Quote:
Originally posted by: Mavdog
So now there is supposedly "a bombshell tell-all interview" where the very person who has been (without evidence it seems) labeled as "The former Washington intern, 27, [who] told all about an alleged fling with the 60-year-old super-rich senator in spring 2001" ("super-rich"?? so now Drudge is into class warfare eh?) and the interview is in the possession of a "US TV network" who has had this EVIDENCE for weeks now as it was alleged to have been done "at Christmas", but in spite of such supposed FIRST PERSON relevation that will truly be bona fide validation of this sleasy campaign...they don't show it? Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world...at least to those who actually believe that Drudge is a true "reporter" rather than the trash story sleaseball he clearly is.
Yuck Yuck Yuck. This can't be a serious story, it's just too funny. Let's see, a "US News network" sits on THE story of the campaign season but doesn't use it...they not only have the story, they have an interview where the liason partner supposedly admits to the daliance, providing the proof that sleaseballs like Drudge are tripping over themselves to find. Oh wait, Drudge isn't trying to find the evidence because he doesn't care if there is any, Drudge's motto seems to be "Damn the facts, don't let them get in the way of juicy character assasination and the Drudge brand of yellow journalism!".
Too funny. Matt Drudge, when did you stop beating your wife? yuck yuck yuck.
Maybe Drudge can get a job with the Enquirer running down stories about cows who have been abducted by aliens who taught them how to moo in their planet's language...Stop Matt, I'm laughing too hard!
|
Ya know, it is kind of funny. The people that bash the Drudge Report have never read it. I know this because every critical statement about the drudge report reveals that the author has never read it because 99% of what's on the Drudge Report is not original content. For example, the story you are making fun of is actually a story from a brittish newspaper which the Drudge Report only provides a link to. If you go there now (10:30 AM on 2/16/04) you find a single story that is original content and that story is largely a compilation of 12 year old news stories; on most days, there is zero percent-i.e. no - original content. Further, when there is original content, it almost always ends up being true. I say "almost" because I can only think of one instance where he was actually wrong- Drudge said that Arnold was going to go on Leno and announce he was not going to run for governor (and even then he corrected the story before the episode was even taped). This is the only instance I recall where he was wrong.
Everything Drudge wrote about Monica Lewinsky, BTW, was 100% true. That is why in
this thread, I went to great pains to explain what Drudge actually does. It is the same thing that Drudge has done in this case. Drudge has reported that the story is out there and it is going to break. Invariably, we will discover that the people giving Drudge most of his information are the reporters covering the story themselves-just like last time.