posted on June 3, 2004 06:51:47 PM new
For those of you that take Drudge as gospel, you might find this article a little bit of an eye opener. For the rest of us, it's just an interesting article on the anatomy and aftermath of irresponsible reporting.
posted on June 3, 2004 07:38:39 PM new
If reporting developing stories that turn out to be in error means people should not read his site....then no one should ever read the NYT. They have more corrections on their correction page than any new organization I've read. And they've had to fire people from report false storys...some that they've just made up. Even the top dog...what was his name Raines?? wa forced to resign.
Drudge usually links the articles on his site from other news sites. As do most other news sites. A few he does on his own and has gotten most of them right.
Especially the one about the stain on Monica's dress. Since then....he's considered dirt by the dems. But he's been right more times than he's been wrong.
posted on June 3, 2004 07:54:31 PM new
Linda - are you really trying t tell me that you don't and drudge cannot tell the difference between an unsubstantiated rumor and a developing story?
Newspapers generally require two sources of corroboration on a story, drudge apparently requires two anonymous emails.
As for Right more times than wrong... I think it's more along the lines of able to pull catagorically incorrect reports before they get too much coverage. How many times do we see thing about a drudge report disappearing within a couple hours of posting. Doesn't that tell you there is a rather serious research problem and general irresponsible attitude that would the initial posting in the first place?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 3, 2004 08:13 PM ]
posted on June 3, 2004 10:36:03 PM new
The difference with Drudge is that when the facts are finally verified either true or false, Drudge does publish the findings (as either true or false) on the front page.
He admits the report was incorrect. Unlike the liberal media that hides their errors in the classified sections.
Can you say Jason Blair, or Timothy L. O'Brien or Judith Miller or Rodney Rothman or
Dennis Love or Jack Kelley
Drudge has something the liberal media is known to lack, objectivity & ethics.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jun 3, 2004 10:38 PM ]
posted on June 3, 2004 10:38:33 PM new
What I telling you is that it was a story that was reported to him....and he ran with it. He didn't make it up himself like writers at the NYT has done....several times.
The credibility at the NYT [which appears to me to be the Bible to the left....is no better....if you want to compare lies, mis-statements and totally fabricated articles.
You didn't say if you ever review the 'correction page' of the NYT. Other than what's been reported in the mainstream media about the people they'v fired or who have resigned....it'll open your eyes.... [well...maybe not - but they sure didn't use two sources] They've had to 'correct' more of their stories than many realize. Usually weeks later after the pubic already has believed what they've mistated.
I haven't heard of Drudge being wrong before this story ran....maybe you can point out to me other times his own developing stories were incorrect?
posted on June 3, 2004 11:17:25 PM new
Didn't see you there, bear.
----
fenix - Here's but one example of what you'll find if you do a google search for 'New York Times corrections' - because you may not accept this source either.
One of the current errors in the New York Times was their April 12 report that it took only 48 hours for the Baghdad Museum to lose "at least 170,000 artifacts carried away by looters."
Actually the total number of artifacts lost was 25 – a New York Times mistake of 169,975.
--
Then, there were the more than six dozen Times stories, editorials and columns all dealing with Executive Editor Howell Raines' apparent passion: the Augusta, Ga., National Golf Club's men-only membership policy. The Times-inspired boycott of the Masters tourney at this golf club was one of U.S. history's most spectacular flops.
Hard on the heels of Howell Raines foolishness came the firing (technically, the forced resignation) of Times' reporter Jayson Blair, age 27 – for plagiarism.
In a story the Times published on page 1 on April 26, there was an interview with the family of U.S. Army specialist Edward Anguiano, then missing in action, but since reported dead.
The wording of this story was so extensively similar to the reporting of San Antonio Express news reporter Macarena Hernandez, that this Texas daily's editor, Robert Rivard sent an e-mail complaint to Times Managing Editor Gerald Boyd in New York.
Blair's Times story was datelined "LOS FRESNOS, TEXAS" – although the Anguiano family said they were never interviewed by Mr. Blair.
Rather than reporting this plagiarizing and the termination of Jayson Blair on page 1 – where his stolen story was published – the New York Times ("All The News That's Fit To Print" backpaged this New York Times scandal.
Not only that, but the Times failed to report what the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, reported: Jayson Blair's reporting had to be corrected 50 times.
This led Washington's Weekly Standard magazine to ask: "How many stories do you get to screw up at the Times and still keep your job?"
So, the Weekly Standard ran Jayson Blair and his stories through a Nexus database.
They found that since he began working for the New York Times on June 9, 1998, Blair has 725 bylined stories – 50 of which had to be corrected – 6.9 percent.
So the Standard ran a Nexus check on two of the New York Times most celebrated bylines, to see how many corrections their stories required.
The results, since June 9, 1998:
Washington Bureau Chief Adam Clymer: 400 bylined stories – 35 requiring corrections (9 percent).
This led the Weekly Standard to conclude that, at the New York Times, "The [executive editor] Howell Raines-era accelerated its reputational tailspin."
-----------------------
There are many other more up-to-date articles on the NYT corrections if you wish to search.
posted on June 4, 2004 06:09:07 AM new
Linda, thanks for the numbers on the percent of retractions for the New York Times. Now, since you claim Drudge is right more often than he is wrong, could you please provide us with similar statistics for his page?
The NYT has a corrections page, does Drudge?
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 4, 2004 06:48:42 AM new
Linda - out of curiosity, how often do you think I read the NYT? You keep harping on this one bringing them up in comparison, wanting to know how many times I read their corrections, etc but when have I ever said I read it to begin with? Last time I read the Times was the last time I was in New York. I generally peruse online news outlets that carry a stories from a variety of sources off the AP wire, I do not read any one paper specifically.
BTW - I was not aware that good and responsible journalism exists on a sliding scale. I also thought that you either were a responsible journalist or you were not. I've never heard this responsible in comparison too..... justification when it comes to professional journalists but I have noticed it to be a recent trend in the justification of behavior just about any conservative called to the mat for their actions these days.
I wonder if this "in comparison to..." defense could be successful in court?
Oh, and lets not give false justification to this situation Linda.... What I telling you is that it was a story that was reported to him. It was not a story Linda, it was a rumor. A news story has its basis in fact and can be verified.
Drudge is a hack and the only reason you support him is that he is a conservative hack.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 4, 2004 09:08:56 AM new
profe - I think bear addressed your question. But Drudge does have an archive of all his article, yes, and search ability for past articles. But then he really doesn't need to devote a special section to 'correct' all the mistakes...as he doesn't make as many as the NYT does.
----------------------
fenix - I did not state YOU...I said the 'left'....you're the one making it personal. And yes....I do review the Drudge report at least once a day. His site is usually quick with reporting the most up-to-minute news articles.... as is the AP.
I get the impression that you didn't appreciate my comparison of the NYT. I think it is fair to compare them when one is pointing out ONE story the Drudge Report made in error.
------------------
If anyone does a google search on 'New York Times corrections' there was a big legal fight between a website that posted jokes about all the corrections the NYT had to make. The NYT tried to get them shut down. Now that's a real liberal way of silencing a parody site.
posted on June 4, 2004 10:46:17 AM newprofe - I think bear addressed your question
Um, no he didn't actually. There weren't any numbers.
You posted numbers concerning NYT authors' retractions or corrections. That's why I asked you.
..he really doesn't need to devote a special section to 'correct' all the mistakes...as he doesn't make as many as the NYT does.
I sincerely doubt you can prove that. The Weekly Standard is unlikely to post such figures about Drudge, as he is just another right wing extremist Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece like they are.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 4, 2004 10:59:32 AM new
Linda - unless you have come with a new spelling of "left" you did indeed say "you"
You didn't say if you ever review the 'correction page' of the NYT.
That is the comment that inspired my response. I didn't say because I not only do not read the correction page, I do not read the NYT in general.
As a general rule, I do not go to any specific news site. If I hear about something that interests me I do a general news search and read two or three different articles on it, some may be liberal, some may be conservative and then base an opinion on the commanality of the reports.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 4, 2004 11:10:58 AM new
From an ElectronicNewstand article on Drudge
The Drudge Report is just-in-time media for the restless, bulletin-bored, Internet masses, and if it's not always accurate, well, so what? Or is that really what Drudge believes? Drudge likes to play fast and loose with the fact that he plays fast and lose with the facts: he admitted to Kurtz that he often runs dubious material that eventually "blows up in [his] face"; he boasted to Joshua Quittner of Time that his accuracy rate was a less-than-boastful 80%. Old media gatekeepers, fearful of losing their power to untrained, wired barbarians, lap this stuff up and Drudge knows it. In addition, he understands that in an age of newzak, where the stories never stop and readers are more interested in provocation that probability, no one cares too much - or even notices - when bold declarations are eventually proven wrong. Corrections are quick and easy to make in a virtual medium; in fact, an error's just a way to generate more content.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 4, 2004 11:59:26 AM newUm, no he didn't actually. There weren't any numbers. I was speaking to the point bear made that he does correct his errors.
I sincerely doubt you can prove that. That was not my objective....my objective was to point out when the left points fingers....they need to be very aware that a media source they accept as 'gospel' [always right - never wrong] does no better. AND that the dems are still angry at Drudge because HE was the one that broke the story on Monica's stained dress.....when clinton was so adamanty denying any relationship with her. Haven't gotten over Drudge proving clinton a liar yet.
The Weekly Standard is unlikely to post such figures about Drudge, as he is just another right wing extremist Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece like they are.
LOL....I understand, profe. I have YET to find any right-leaning media [etc] source that the left doesn't discount as being totally worthless. It works both ways.
All media makes mistakes now and again - the NYT is just better at hiding theirs. And it HAS blow up in their face....that's the reason for the firings....resignations....etc.
--------------------
You didn't say if you ever review the 'correction page' of the NYT.
That is the comment that inspired my response. I didn't say because I not only do not read the correction page, I do not read the NYT in general.
Yes, fenix, I believe you are a more moderate dem...more to the center than most dems here. I only asked if you'd ever reviewed their correction page....as in to suggest that you might want to. Not that you have to...nor that you already do. Thought maybe IF you did [or had] you might see this as being no different.
posted on June 4, 2004 12:13:56 PM new
Linda - I think you ar e getting lost in the details. I don't read their corrections because I don't read their paper. I do know though that they do not print blatant rumors and I do know that they do not boast an accuaracy rate of 80% as does Drudge. Are you really going to try to hold Drudge up as a example when he himself is the one that gave that number?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 4, 2004 12:17:35 PM new
I think that what is truly being overlooked is that an intelligent, resourceful and quite obviously apt young woman was pushed out of what could have been a vvery worthwhile and promising career due to Drudge's irresponsible reporting of a baseless rumor. This is one of those rumors that screams as being spread for nefarious reasons and the furthering of it with unsubstantiated and catagorically false statements is an example of exactly what is wrong with journalism today.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 4, 2004 12:18 PM ]
posted on June 4, 2004 01:23:05 PM newI do know that they do not boast an accuaracy rate of 80% as does Drudge.
Well...I'll believe that when I see a direct quote from *him*.....not trusting the news and all
Are you really going to try to hold Drudge up as a example when he himself is the one that gave that number?
Hold him up as an example? No...I used the NYT to show they are no different.
I think that what is truly being overlooked is that an intelligent, resourceful and quite obviously apt young woman was pushed out of what could have been a vvery worthwhile and promising career
....and if that turns out to be the case she will have legal rights to get compensated for her 'losses'. But I think [ask reamond] when retractions are issued....there might not be any recourse available.
----------------------
What I don't like about the press is that they have gotten so far away from being 'true' journalists that it's hard to identify them as journalists anymore. They're almost all op-ed writers...giving their own person bias on whatever subject they're writing about...rather than just sticking to stating the facts and letting their readers make up their own minds.
It's a very changed profession from how it used to be....and most of it leans left....in print and in the media.
posted on June 4, 2004 01:24:55 PM new
What do you mean "if" Linda? Did you read the article?
My final call, inevitably, had to be to Matt Drudge, who said he couldn’t talk for long as his father had just arrived for the weekend. In fact, we spoke for nearly 40 minutes. “In retrospect, I should have had a sentence saying, ‘There is no evidence to tie Alex to John Kerry.’ I should have put that,” he told me. Then he added, “If Clark had not gone out there and said, ‘Kerry is going to bomb,’ I never, ever, would have gone anywhere near this.” Once he’d posted his initial story, he was then encouraged and gratified by the prompt coverage in the UK press. “When the London Times made it a banner headline, like we’re going to war, I realized this must be true. Murdoch is going all the way with this! For me to do media coverage was one thing, for them to jump from media coverage to say this is actually an affair between her and him and all the rest was something else!”
And so my education had taken me pretty much as far as it could. I started out as an ambitious young woman inspired by politics and the media. I’ve ended up disenchanted with both. If I had been an ambitious young man, this story would not have happened. I’m never going to know exactly what happened, but that matters less to me now. I lost a good friend and learned a few lessons. I am struck by the pitiful state of political reporting, which is dominated by the unholy alliance of opposition research and its latest tool, the Internet. Even the Wall Street Journal’s Website ran Drudge’s story, with only a brief disclaimer that his stories weren’t always accurate.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 4, 2004 01:37 PM ]
backpaged this New York Times scandal.
