Talk:Drudge Report

Edits

Some IP reverted edits for no good reason. I'm here to listen to the logic Scribe (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That IP was me being too lazy to log in at the moment. I removed the content I did for a variety of reasons:

• The quote "I go to straight bars, I go to gay bars" that you attributed to Matt Drudge needs to be sourced. If not, then we are attributing a false statement to him, which is a stupid idea.
• The quote "And you would be amazed what the ordinary guy knows...every citizen can be a reporter." should also be given a source. That one if more believable than the first quote, so I simply noted that it needs citation.
• The external link Matt Drudge, the gay homophobe didn't do much to improve the article. In fact, I read through the article and it seemed to make a lot of baseless assertions. Good for political fodder, I suppose. But not the sort of thing we should be striving to link to on RationalWiki.
• You wrongly accused an IP of vandalism. WHile you are new here, you should be careful before making such accusations. While it was my IP, and I am tough as nails, it could've rubbed somebody with thinner skin the wrong way.

Any other questions? Noisemobile (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping this sort of BS would be left behind on wikipedia. The "I go to gay bars" is referenced everywhere, as a quick google scan would show. The sourcewatch page you scorn has the references, and a lot more besides. It's odd you think it has a low quality when it's fully sourced, which is more than I can say for most pages here. The quote "And you would be amazed what the ordinary guy knows...every citizen can be a reporter." has nothing to do with my edits, so not sure why you are raising it as an issue with me.

I thought this was a site that cuts to the chase and tells it like it is. Looks like I may be wrong. Scribe (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Scribe, he removed what looked like unsourced statements, and that is the full extent of his complaint. Undo his edit(s), add the sources directly next to the quotes, and everybody goes home happy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sick to death of the fantasy that someone's sexuality has any relevance to the vast majority of things you could say about him or her. Considering Scribe wrote every single word of the Sourcewatch article, including affirmatively calling Drudge gay (which could have gotten Scribe sued before Lawrence v. Texas) when his single source was speculating just like a number of others have, I think Noisemobile did the right thing. If Scribe wishes to cite any of the great number of sources speculating that Drudge is gay or repeating the gay bar quote, I really wonder why.There's nothing wrong with being gay, but saying someone is without saying why it's relevant looks like a transparent attempt to play on people's biases. "He's a rotten person. And he's gay!" I frankly don't see why anyone speculating that he might be gay has anything at all to do with him saying terrible things about homosexuals. He's a bigot who says terrible things either way. So what if he is speculated to be a gay bigot. It wouldn't make him a hypocrite; it would make him a self-hating gay bigot. Lots of people hate themselves and abhor things they are or do. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Looks like you missed the part where Drudge routinely baits and "outs" homosexuals on his website, and aligns himself with the far right of politics, who openly campaign to restrict the rights of gays, e.g. gay marriage. So the blatant hypocrisy of this is not important? Funny how there are at least 20 sites on the net that call Drudge out for this. I would have thought it would be grist to the rationalwiki mill. Nutty, you seem to be on an angry campaign against new members who are trying to make positive contributions that point out people with irrational views. Let me know right now if I am not welcome here, because I am simply not going to become involved with wikidramas and content arguments with the big swinging dicks who seem to rule the site. Scribe (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source for quote under pic not showing in reference/notes sectipn

I cannot get the source for the quote under the pic to show up in the Notes section. I have not had this problem at wikipedia or sourcewatch. Any clues? Scribe (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed your citation. Now can you fix the image? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 05:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Now endorsed by the POTUS

I can't link directly to Trump's retweet (maybe because I'm a Twitter newb), but I can link to the original tweet that Trump retweeted. It was this one.

If you go to Donald's own Twitter today (March 15th 2017) and scroll down about 15-20 tweets, you will see his official in-office retweeting of the Drudge Report tweet (linked above).

But CNN is fake news, mind you. Oh brother. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Once more, the POTUS retweets the Drudge Report. He's clearly a returning reader. This time, he retweeted this (visible on his Twitter feed right now). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How he makes money?

Really? A few banner ads on his site?

First off, banner ads pay a lot more than people think. Every time they are clicked, the website owner typically gets 50 cents. If based on views only, it's much, much less than that, typically at 1/10th a cent per view. But even at a payment rate of $1 per 10,000 page views, Drudge gets 50 million views per day, which would come out to be $5000 every single day. CoryUsar (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)