news has, of course, been removed by Drudge. But perhaps this link would be worth including in the body of the article? http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100007. 68.110.199.122 06:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soledad O'Brien business 

message: As I'm giving my official opinion here, I suppose I should admit that I consider myself a Democrat.  However, I have no problem with Drudge, and don't really care to out him, as it may or may not be.  Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, it honestly doesn't matter to me, and I don't think it should matter to anyone.  But, properly sourced information on whether he may be gay or not belongs in the article, in my opinion.  My reasoning is that his sexuality IS debated by some, and is perhaps one of the more controversial things surrounding him.  It's not speculation because it's a big deal, it's speculation because people make a big deal of it, and like speculation of Kennedy's affairs with various women, it's not done by a primary source, and I'm sure nearly everyone in the Kennedy family would deny most or all of the allegations.  Nevertheless, it's reported in a few areas, and done so in a way that is neutral.  That's what we should do here.  Ral315 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that accusation is made by a obvious political hack to take advantage of the fact that some of Drudge's readers would not read him if they thought he was a homosexual. It is a cynical attempt to use something that shouldn't be an issue, and make it into a smear. There isn't any complementary information except this one accusation. If Drudge is so brazen to send such an email, there should be others he propositioned in the same manner, so far there are none. One can't be a homosexual in private, it takes more than one person! Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, Dominick.  Brock is a political hack?  That's your opinion, and detracts from the force of your argument.  Many would consider Drudge a political hack.  I doubt you do.  Brock's  right-leaning work during his anti-Anita-Hill days and his left-leaning work now at Media Matters would place him squarely in the center, should you average everything together. :) Your assumption that Drudge's readers would not visit his website if they thought he was gay is based on... what, exactly?  The idea that Drudge's readers are anti-gay?  That's another opinion, and rather doubtful.  Brock's account is not good enough for you, so you wish to see a host of e-mails.  Yet, David Cohen's account of dating Drudge does not come from Brock.  That's another source.  However, something tells me that no matter how much sourced information is provided, you'll find a reason to discredit it.  Your argument that, if Drudge sent Brock an email, it follows that he should have sent many more emails to other men is specious and illogical.  And one can easily be a homosexual in private.  Many homosexuals are closeted and non-practicing, both on the right and left.  The Brock material is sourced, relevant, and should stay.  Wikipedia is not about a whitewash, nor about building arguments based solely on opinion.  Eleemosynary 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You're putting up a stonewall.  Backed by tortured logic and a rather skewed view of homosexuality.  It won't wash. Eleemosynary 16:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My personal opinion\ 

message: The link did not work thats why I reverted. Apparently I am not the only one. I just tried it and it is working again. Dominick (TALK) 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice the other link didn't work? Rkevins82 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking News Sites, Matt Drudge Creates Internet Success.  

message: Drudge hasn't updated his page in several days.  Has he died in a plane crash or something?
:If only. I kid, I kid. Bds yahoo 17:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasn't updated since thursday 

message: One of the external links states that he gave $2,358 to the "RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE (soft-money donation)" in 2001. The article says that Matt Drudge disputes this.  What's the evidence that Drudge disputes this?  Assuming that's correct, how can he since it appears to be based on FEC filings (indeed they included a scanned image of the relevant doc). Crust 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and deleted the reference to Drudge disputing his donation.  Obviously if anyone can document Drudge disputing this and preferably his grounds for doing so, we should swithc it back. Crust 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political donation disputed? 

message: :Combined with his radio show and subtracting his relatively minor server costs, the magazine estimated that Drudge grossed $800,000 a year with his simple website.
Huh? Is this sentence assessing Drudge's income strictly from the website, as the last clause suggests, or is it including his income from the radio show, as the first clause suggests?
:I fixed it up for ya. Hope this helps. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory, Uncited Statistic 

message: He is not merely an "internet personality."  He should be noted as a gossip in the opening paragraph, because that is primarily what he is.  Thus I made the change accordingly.  What do you all think? Stanley011 19:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drudge is a gossip

message: In the "Persona and criticism" section, it states: 
"However, critics regard Drudge's contribution to journalism as questionable, saying that the only stories he actually breaks are completely conceived, researched, funded, and written by other reporters[citation needed]."
 I have made a diligent attempt to source this statement, but all searches ultimately lead back to this wiki article. (other encyclopedias have copied the statement from here). This is a problem with wikis in general: An unsourced statement is made, other wikis pick it up, and a "fact" is born in wikiality. If someone can source this statemtent, then by all means please do so. Otherwise, it may be time to remove it. The paragraph will need to be rewritten for flow though. Crockspot 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourcable statement? 

message: It was tedious, but I converted all the citations to php format, with ref names. I think. If I missed any, sorry. See WP:Footnotes for how to use the php format, and WP:CTT for the citation templates to put in them. I would be nice if people continued with that format, but if you don't, I may come along and convert them for you. It gives you a nice list of all the citations in proper format at the end of the article. - Crockspot 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations converted to php

message: I believe an entire section for this reference gives undue weight to the importance of this nickname. Personally, I have never heard him called eggman until this section appeared recently, and I have followed drudge for years. At best, it merits a line or two, not an entire section, unless multiple secondary sources referring to him as such can be found and provided. One article calling him eggman does not make a notable nickname worthy of a significant part of the article. - Crockspot 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eggman reference

message: Last section is borked for some reason, so now this new section ...
* Here is why Matt Drudge's sexuality is germane. He influenced a whole election with this nasty stuff:
"XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JULY 08, 2004 10:09:35 ET XXXXX
CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER
Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...
John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!
In the past 48 hours, "candidate handling" has become the top buzz on the trail.
News photographers have been going wild with photos of the two Johns.
"I've been covering Washington and politics for 30 years. I can say I've never seen this much touching between two men, publicly," e-mailed one wire photographer.
When asked if the Johns are acting out a cynical focus group series of poses -- perhaps to show warmth to the chilly Bush/Cheney -- a Kerry spokesperson explained: "I think we're just seeing genuine affection between them."
But the spokesperson added, "I hope we do not see them wearing matching outfits when they ride bikes this weekend."
Developing... Filed By Matt Drudge
Now tell me, wouldn't you want to know if the man making that report had been accused of being gay himself? The wonderful thing about the wikipedia is that it's one of the few places you can find that out. Skoppensboer 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn.  We've been down this road before.  You dig yourself deeper with every statement you make, revealing your politically driven agenda of gay-baiting and character assasination that really has no place in this article. Giles22 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Now it's "gay-baiting" when I point out that Drudge has insulted all gays? Your reading comprehension stinks. Skoppensboer 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drudge Implies Gayness in Others 

message: Can someone archive this talk page?  It is getting long.  Thanks in advance. Giles22 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive requested 

message: Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment