Drudge: It's The Beginning Of A Second Media Century

drudgereport.com ^ | November 4, 2003 | Matt Drudge

[ConservativeMan55]

Possibly Carville.

[lainie]

CBS's senior vice president of movies and miniseries, Bela Bajaria, is being blamed internally at the network for the growing backlash against the project, CBS sources said this weekend.

"Look, it was going to be about the Reagans and their family," a senior network source said. "A love story! We lost control of it... it transformed. Politics was seasoned in. What was delivered is not what was pitched to me or anyone else here, that I am aware of."

Bajaria told the LOS ANGELES TIMES last summer that in REAGANS she wanted to tell "an amazing love story that spans four decades."

"We don't expect this to be controversial," she explained.

http://www.drudgereport.com/rr6.htm

[GulliverSwift]

I don't think so. Bloggers only imagine they have influence because they influence each other. If you asked the average politically aware conservative if he's heard of Glenn Reynolds or Mickey Kaus, he'd give you a long, blank stare.

[GulliverSwift]

It was talk radio and Drudge that did it. FR played some role, albeit one of organizing people to tell the uninformed.

Drudge and talk radio are universal media. Almost all Internet sites are not by virtue of their very limited audience sizes.

[lainie]

I tend to agree with GulliverSwift, but mostly because I personally can't slog, through the blogs, the endless blogs.

I've heard of Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan, and I'll be interested if someone brings a brilliant revelation to my attention, but I'm can't sift through the musings of anyone's daily thoughts. I don't even read my favorite columnists anymore due to time constraints. Are the liberal bloggers influenced by the conservative ones? That might be an inroad that no other entity but a famous blogger could make.

I've come to consider these Internet forums (like FR) to be slow-motion blogs. Actually, any quick trip through old Usenet postings reveals that the entire Internet is one big blog.

[paulklenk]

Bloggers only imagine they have influence because they influence each other.

I read an article about this recently -- wish I could share it with you -- but let me try to restate what it said about bloggers:

You are right when you say that bloggers imagine more influence than they have -- on an individual basis. But what is missing is the whole lot of them together. It is sort of a cauldron or kettle of thinking, and, like these discussion threads, the bubbling up of a lot of ideas can show trends in peoples' thinking and many of these ideas trickle up, instead of down, in the media food chain.

Again, I probably botched up trying to explain it, but hope it makes a bit of sense to you.

[lainie]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Drudge is the one to watch. He's unique in media and a true conservative. He understands what the Internet really is (which is NOT a one-way conduit of marketing. Contrary to what people tried to do with it.)

[lainie]

Hannity is saying basically the same thing. 'Beyond Matt Drudge, who brought it to our attention, this story belongs to no one talkshow host. This belongs to YOU the people out there.'

[GulliverSwift]

Problem is, though, that there are _no one_ many bloggers out there that no one has time to read them all. Most of their sites are disorganized messes with almost all of the content on one page that is 5 miles long.

So, the diarists may influence the people they happen to direct readers to but that's still questionable since a lot of the bloggers don't even have the ability to look at their server logs to check referrers.

IMHO discussion forums like FR, Lucianne, Fark.com are far more efficient uses of group resources. They are also so much better organized and easier to search.

I have no interest in starting a blog when I have FR here for me. I don't have to worry about paying for it, updating it with useless quota postings. If I want to share my thoughts, I can post a vanity essay. If I just want to put my two bits in, I post on a thread.

Blogs are a waste of time on both the authors' and readers' parts, IMO.

[GulliverSwift]

I've heard of Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan, and I'll be interested if someone brings a brilliant revelation to my attention, but I'm can't sift through the musings of anyone's daily thoughts. I don't even read my favorite columnists anymore due to time constraints. Are the liberal bloggers influenced by the conservative ones? That might be an inroad that no other entity but a famous blogger could make.

I've come to consider these Internet forums (like FR) to be slow-motion blogs. Actually, any quick trip through old Usenet postings reveals that the entire Internet is one big blog.

I find a lot I agree with here. I remember back in the day when I tried to read all of the conservative columnists on Jewish World Review. But by doing so, I learned of other writers, and still more.

After a while, I realized that basically all of them were saying the same 3 or 4 things, just with slightly different styles. I've since lost all use for columnists since most have no original thoughts at all.

As for FR vis-a-vis the blogs, I think that it is they who are behind us. I often see stuff on here first before anywhere else on the Web.

One other plus about FR: live group discussions of events. You can't get that kind of interactivity reading a hodgepodge of stream-of-consciousness diary entries.

[The Wizard]

Drudge Saves The Day

A lot of folks will taking credit for this victory of turth over slime, but it was matt who got them all going......

I say God Bless him, I wish I could interview him for my TV show, and give him the credit he deserves......

[vikingchick]

It used to be you would consume the product, and then you would get outraged, and you wouldn't have an outlet.

bump to that

[GulliverSwift]

Oops: should say:

"Problem is, though, that there are so many bloggers out there that _no one_ has time to read them all. Most of their sites are disorganized messes with almost all of the content on one page that is 5 miles long.

[buffyt]

I HOPE you are RIGHT! I am so sick of the LEFT always demonizing the RIGHT, and pretending we don't have intelligence, compassion, culture, wisdom, education, etc. They always make us out to be a bunch of mean idiots who know nothing about the arts. They are wrong, DEAD wrong~

[Mudboy Slim]

CBS STATEMENT REGARDING 'THE REAGANS' "CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...yeah, right...MUD

[lainie]

I agree with every one of your points. (Especially the last two.. having been through the aforementioned fire threads.)

I have to say, though, that some people do latch on to a favorite blogger and really enjoy checking the site on a daily basis. Maybe it's best left to-each-his-own? All I know is it isn't for me.

[lainie]

It's very amusing isn't it. :)

[lainie]

Nowadays, you get on the Internet, find others who feel the same way, find addresses and phone numbers at the click of a button, and make your displeasure known. And see results!

[lainie]

Statement of RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on CBS Decision to Move Reagan Series to Showtime
Tue Nov 04 2003 16:12:39 ET

Washington, DC-- "The CBS decision to air 'The Reagans' miniseries on Showtime does not address the central concern over historical accuracy, nor does it correct the fact that the program does not present, in their own words, 'a balanced portrayal of the Reagans.'

The only proper thing to do is to correct the imbalance and have the program reviewed for historical accuracy or inform viewers that it is a fictionalized portrayal and not intended to be historically accurate.

Misleading a smaller audience of viewers is not a noble response to the legitimate concerns raised about this program. I respectfully request Showtime to allow a panel of historians and people who know the Reagans to review the program for accuracy before it airs.

If they are unwilling to correct the imbalance they themselves acknowledge and review the program for historical accuracy, Showtime should inform its viewers through a crawl every ten minutes that the program is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans and the Reagan Presidency, and is not intended to be historically accurate."

END

[Mudboy Slim]

It's amusing that they actually go out of their way to spew nonsense that I guess they expect the sheeple to believe...LOL!!

This was a major win for the GoodGuys, imho...MUD