Replies

You know, I love Drudge, but this is a perfect example of why he's not a real journalist (and why he shouldn't bitch that real journalists occasionally give him a hard time).

Once again he sticks a tease at the top of his page for hours, with no link and no further information. But in fact, in this case his source is the New York Times, and the story is online at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/politics/11LOTT.html

His driving goal is page hits. And this (in addition to his 480-second autorefresh) is one of his tricks. He teases readers with something juicy, just enough to keep them clicking and clicking as they wait for him to post a link to real meat. What he does is disingenuous -- it's an attempt to build the fantasy that he's an insider who's got something the rest of us don't know about.

But those of us with Nexis access know that 99 times out of 100, when Drudge sticks one of his breathless "DEVELOPING" taglines at the end of some new item, the story has actually already been long "developed" and is online somewhere, or even in print.

The end result is that he spends a great deal of time keeping actual news out of readers' hands. It's not unlike the cheesy local newscasts, with their constant "news" updates, teasing viewers and telling them to "tune in at 11" to get the full story.

Real journalists, people who are naturally born to the job, have it in their blood to disseminate information. They don't withhold news when they've got it -- that would go against every natural impulse in their beings. Which is why Drudge and your cheesy local news stations aren't practicing actual journalism.

Yes, I still enjoy Drudge. It's a nice clearinghouse for titillating stories. I just don't always appreciate the sneaky way he titillates sometimes.

Thanks for the heads-up and welcome to FR. He's the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/politics/11LOTT.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
Lott Faces Growing Attacks Over Praise for Thurmond
By CARL HULSE - December 11, 2002
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — Trent Lott, the Republican Senate leader who faces mounting criticism for his comment last week that the nation would have been better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, expressed a nearly identical sentiment two decades ago.
After a fiery speech by Mr. Thurmond at a campaign rally in Mississippi for Ronald Reagan in November 1980, Mr. Lott, then a congressman, told a crowd in Jackson, "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
Last week, in remarks he later characterized as spontaneous and a poor choice of words, Mr. Lott repeated his opinion about Mr. Thurmond, who ran for president on a Dixiecrat platform opposing "social intermingling of the races."
At the party for Mr. Thurmond's 100th birthday, Mr. Lott said: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
On Monday, Mr. Lott, the incoming Senate majority leader, apologized for those remarks and insisted he was not giving support for the segregationist stand Mr. Thurmond took in his 1948 campaign.
But the senator from Mississippi was attacked today with fresh complaints about his comments, as well as calls to step aside as Republican leader. Even some conservatives suggested that Mr. Lott had become a detriment to the Republican Party.
The White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, found himself having to defend Mr. Lott, saying President Bush has "confidence in him as the Republican leader, unquestionably."
The fact that Mr. Lott uttered similar comments in 1980 threatened to intensify the controversy. The quotation was in a report on Nov. 3, 1980, in The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson and was cited in the introduction of a dissertation by a historian, Joseph Crespino, who is writing a book on civil rights and political culture in Mississippi.
A spokesman for Mr. Lott, Ron Bonjean, said the remarks at the 1980 rally did not pertain to race but were made after Mr. Thurmond, then a top draw on the Republican circuit, had complained mightily about President Jimmy Carter, the national debt and federal meddling in state matters.
"We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states," Mr. Thurmond was quoted as saying.
Mr. Bonjean, when shown the article, said, "Clearly, Senator Lott was praising the policies of Thurmond and Reagan, of smaller government and reducing the federal deficit."
He noted that a campaign rally has a similar celebratory feeling as the party last week.
Even without knowing of the earlier quotation, critics of Mr. Lott called on him to quit his post, saying this was not his first misstep. They recalled that he appeared in the 90's before the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group whose leaders have expressed extremist racial views.
"If Senator Lott's remarks last week were an isolated incident, we would be willing to accept his apology as truly genuine," said a statement by Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "His record, however, speaks far more loudly than his words alone."
Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader who on Monday said that he accepted Mr. Lott's explanation for the birthday party statement, today called Mr. Lott's words "offensive to those who believe in freedom and equality in America."
Much of the criticism came from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which met to select new officers.
"I can tell you I'm very concerned and very upset that anybody that would issue such a statement would be in the leadership of this nation or the Senate," said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, who was elected chairman.
The N.A.A.C.P. called for Mr. Lott to step aside as majority leader. Kweisi Mfume, the former congressman who heads the group, called the remarks the "kind of callous, calculated, hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of this Congress."
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the new House Democratic leader, said: "He can apologize all he wants. It doesn't remove the sentiments that escaped his mouth that day at the party."
Some conservatives, who have had disputes with Mr. Lott, said his statements would feed the impression among some minorities that Republicans are intolerant. The president of the Family Research Council, Kenneth Conner, said Mr. Lott's remarks had done considerable damage.
Besides the White House, other Republicans went to Mr. Lott's defense, including Representative J. C. Watts of Oklahoma, the lone black Republican in Congress. Mr. Watts, who was in the leadership before retiring this year, said he did not believe that Mr. Lott needed to relinquish his position. "We should not trivialize the issue of race for political gain," he said.
Mr. Crespino, a fellow at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., who had the Clarion-Ledger article as part of his research, said he included Mr. Lott's comments in the introduction to his dissertation for their "shock value.
"I couldn't believe he said it in 1980, let alone 2002," he said. "These kinds of appeals to the racist right have been the G.O.P.'s dirty little secret for years."