Drudge Teaches How To Poison Public Discourse

Is Drudge’s twenty minute headline reasonable? Even if it was posted before the meeting, was it valid three hours later? The problem is some people will see Drudge’s headline and stop there

“If it upsets you so much, why do you look?” The words were from Ann Nyberg. She was referring to the Drudge Report which I check a few times daily when I want my blood pressure elevated.

I cannot not look because every time I think I’ve seen the depths of his deceit he dives lower! And, of course, there are people who read his words and believe him without question.

This is not about the job the president is doing. There’s a lot to be upset by there. This is about passing fiction as truth.

20 MINUTE MEETING?!

That’s the headline right now under a photo of what seems to be oil executives leaving the White House. I see “seems to be” because I can’t identify any of these players by sight. The setting of the photo is enough to make the point.

As with most of Drudge’s posts it’s stark black type on a white page. The slug linked to a story on Politico.com, a political site with a right-of-center slant.

Of course I expected to be livid that the administration had been so smug as to only meet with BP for twenty minutes.

The six BP executives arrived at the White House around 10 a.m. and were still inside after noon.

Obama was scheduled to spend 20 minutes in the meeting.

Before the all-caps scream at 10:56 AM Drudge had posted a smaller though still inflammatory headline.

Obama meets with BP execs — for 20 minutes…

At 11:14 AM the larger headline went up, though as Politico reported the meeting was still in progress at that time. When the president spoke at 2:27 PM He said, “I just left a meeting.”

Is Drudge’s twenty minute headline reasonable? Even if it was posted before the meeting, was it valid three hours later? The problem is some people will see Drudge’s headline and stop there.

The president has finished speaking, but the headline’s still there! My blood pressure is spiking again.

6 thoughts on “Drudge Teaches How To Poison Public Discourse”

  1. Sadly, I read his crap, as well. I get masochistic amusement from his irritating shock-value headlines. And besides, it’s good to see other ‘viewpoints’, if only so you know what you’re going to have to deal with elsewhere. ๐Ÿ˜›

    But, occasionally, he also links to something interesting I might have missed elsewhere. Say what we will about the guy, his site DOES link through to a lot of news, often legitimately worth checking out.

    So… I end up giving him a couple clicks every day. And I feel dirty afterward. ๐Ÿ˜›

  2. It seems as though the days of objective journalism are behind us.
    The news can be slanted in one direction or the other at the whim of the editorial board.

    The headline could just have easily been “Obama spends hours in White House with oil executives”, and on CNN it might just be.

    I don’t do Drudge, but I do tune into El Rushbo every now and then for some humor. I’d like to think most of us are smart enough to separate fact from fiction. But who knows?

  3. I don’t get where you’re coming from. Sure the headline is short and not flattering to Obama, but if i read the correct article at Politico, Obama was scheduled for 20 minutes with the BP execs… The rest of the time the execs were to meet with Obama’s staff. What’s your problem with the headline? Headlines are there to grab your attention. Your TV station does the same thing and then I watch the story. Maybe I just don’t get what you are trying to say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *