I reread your initial post, and you had written this about FR: ...headline not matching the article -- and, that is I recalled and what I disagreed with.
Let me clarify that:
"headline not matching the article" referred not to FR posters changing the original headline, but, as I tried to explain in a second post, to headline writers sensationalizing or stating intent not expressed in the body of the article, and sometimes even exactly opposite from the facts presented in the article. Now, I found that type of misleading headlines prevalent in "liberal" media (AP, Reuters, major US newspapers and TV websites), though I couldn't vouch for all other media not doing the same.
Re Drudge, he's in somewhat different business ("breaking" and non-traditional news aggregator) and so his job IS to sensationalize some otherwise non-remarkable "news", and sometimes he's "embargoed" from actual article to link to (while told about form , subject or substance of upcoming article) - and in this way his popular website has been USED by the media (recently, by NYT and WaPo) to bring attention to their papers (often, Monday editions) - it's a symbiotic relationship, I guess. So he describes the nature of upcoming piece, until actual link becomes available.
Not that I like this, but it might explain the annoying and sensational way it happens now on DrudgeReport. The liberal media is now using him to "break" their "news", similarly to the way he was getting news before mostly from conservative sources like Washington Times or NY Post... The "price" of fame, I suppose.
FYI, for your "Media Schadenfreude and other Media Shenanigans" ping list. :)