This whole Matt Drudge story on the 100 hour deal and taking off 1/8/07 is actually BS political news. Its like celebrity stupid gossip about stars. The even more stupid part is taking 1/2 the story and neither amending, correcting, or telling the entire story. I looked at drudge today and yesterday and he didn't add anything about the story. I'm reading through the research report on the press to better understand the methodology. Frankly I don't understand why they use "think tanks" as a form of reference. Personally, I can confirm examples in any of the media where I'll read news and be surprised that it seems biased. You know I'll read stuff in the NY Times or the Wash Post...and my own judgement will be that the news part--which should come out straight seems biased toward the left. I'll see the same thing leaning to the other side in something like the Washington Times or NY Post or another paper that I'd sense leans to the right...and feel that the news (not editorials) are biased to the right. Personally from my own experience, I'd agree that news sources can write biased stuff. But pleeeeeease....after this experience....don't quote Matt Drudge as a source of unbiased reporting. In fact after reading the last paragraph in the Post story...where the Dem complains that they do something nice for Repubs than they get slammed. The whole thing smells of a set-up of twisted biased reporting!
What are you talking about, Drudge didn't write this, which is our point...he posts stuff from both sides...and since you are apparently smarter than the rest of us, what 1/2 of the story is missing?
Since you are the one that cited the Drudge report you aught to go back and read it and look at his own link. Drudge published that the House would be closed on 1/8 and linked to Hoyer's schedule. His article described how the Democrats were already going back on their words. What Drudge omitted, was that Hoyer did that to accommodate a request by Republican Boehmer...so Boehmer could take the day off and fly to Arizona to watch the Ohio State/Florida game. If Drudge's story isn't a twisted half truth of the events than what is?
Earlpearl, you didn't have a problem when the Foley scandal broke that democrats were saving specifically for right before the elections, did you? Guess we can't use CNN after their hezbollah reporting, purposefully airing enemy propaganda materials, sliming Bush on live news coverage. We can't use BBC, they finally admitted they are biased. We can't use CBS, they make up their own stories and phoney documents. News Week...fake quran stories. Who else do we have? There's a whole slew of biased media reporting here: http://newsbusters.org/ ABC and CBS seems to top the list today.
You got that right, and even though I don't like it, the dems are in control...they went back on their own promise. They didn't have to take the day off, or the congressman could have just skipped that day..most of them do that every now and then anyway.
Overall, Drudge's body is work is staunchly liberal. You're working very hard to make one article look slanted to the conservative side. That just seems silly.
Dick Morris chimes in - which means he'll change his mind in a few months, but its kinda funny. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm Earl's point that it was done because he wanted to be nice to his friend; is irrelevant. If anyone remembers this (which they won't, which is why this whole discussion is stupid), it will be remembered as "democrats didn't work cuz they wanted to watch a football game" No one will know or care why.
You must have missed the scientific study performed by the University of California. Are you reading this thread at all, or just replying?
Do you really have to ask that question Will? I think you (and the rest of us) already know the answer.
In light of this little article it is virtually impossible to give the research any credibility. The Drudge story was simple partisan warroom example of taking a small issue and printing one part of the story. The cited link w/in the story connects to Hoyer's calendar. It mentions nothing else besides that The House would not be in session that day. Everything written on the Drudge report was thereby interpretive writing....or "editorializing". The Drudge report told one half of the story and didn't mention in the least that Republican requests initiated the House closing that day. Not one mention....not one amendment. Bush/Cheney political warroom political operatives openly admit they fed the Drudge report stories throughout the campaign and thereafter. Typical strategy was to follow everything action and word of any Democrat and then ridicule it. If that isn't partisan...then nothing is. Somehow calling the Drudge report balanced is way off. It is an admitted tool of the little space in the world that is more admittedly partisan in a Republican way than anything. This little example puts that research report to shame. Again, as I acknowledged, I see writings and particularly reporting (which is supposed to be non-partisan that I feel is dramatically partisan. I see it on both sides. Calling the Drudge Report balanced or non-partisan is an example of a big lie.
So now the research done by a major school in this country isn't valid?? hmm...makes we wonder how you feel about engineering research, or medical research, or whatever other kinds of research are done everyday by hundreds of colleges and universities in the USA....
guys, this is what it says that means drudge can do 5 crazy fake rightwing news stories and as long as links to 20 or 30 real news stories he can appear halfway legitmate in their study
Actually, the report said 5out of 311, not five out of 20 or 30...come on, quit playing with the facts to make you sound right...Drudge is middle of the road as far as his web page goes...and thats a FACT.
I love research. Despite what the report says Drudge is acknowledged by the BushCheney warroom as a great source for spreading attacks on Dems. That makes it less than middle of the road or even handed. All media will show bias. so what.
Got proof of that?? If that is true, why does it also have articles on it that attack the bush admin? maybe cause Drudge is like Fox...they are middle of the road, and compared to the extreme liberal biased media, they look extreme right...
So this guy fakes 5 out of 300 stories personally, and the rest he what, just finds some other right wing lying nutjob to link to? I dont know anything about him, but if D16 supports him, its a fairly safe bet to say that he is Right wing.
lol, I support him because A) he doesn't post fake stuff(like others would have you believe) and B) he is middle of the road, which is more where I am...how about reading the research, I would like to know your opinion Darksat since you don't really know drudge...I think that might could help us all out knowing that you are unfamiliar with drudge.