I'm not feeling the outrage, either. First, Drudge mangles the facts in his headlines. Second, he's predictable. Third, he merely compiles wire stories. He's useless as a source and redundant as a gauge of the lunatic-right. So perhaps these guys really don't check out his site, doesn't mean they suck as journalists or that they're lying.
This is about as goofy a post as Gawker has ever published.
This...
If Keller doesn't read the Drudge Report at least occasionally, it would constitute a professional incompetence of such proportions that we're confident he's lying in order to project a delusional fantasy of a pre-internet media environment in the desperate hope that it will come true.
@johnnypotatoes: Yeah, a little difficult to explain the vitriol here. Is it impossible to think that perhaps the editor of the New York Times might:
A) be a little "above" reading Drudge, even if only in his own mind?
B) not share the internet reading habits of John Cook?
From the sounds of this post, yes, it is impossible to believe.
There a few, admittedly, websites that operate on a for-profit methodology that don't care about page views. But its silly for any high-ranking Editor (who are fully aware of what constitutes success online) to ignore the bull in the china shop.
Not just page views from being linked. The smart business man checks out what Drudge links and then writes a companion piece for their site to get the lookey lou's who want to know more about the subject matter.
@Iamavirgin: If anything, the New York Times' Web presence is the Bull here. It gets WAY more unique visitors than Drudge.
As for the second piece of advice, that's pretty far from what I understand the Times' mission to be—at least Keller's end of it—but I may be mistaken.
@johnnypotatoes: So CNN's president shouldn't watch Fox News? It's not about whether Drudge adds value, or is worth reading. We've been very clear on that score as to our opinion. It's whether he's part of the competitive environment and whether he drives stories. He does. Just because you wish that weren't true doesn't mean it's sensible to pretend that it isn't true.
@John Cook: That's a measurement of market share within a category. Hardly the same thing as unique visitors. The last numbers I remember for Drudge, when there was that coverage of HuffPo surpassing his visitor numbers, was at like 3.4 million, or something in that neighborhood. Let's say that doubled (highly unlikely, but whatever). The Times habitually has in excess of 15 million, and that's conservative.
@Jasper Reardon: Also, I can't tell if that's measuring hits, or what. But if it is, it's totally off, since Drudge auto-refreshes like nobody's business. If it's your homepage, or you just leave it open for any period of time, you're accounting for way more than your share of traffic.
@John Cook: I have to agree with most everyone in this thread. I maybe look at Drudge once, every other year or so. It's just a collection of links that can be gleaned from lots of other sources in a much more elegant layout.
Earlier, we learned that the Times doesn't check pageviews with religious fervor and now we learn they don't look at some AOL 1.1 site for the schoolkids. As others have said, the Times is near the top in pageviews, so obviously they're doing something right.
@John Cook: You really think CNN/Fox is the equivalent of NYT/Drudge? Really?
Some people at the NYT no doubt read Drudge. I have no doubt whatsoever that Keller is being 100 percent honest that he hasn't done so in a year.
What should he ignore to make room for Drudge, of all the stuff the editor of the New York Times has to read every day? Which is, at a bare minimum, most of the WSJ, the Washington Post, and much if not most of the Financial Times and maybe one or two other papers? Not to mention wires and Web sites all day. Time and Newsweek. The Economist. And the entirety (or as close as he can get) of his own giant newspaper. And TV and radio news? And that leaves out all the, you know, work he has to do.
The very point of the piece that sparked all this is that Drudge doesn't do anything of note any more. And if he does, someone -- probably beneath the rank of Washington Editor -- will see it. Or not, because it probably won't matter much either way.
And to frame all this as Keller either "lying" or being incompetent is downright bizarre.
Technically (or perhaps pedantically) nobody "reads" the Drudge Report. You scan a cluster of misleading headlines, and then click through to the articles to see how Drudge made a conclusion with his headline that's not actually made in the article itself.
@gawkimo: The only person qualified to "read" the headlines on the Drudge Report is Rush Limbaugh. Nearly every day on his Hee Haw show, Rush demonstrates that his bombastic, bovine voice is the perfect instrument for Matty Boy's craptastic headlines.
@MrInBetween: Great, thanks. Now I can't "read" the Drudge report without smelling BBQ breath and cigar smoke while losing any lingering hope for humankind.
If it is true, I think it is a sign that more and more of the media (and the population at large) are focusing on news with a slant that they embrace and eschew all divergent opinions/bias.
It is a trend I just don't get. For instance, I am a conservative but I still read liberal papers and blogs. I believe I am better informed because of it.
Plus, you always know what your enemy is thinking. :)
I disagree with the premise of the post. I suspect it may actually be true that media people don't read Drudge or some other blog/paper that diverges from their beliefs.
It is my personal experience living in "Liberalville" that most people I know wouldn't dream of reading something from National Review, etc. They simply believe that, because of the different bias, it isn't worth their time. To be fair, my few conservative friends in CT won't read the Times either.
@momof3wildkids: "Media people" do not subscribe to one single POV, much as you would like to believe otherwise, and I'm sure that those who avoid Drudge might have perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
For example, I don't read Drudge because I find his site insulting to my intelligence.
@Cynical Media Bitch:
Your comment about it being "insulting" to your intelligence is a common response whenever I suggest that someone read from a site that they normally don't because of a different POV. Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't make them or their ideas stupid. That is the height of arrogance.
Liberals should read/listen/watch conservative media like Scarborough, National Review, and even Beck. Conservatives should read the Op/Ed of the NYT, watch Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman, etc... And by read/listen/watch I mean more than the demonizing out-of-context snippets you find on websites and blogs.
@momof3wildkids: Well, I don't speak for any of the people you hang out with, just myself. I try to consider opinions that don't jibe with mine, if only because they force me to justify my own attitudes, which don't easily pigeonhole into the lib vs. con dichotomy to which so many people fall victim. To get my attention, a writer/pundit has to make a point without appealing to fear and ignorance.
That's the problem with Beck, Drudge, and their ilk, who IMHO are cut from the same cloth as the folks at Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, etc. Meanwhile, Bill Kristol and Carol Gould on the right and Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd (oh my) on the left get my attention, because they manage to present their arguments without trying to terrify me.
Diversity of opinion is a laudable goal, but not all opinions merit equal treatment. (If you doubt me, go check out the thread on Holocaust deniers.)
If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it. Many people confuse confidence with arrogance, and from what I've read of your posts, you are probably one of them.
@Cynical Media Bitch: "Diversity of opinion is a laudable goal, but not all opinions merit equal treatment. " We are on the same page with that statement. Where we differ is that I don't put the far left or right in the same camp as Holocaust deniers.
Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that there are significantly more far left or far right people than people who do not believe the Holocaust went down as history said it did.
It is because that there is a large number of people on the far right that it makes sense to watch the Glenn Beck's of the world from time to time (beyond the inflaming snippets which are posted on the Daily Show, Gawker, etc). Same goes for the far left and the Keith Oberman's of the world.
As for the 'fear and ignorance' part of your comment, I get it. However, I wonder if fear and ignorance isn't sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
I believe Keller. Maybe it's difficult for someone at one website, Gawker, to imagine a world where a major media figure doesn't read another website, The Drudge Report. I haven't looked at the drudge report in three years. Isn't it like someone not watching Fox News? I dont' get what the big deal is.
@Jasper Reardon: "Keller's lying" and "Gawker thinks Keller's lying" are not the same thing. I completely disagree that it would constitute professional incompetence of any proportion.
@Rhymenocerous: Why reply once with subtle sarcasm when you can reply twice with bewildering capital letters that make you look like you really care (WHICH I DO!)?
I would like to see Erin Burnett keep him in a little bottle and call him forth like a genie to perform on command. Then, all of a sudden, he makes some ridiculous accusation and dissolves into a tenuous mist smelling of fetid tobacco.
Well he is right that they are speculating about the bonuses. It makes me wonder where the source of this story really came from. Who cares in June what may or may not be paid out in December? A year ago at this time, Goldman was probably looking to pay some nice bonuses too.
Don't feel the need to justify = can't really justify.
And you may have people telling you you perform an important service, Jesse, but you do know that they're either paying you to act like a clown or batshit insane, right?
Mr. Watters comes across as an introspective, analytical and meticulous man. I like how much time and effort he puts into carefully analyzing the connotations of 'ambush', and provides more than adequate reasoning for how he arrived at his unexpected decision. It's also touching how he diligently chronicles why exactly he doesn't need something once he's done poring over his long list of needs.
Next up: "After a lengthy process of research and analysis, I wish to alert the public that I just realized the word 'ethics' is a secret communist."
Someday, he is going to realize that all his previous education, experience and any talent he might has had is tainted by the big shit streak that is Bill O'Reilly.
Then he can go cry and sadly jerk off in a corner.
Exactly what important "journalistic service" does he supply? Far as I can see, the main revelation of his interviews are that people are generally inept at defending themselves in an impromptu fashion--something I knew already, thanks.
09/09/09
09/09/09
This...
