DrudgeReport and dishonest headlines

Although I do frequently check Drudgereport for new items, the frequency of disingenuous headlines disturbs me. Today, Drudge reports the following headline:
www.nytimes.com...

NYT: THE BLIZZARDS ARE FROM THE WARMING...

The implication is that the NY TIMES article states that it takes the position that the Blizzards are definitely from Global Warming. Now, understand, that I have absolutely no love of the NY TIMES. However, when you go to the article, here is what is written:

Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze

WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

You can read the rest of the article, if you wish, via the link. However, nowhere does the Times take the position that it agrees with either side, and to its credit, it DOES present both sides.

Star for you. Drudge has been dishonest in his choices of headlines for years. I've tried to point this out to people and even e-mailed Matt, but it seems people are disinterested. It's disgusting and unprofessional, but that is just the day and age we live in I guess. I'm surprised you haven't seen this before. Maybe now that you've had your eyes opened you'll notice it more frequently.

Don't exclusively get your news from Drudge or any one source.

reply to post by theyreadmymind

Actually, I had seen it before, but I thought it was time for a thread on it. Anyway, IMHO, there is no honest news reporting anymore. Every news source has their own agenda, and citizens have to take just about everything they hear with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the reply.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I've seen this practice on plenty of on-line "conservative" news sources. They draw you in with some sensational headline and then, when you click on the link, it's a boring story with no bang, no kick. Heck, it's just some boring story about nothing, not even worth posting on BTS.

These folks need to think what this practice does for their credibiltiy.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


i believe that theres a mix going on here between HAARP,planet x/nibiru and natural stuff but

Originally posted by theyreadmymind
Star for you. Drudge has been dishonest in his choices of headlines for years. I've tried to point this out to people and even e-mailed Matt, but it seems people are disinterested. It's disgusting and unprofessional, but that is just the day and age we live in I guess. I'm surprised you haven't seen this before. Maybe now that you've had your eyes opened you'll notice it more frequently.

Don't exclusively get your news from Drudge or any one source.

You seem to have mixed things up just a bit, here. "Drudge" is not "dishonest in his headlines," anymore than "ATS keeps posting crap threads on junk." The Drudge Report is the medium, but headlines are editorial, not reportage. (Anyone can contribute stories, and multiple editors have responsibility for the links and taglines.)

Every single media outlet allows its editors a lot of leeway in the tags or lead-ins (ledes) they give their reporters' stories: the better the tagline, the better the readership. The "tabloids" take the greatest advantage, but they ALL do it.

Since Drudge rarely posts little more than links, you should NEVER cite it as a source. The tagline is an enticement to get you to go to the story, it is NOT the story.

If you understand what's what, there is no dishonesty, just the same desperate exaggeration we get from the ever more competitive battle for eyes.

jw

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

there is no honest news reporting anymore. Every news source has their own agenda,

Aw, come on, PE, you're killing me! You of all people know that "The Drudge Report" is not "news reporting," don't you? Are you just in a bad mood?

"Every news source" does not include Drudge. It is almost never a source; but a gateway, a funnel, a magnet, a snare.

If you really think of "The Drudge Report" is a news source, I've got to reassess some of my earlier impressions. This is a joke, right?

jw
(I've gotten the impression lately that a lot of the avatars posting are not occupied by the same human bodies as they were a few months ago. I'm getting more sure of it.)

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


One final point:

Many times a "source" will post and run a story quickly to "break" the news, only to come back and "update" it one or more times over the course of several days. I've seen stories change drastically over time.

Anyone linking to the original story with an accurate headline can find that the link no longer connects to the same story, or even the same headline. Unless you are willing, and able, to repeatedly edit your link and tag, as the underlying story evolves, your original post may become "false" or "dishonest" through no intent or fault (except neglect) of your own.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

(I've gotten the impression lately that a lot of the avatars posting are not occupied by the same human bodies as they were a few months ago. I'm getting more sure of it.)

That sounds like a good basis for a new thread on the Reptilian Forum! Maybe we've all been taken over by the reptilians. That probably explains my appetite lately for snakes, insects, and small fish.

BTW, saying that Matt Drudge is not a reporter flies in the face of some of the stories that he dug up, and reported on, that have changed the history of the political landscape of this country, including his revelation of the entire Monica Lewisnsky/Bill Clinton affair.

Drudge is no more or no less a "news source" than MSNBC, CNN,FOXNEWS or the NY Times. They ALL have their own agenda. That is the essence of my thread. There are no more true "pure news sources". Each one selectively decides what to report on, and what to leave out. Name one, and I assure you that I can find evidence to refute it.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Although I do frequently check Drudgereport for new items, the frequency of disingenuous headlines disturbs me.

The same thing puts me off about Rense. Sure, there's an unseeming amount of Bravo Sierra on that site to begin with...but I disagree with the editorialising of headlines. Another US soldier dies in A-stan and it reads "Obama kills another American". Please...give me something resembling the straight goods and let me connect the dots in my way.

Being spoon-fed reactionary malarkey just offends me...whatever its source.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
I've seen this practice on plenty of on-line "conservative" news sources.

I certainly agree, but I don't think this practice is limited to conservative news sources. All "news" sources, except for the very few actual credible news sources still in existence, use this sensationalism technique.

We at ATS should scrub the source, look for a second and third source and work hard to find the truth of the story. We have to keep aware of the media's spin on ALL stories, right and left, up and down.

Some of the crap I see repeated on ATS makes me cringe. I thought we were better than that. I thought we were agreed that the "news" sources and TV stations are entertainment at best. Yet so many still seek out and post about these lopsided, sensational headlines, to support their position, as if the headlines are the true story. It's pretty sad...

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

The same thing puts me off about Rense.

Rense is full of hate-mongering items. Although it does occasionally link to a good article on new scientific discoveries, which I enjoy, the hatred on that site makes me cringe.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You're right B.H. It is very hard to find any unbiased source any more. Oh, for the days of Walter Cronkite!

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The same thing puts me off about Rense.

Rense is full of hate-mongering items. Although it does occasionally link to a good article on new scientific discoveries, which I enjoy, the hatred on that site makes me cringe.

I agree. It used to be good for some alternative topics, but the hate is exemplified by the editorialising of the 'headlines'. It got shrill...and it now has an agenda. I only hope ATS can dodge that bullet...kudos to the Mods.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by theyreadmymind
Star for you. Drudge has been dishonest in his choices of headlines for years. I've tried to point this out to people and even e-mailed Matt, but it seems people are disinterested. It's disgusting and unprofessional, but that is just the day and age we live in I guess. I'm surprised you haven't seen this before. Maybe now that you've had your eyes opened you'll notice it more frequently.

Don't exclusively get your news from Drudge or any one source.

You seem to have mixed things up just a bit, here. "Drudge" is not "dishonest in his headlines," anymore than "ATS keeps posting crap threads on junk." The Drudge Report is the medium, but headlines are editorial, not reportage. (Anyone can contribute stories, and multiple editors have responsibility for the links and taglines.)

Every single media outlet allows its editors a lot of leeway in the tags or lead-ins (ledes) they give their reporters' stories: the better the tagline, the better the readership. The "tabloids" take the greatest advantage, but they ALL do it.

Since Drudge rarely posts little more than links, you should NEVER cite it as a source. The tagline is an enticement to get you to go to the story, it is NOT the story.

If you understand what's what, there is no dishonesty, just the same desperate exaggeration we get from the ever more competitive battle for eyes.

jw

That's funny. Maybe you should read his Wikipedia entry. It paints quite a different picture than you do. Matt seems to take quite a bit of interest in the day to day headlines. Also, I don't see how you can say lying in headlines is not dishonesty.

en.wikipedia.org...

Please be clearer and tell me exactly what disagreement you had with my post.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by theyreadmymind]