quote: The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"
Could this possibly be true? Would such a tactic make an undecided not vote for Kerry?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather suspect you'll find the actual, easily obtained guide to be innocuous. For instance, don't be surprised if that sentence is made clear by context to mean launch a preemptive strike of reassuring voters that they can vote. (perhaps the sentence before reads something like: "If intimidation tactics are used, reassure voters it is important they try to vote because their voice matters.").
Drudge gets off on sensationalism even where none is warranted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drudge is the dirty tricks mouthpiece of the Republican Party on the internet.
Much the way Rush and his sound-alikes are for the Radio. Their news comes from the party, and they are told to say what the party says, but say it in a way that the party is not held responsible for it.
If Republicans want to dis Kerry's Vietnam War Record, they have Drudge announce it, then have Rush announce that he has heard it reported (from Drudge), then have Drude Re-announce it with the phrase, as reported by several news sources (Rush and other spokesmen).
When the dust settles, the lies can not be pinned on the Republican spin lords.
This has the Demorcratic Spin Doctors very upset, because they were unable to think of it first.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, though, I think someone should point out that the Enquirer has much better photos, and probably has a better track record of having stories based in fact than Drudge. (The front page photo of the alien meeting with Ross Perot was a major scoop.) Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems as though the Democrats got the jump on the "Have an obnoxious demogogue make a movie filled with half-truths, lies, and misrepresenations to attack our opponents" method though.
posted
I'm not sure which is more of a stretch, that Perot met with aliens or that Kerry was in a torrid love affair.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seems as though the Democrats got the jump on the "Have an obnoxious demogogue make a movie filled with half-truths, lies, and misrepresenations to attack our opponents" method though.
Altering Dan's quote to suit the occasion:
"This has the Republican Spin Doctors very upset, because they were unable to think of it first."
But the Republicans were still smart enough to make their propaganda stuff you didn't have to pay to see. As part of the compassionate conservative agenda, they wanted to make sure no one would be unable to access their material just because they couldn't afford a ticket. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Aliens and [political candidate]" bit was WorldWeeklyNews. Which, once you exclude the obvious "X-Files" and "NewAge" stuff, is as good as any other news paper/magazine/show at presenting science&medical news; especially considering its target audience.
I like Drudge. MattDrudge is openly biased. He is a RepublicanParty supporter, and appears to be a genuine conservative, a genuine libertarian and democrat (in the non-partisan sense of the words), with a genuine RomanCatholic religious background/leaning.
And he doesn't bury his mistakes -- Drudge maintains an online archive carrying exact copies of all pages of his headlines and accompanying links -- which is more than I can say of most-nearing-all mainstream news outlets
I consider Drudge to be a VASTLY more reliable source of information than anything coming out of the AmericanEnterpriseInstitute, the Annenberg PublicPolicyInstitutes/FactCheck/Centers for Communications/etc, the CatoInstitute, the HeritageFoundation, the HooverInstitute, JunkScience, etc.
One just has to be careful about how one uses Drudge.
1a) Drudge does have a habit of linking to odd&miniscule political organizations and news outlets which publish antiDemocrat allegations with no factual backup. 1b) The allegations tend to be picked up by mainstream news outlets because it was on Drudge. 1c) Then Drudge links to the mainstream press; which could cause a careless consumer to be misled into thinking that the allegations originated in and/or have been substantiated by the mainstream.
2a) If the headline is in any way involved with politics, it will be spun to favor Republicans and smear Democrats, if it can be. 2b) The link attached to the headline will often lead to an article which supports the headline, at first glance. 2c) Any caveats, naysaying, or disproofs of Drudge's politically-based headline/thesis/conclusion often tend to be found well after the first half of the linked article; often as single sentences within lengthy paragraphs.
3a) Coverage of bad war-related and economic-related news unfavorable to Republicans tends to be minimized, or linked to articles which spin the facts to minimize the negative aspects. 3b) BUT Drudge does carry the bad news, does link to the articles.
With those caveats to the consumer in mind, MattDrudge and his staff have an EXCELLENT nose for news: ie the entertaining, the political, the economic, the scientific&medical, and hard news articles which will capture the public's attention, be the subject of public discussion. Probably a better nose for what will be the news than any other single news outlet.
This nose for news and the resulting condensation of many many headlines into the headlines most likely to be of interest is why nearly all of the genuine (as opposed to the primarily partisan) liberals and progressives whom I know use Drudge on a regular basis: ie scan the headlines and read what matches their own interests. And even many of the primarily partisan ones check out the Drudge site; if for no other reason than to find out what the other side's partisans are up to.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
