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

If you refer back to what I wrote, you will see that I did not question Harry's motives (they are irrelevent to the thread), but rather pointed out the benefit to the British monarchy (without whose permission Harry would probably never have gotten to go to Afghanistan with his mates) of its later being able to trot out his 'service to country' (not sure how Afghanistan was a mortal threat to England -- er -- sorry, Britain), thus replacing his prior high profile conduct with the sobriquet, "hero". I made this point relative to the claim that because evil, evil, Matt Drudge ran the story, Harry would forever more be a target of the nogoodniks. Obviously, he has always been a target of nogoodniks of various kinds, and obviously the monarchy was not going to keep his 'service to country' under wraps into perpetuity. The monarchy did not get its way. Good.:-)

As to your apparent hatred of Drudge because you suspect he is homosexual and supposedly supports some people who are not considered "gay-friendly", how does that relate to whether he is a distributor of information and a news outlet that is less concerned with offending powerful people than are celebrity news folk who maintain their politically connection to a snack line of inane treats doled out to them by the powerful as a reword for behaving?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Nice turn, Issodhos, but unfair - you said "your apparent hatred of Drudge because you suspect he is homosexual" - not what was said, very out of context and deliberately (IMV) deceptive. Yes, there was an aspersion cast because of his hypocrisy, but it is completely fallacious to use that to somehow boost his credibility when clearly the rest of the point (which you elided) was that he doesn't do his own spadework but merely plagiarizes from "real" journalists. And while I fully support freedom of speech and press, it is also perfectly appropriate (and necessary) to evaluate the quality and reasonableness of the offerings. In that regard, Drudge really is scummy.

Nice example of the use of the tactic known as "vicious abstraction", NW Ponderer. What you lifted out of context needs to have the second half of the sentence included for it to retain the same meaning.

The personal remarks directed at Drudge by the poster were meant to marginalize him, what he does, and anyone supportive of his site.

Now, since you have charged him with plagerism, could you link me to your source for this claim?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

[QUOTE]

Nice example of the use of the tactic known as "vicious abstraction", NW Ponderer. What you lifted out of context needs to have the second half of the sentence included for it to retain the same meaning.

The personal remarks directed at Drudge by the poster were meant to marginalize him, what he does, and anyone supportive of his site.

Now, since you have charged him with plagerism, could you link me to your source for this claim?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

iss, im curious. what is it precisely that you like about matt?

Didn't go to jschool. taught by old school, hard core types who yelled at you. problem for me, too, cause i picked up some of those habits and they don't translate well in this corporate, human resources world, but i digress. be fair, tell the truth, don't editorialize in a story. if you're writing an opinion piece then name it. if you're writing an analytical piece, then name it. if it's a news story, stick to the facts and make certain you check those facts. and frankly, holding a story is done but it is usually done to the benefit of the paper, not the subject. in otherwords, whoever agreed to hold the story was getting something bigger in exchange. and since this is the british press we're talking about, i am highly suspect because they are far more agressive than many of our folks here and i would bet the farm whoever made the original agreement was going to get something back in exchange. the reports talk about the british media, but i am skeptical here. i would wager one outlet rather than all had a hand in this and otherwise it was kept quiet. as for drudge, well, by definition you have to call him a journalist but in terms of classic defiinitions you would also have to add the label yellow journalist.

I read Drudge every, single, day. He simply links stories and rarely does he write one. As to how Matt Drudge 'found out' about Prince Harry being in Afghanistan, it was reported in Australia before Matt Drudge reported it on his site.

If you remember, Matt Drudge is known for exposing former President Bill Clinton's "Blue Dress."

Matt simply wants to be the first to "report"....erm, link the story.

That's all there is to the Drudge Report - nothing more, nothing less.


Truth be known, I lift a lot of his links and re-post the stories here in Reader Rant with it's original links.

australia? I wonder if that wasn't a murdoch enterprise that broke it. that's a whole other can of ethical debate right there. murdoch, that is.

He's a goodlooking man:

speaking of murdoch and media ethics, this little diddy speaks volumes.

Personally, I don't think that Matt Drudge should not have revealed the story as it put Prince Harry's life in danger he and his group would have become targets for attack. However, Matt simply wants to be the first to break a story.

It was news that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan.

Then again, it was no secret that Prince Albert was in the Falkins in 1982.