Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media Media ethics v. responsiblity

Y'all being kinda rough on ol' Matt, aren't ya? I mean, it's true that he doesn't have the college pedigree the major papers and broadcast companies prefer their celebrity newsreaders and paper writers to have; and it's true that he doesn't appear to lick the boots of power within the establishment in exchange for insider, but insiped crumbs of faux news; and it is definitely true that, unlike the media stars of the fourth estate, he is not a part of the establishment; it is true that he made his "bones" by breaking the story that the establishment media was not reporting Bill Clinton's escapes with a female intern.

Now, some might suggest that the establishment enablers in the media were doing this out of ethical considerations (guffaw;-)), but I suspect it was more out of being comfortable with Clinton in office and a sense of not threatening the very establishment they are so much a part of. Was it just gossip mongering?

As I recall, it was all the rage at the time to claim that a powerful male who engaged in even dating a subordinate female was engaging in sexual harassment and subject to civil action and public denouncement as an offender. As I recall, some of the more virulent feminist types even called it a form of rape.

I would say that Drudge did what the fourth estate failed to do -- defend the notion of rule of law, or if you prefer what is good enough to cook the the goose of the lesser male should be good enough to cook the alpha dog's goose. As a side benefit, the incident he exposed showed the hypocrisy of a number of N.O.W. advocates and their celebrity spokesfolks.:-)

Now we have one of the oldest power structures in the world, the British Monarchy, expecting the peasants of the world to do das they are told -- and apparently the establishment press did just that. But not Drudge. He apparently decided that the news media is not an extention of a government, monarchy, or rulers of any kind. He published what the boot licks would not. Good on him.

The result? Prince Harry's sheepdippin' was interrupted and he had to cut short his bit of ripping good sport in Afghanistan. It is obvious that at some point when it would be most advantageous to the monarchy his service would be trotted out to be admired by the enamoured, and Prince Harry's former picadilloes forgotten or dismissed as a bit of youthful coddlewot.:-)

As to endangerment to himself and his "mates", well, it is usually the intention of a military force that is sent into a combat zone to locate and engage the enemy. How much better to have some bait that will hurry the enemy to your position and his destruction? Secondly, combat zones are hazardous whether Harry is there or not.

Whatever the reason Drudge ran the story, it did once again establish a wall between his site and the wishes of powerful government people.

Good on you, Matt Drudge.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos