Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:41 AM
Sun Nov 29
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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