Posted on 11/17/2016 4:44:06 AM PST by simpson96
In an election cycle when just about everyone got it wrong, Matt Drudge ended up vindicated. The editor of the massive, conservative news aggregation site spent much of the last 18 months leading with those rare polls and stories that predicted a Trump victory — meanwhile the Huffington Post, sometimes called Drudge’s liberal mirror, gave Hillary Clinton a 90-something percent chance of winning just hours before the polls started closing.
In the aftermath of an election when just about every major outlet seemed to misread Donald Trump, and when fake and factually dubious news flooded the web, sites like the Drudge Report raise a chicken-and-egg question: Did Drudge and his conservative ilk just get it right, or did they play a more active role, driving a negative (and sometimes made-up) narrative about Clinton that helped cost her the election?
Ever since it broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998, the Drudge Report has maintained a unique place in the American news media landscape. The site, according to Quantcast, attracts over 24 million unique monthly visitors in the U.S., many of whom flock to the bare-bones page to devour its scandalous and sensational content. The aggregator puts a conservative spin on mainstream stories, and then veers into questionable territory — including a tabloid story about Bill Clinton’s allegedly illegitimate child and claims that longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife (Blumenthal eventually took Drudge to court over the story).
But this year, Drudge had an almost singular focus: eviscerating Hillary Clinton. Along with linking to coverage of well-reported scandals, including Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, Drudge also spotlighted some very controversial stories.
(Excerpt) Read more at vocativ.com ...
Thank you Matt.
Yes, Thank You Matt. This country owes you bigly.
I’m hoping that when Trump details his press pool and PR communications people the MSM go beserk and realize they are being paid back for all the nasty coverage.
In response to the obvious slant of tbis article, Matt Drudge didn’t do anything the democrat/communist media/entertainment propaganda complex didn’t do against Trump. He also reported the truth they ignored.
Let's toss in special awards like the Pulitzer Prize for "Best Headline" as a bit of lagniappe.
“...bare-bones page...”
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I’m glad I had the pleasure of meeting and shaking hands with Matt at the March for Justice, years ago.
I think we have Drudge to thank as the main warrior who allowed other news sources to be collected in one central spot on his site, where we could easily access without scouring the net. Other sites helped and acted as his seconds in command. Infowars.com, thegatewaypundit, dailycaller and most definitely Breitbart and free republic...which I’m pretty sure Drudge uses daily to get a link or two or three.
I posted an article I found or two on how Drudge and Breitbart as well as Robinson of this site and Hoft, Hannity and others are all named as saviors of the United States. Trump built the wall according to a futuristic novel, with these brave men who stood up for America.
http://www.whatfinger.com/single-post/2016/10/30/Drudge-and-Breitbart-Have-Continents-Named-After-Them-They-Saved-America
What I want to know though, now that Trump is getting in come January 20th and has the CEO of Breitbart as a big part of his administration, will we ever find out who killed Andrew Breitbart.
I know - there are some here who call that conspiracy - but is it really?
I mean the facts:
Andrew Breitbart publicly stated that the following day he would release info that would destroy Barack Obama.
That night he dies mysteriously - yes the coroner ruled it a heart attack for this young 43 year old.
If it was a consiracy an autopsy would show the expected pinprick where the poison was injected.
But - to prevent anyone from finding out that the corner was paid to lie, or threatenned - what would they do (the culprits) to cover their tracks and keep the murder safe? They would have to silence the coroner forver -as he would break to some media outlet. You can always tell if someone is lying.
Well guess what? They killed the coroner as well before he was to interview about the autopsy. Evidently the powers that be were uncomfortable with him interviewing and possibly exposing the murder .
Well that’s my take on it all. Now that Breitbart’s CEO is going to be in the White House, will Andrew’s murder be exposed? What do you all think?
The wikileaks emails revealed the rat plan to cook the polls to influence the outcome. The rats succumbed to believing their own cooked polls. Now they are in shock.
Good idea.
If you listen to Drudge’s interview with Alex Jones a few months ago, you will see that opposing the Clintons was self-defense for Matt...he had been threatened with shutdown by at least one member of the supreme court.
To what end? A quick search of "...beat his wife?" doesn't return much.
That is, did Drudge win, lose, or fold and retract?
It's wrong to continuously post negative articles about a lying, abusive, self-aggrandizing sociopath.
If you're a conscientious reporter of topical news, you have to find positive, uplifting stories (or make up something nice) about Hillary. For instance:
Hillary always dresses modestly and rarely shows inappropriate parts of her body
Hillary never assaults our senses by working show tunes (or lullabies, Carly) into her speeches
Hillary always manages to evoke everyone's favorite socialist, Evita Peron, with her almost imperceptible nod and not-quite-a smile.
When the Lewinsky bombshell broke on his website, he didn't even believe that the Clinton-Lewinsky mess was really the story he was breaking. To him, the REAL story was that Newsweek had this huge bombshell in its own hands and was sitting on the story for political reasons (to protect Clinton).
They're working on that control thingy.
What utter rubbish. This one news site — Drudge — told the truth about Hillary. 1000 left-wing sites pushed anti-Trump propaganda, all the time. And yet Drudge single-handedly was responsible for deciding the election?
Drudge did great work. And we owe him. But Hillary lost not just because Drudge told the truth about her, but because the majority of the American people rejected her progressive, anti-American agenda. Drudge was one factor is getting the truth out. But truth has a sneaky way of getting itself exposed, one way or another.
If the MSM had told the truth, the real truth about Hillary and her history, her agenda, she would have lost by 15 points.
2. The case was basically dropped by Blumenthal because he couldn't afford the legal fees to pursue it.
3. As part of the settlement, Blumenthal actually had to pay Drudge. LOL. Apparently Blumenthal didn't show up for a scheduled deposition, so he had to compensate the defendant for his legal fees for that deposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.