If Keller doesn't read the Drudge Report at least occasionally, it would constitute a professional incompetence of such proportions that we're confident he's lying in order to project a delusional fantasy of a pre-internet media environment in the desperate hope that it will come true.
... is just plain addled.
09/09/09
09/09/09
A) be a little "above" reading Drudge, even if only in his own mind?
B) not share the internet reading habits of John Cook?
From the sounds of this post, yes, it is impossible to believe.
09/09/09
There a few, admittedly, websites that operate on a for-profit methodology that don't care about page views. But its silly for any high-ranking Editor (who are fully aware of what constitutes success online) to ignore the bull in the china shop.
Not just page views from being linked. The smart business man checks out what Drudge links and then writes a companion piece for their site to get the lookey lou's who want to know more about the subject matter.
09/09/09
As for the second piece of advice, that's pretty far from what I understand the Times' mission to be—at least Keller's end of it—but I may be mistaken.
09/09/09
[www.drudgereport.com]
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
Earlier, we learned that the Times doesn't check pageviews with religious fervor and now we learn they don't look at some AOL 1.1 site for the schoolkids. As others have said, the Times is near the top in pageviews, so obviously they're doing something right.
09/09/09
Some people at the NYT no doubt read Drudge. I have no doubt whatsoever that Keller is being 100 percent honest that he hasn't done so in a year.
What should he ignore to make room for Drudge, of all the stuff the editor of the New York Times has to read every day? Which is, at a bare minimum, most of the WSJ, the Washington Post, and much if not most of the Financial Times and maybe one or two other papers? Not to mention wires and Web sites all day. Time and Newsweek. The Economist. And the entirety (or as close as he can get) of his own giant newspaper. And TV and radio news? And that leaves out all the, you know, work he has to do.
The very point of the piece that sparked all this is that Drudge doesn't do anything of note any more. And if he does, someone -- probably beneath the rank of Washington Editor -- will see it. Or not, because it probably won't matter much either way.
And to frame all this as Keller either "lying" or being incompetent is downright bizarre.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
It is a trend I just don't get. For instance, I am a conservative but I still read liberal papers and blogs. I believe I am better informed because of it.
Plus, you always know what your enemy is thinking. :)
09/09/09
09/09/09
I disagree with the premise of the post. I suspect it may actually be true that media people don't read Drudge or some other blog/paper that diverges from their beliefs.
It is my personal experience living in "Liberalville" that most people I know wouldn't dream of reading something from National Review, etc. They simply believe that, because of the different bias, it isn't worth their time. To be fair, my few conservative friends in CT won't read the Times either.
Silly.
09/09/09
For example, I don't read Drudge because I find his site insulting to my intelligence.
09/09/09
Your comment about it being "insulting" to your intelligence is a common response whenever I suggest that someone read from a site that they normally don't because of a different POV. Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't make them or their ideas stupid. That is the height of arrogance.
Liberals should read/listen/watch conservative media like Scarborough, National Review, and even Beck. Conservatives should read the Op/Ed of the NYT, watch Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman, etc... And by read/listen/watch I mean more than the demonizing out-of-context snippets you find on websites and blogs.
09/09/09
That's the problem with Beck, Drudge, and their ilk, who IMHO are cut from the same cloth as the folks at Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, etc. Meanwhile, Bill Kristol and Carol Gould on the right and Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd (oh my) on the left get my attention, because they manage to present their arguments without trying to terrify me.
Diversity of opinion is a laudable goal, but not all opinions merit equal treatment. (If you doubt me, go check out the thread on Holocaust deniers.)
If that makes me arrogant in your eyes, so be it. Many people confuse confidence with arrogance, and from what I've read of your posts, you are probably one of them.
09/09/09
Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that there are significantly more far left or far right people than people who do not believe the Holocaust went down as history said it did.
It is because that there is a large number of people on the far right that it makes sense to watch the Glenn Beck's of the world from time to time (beyond the inflaming snippets which are posted on the Daily Show, Gawker, etc). Same goes for the far left and the Keith Oberman's of the world.
As for the 'fear and ignorance' part of your comment, I get it. However, I wonder if fear and ignorance isn't sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
04/25/09
the meaning of those three words are, apparently, very lost on him
or
it's opposite week!
04/25/09
This guy is a predator whose been caught red handed. He should get a real job.
04/25/09
And you may have people telling you you perform an important service, Jesse, but you do know that they're either paying you to act like a clown or batshit insane, right?
04/25/09
Next up: "After a lengthy process of research and analysis, I wish to alert the public that I just realized the word 'ethics' is a secret communist."
04/25/09
Then he can go cry and sadly jerk off in a corner.
04/25/09
04/25/09
04/25/09
04/25/09
04/25/09