Replies

The size of the paper means much less than the quality of its content. As an example, I submit The New York Times.

Of course, some people prefer to have their news censored, massaged and predigested for them. So I guess it boils down to individual taste.

The difference between Matt Drudge and CNN.com is that Drudge admits he's right about 70% of the time, and therefore wrong about 30% of the time. CNN.com would have you believe they are never wrong, except for occasional minor corrections.

Another major difference is that most of Drudge's editorial involvement is invested in deciding what to put on his page, rather than changing the content of stories to suit his journalistic agenda. This is woefully rare in modern journalism.

When I want the latest news, I look at sources like Drudge first, then corroborate with other sources (the sources Drudge links to are often quite credible). I also look at the wires, most of which are conveniently linked from Drudge's page. Over time, I have found this to be a good way to get accurate news fast. I don't subscribe to or read print newspapers.

Of course, the "mainstream media" hate Drudge and sneer at him as an unreliable source. I suppose they're right, as I can always count on them to write editorials and op/ed pieces and present them as "news reports". Rely strictly on them for news, and the world will always look consistent to you. Meanwhile, Drudge's reports are all over the map, lack traditional editorial "discretion" and don't present a cookie-cutter world view suitable for consumption by peasants.

In the end, it's up to you to decide what to believe. Name your poison.