Why is it that the media runs with Drudge, but not Truthout?

[Clark2008]

Remember the blue dress? Remember that Drudge, who, well, hadn't been credible on much of anything until THAT weekend, "broke" the Monicagate story?

Well, we have another blog now - one that actually deals in factual checkmarking - breaking a story and not a peep out of the corporate media.

How did Drudge become "trustworthy?" And why isn't Truthout?

[SPKrazy]

1. Drudge Works In Tandem With Gannon?

maybe they have an escort service together?

[stevedeshazer]

2. Bingo

The hysteria is incredible.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Because...

The media has, over the last 15 years or so, become addicted to the media cocaine the right was selling, through people like Drudge. They keep returning to him, hoping that he will have some of that Ether-Washed Peruvian Flake of Hot Skinny that he used to deal in the 90's. Of course, he's selling them crap, white powder scrapings from an auto battery terminal, these days.

But he might have some more of that good stuff real soon now.

I am thinking up a whole blog about it. Gotta get it straight in my mind.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

4. I don't know but Im skeptical of the story

The 15 hour meeting where Fitz goes to Rove's attorney just doesnt ring true.

It doesnt take 15 hours to deliver a charge. It just doesnt. Someone else pointed out to me that Prosecutors NEVER go to the defense attorney office, let alone for 15 incredible hours.

The rest of the story looks very plausable, but when the entire story contains such A major flaw as above, I have to question the rest of it to.

I wish I knew more about the details of how monicagate was broke. If drudge had multiple corraborted sources, that might explain it.

I've been looking for something, anything that backs up Truthout, and I've come up empty. (Plus the 24 hour business hours "clarification" thing isnt helping either)

Im just a regular joe. If Im skeptical because of these reasons, I can imagine MSM is certainly also.

Nonetheless, Im still optimistic, but quite cautiously optimistic.

[Clark2008]

8. I can understand cautiously optimistic, but my question

was more along the lines of blog-referencing.

Drudge's is a two-bit blog - the National Enquirer of politics, yet, when he posted about Clinton and Monica, it's ALL we heard about from about a hour after he posted.

Yet, we're not even hearing reporters allude to the Truthout story AT ALL - they're not even reporting, as they did with Drudge, that "a political Internet blog is reporting... blah, blah, blah..."

Why?

(I haven't, FWIW, decided if Truthout's article is set-in-stone-fact. I'm patient enough for the week to unfold. Hell, I've waited five years, what's a couple or three more days? I'm just interested to know WHY Drudge is so all-fired reliable, but Truthout is not, according to the corporate media.)

[robbedvoter]

5. And that my friend, is the $64,000 question! Of course Colbert

answered it:

Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type.

Drudge serves the same masters now as he did then. Eversince they usurped the power on December 15, 2000, they are trying hard to assert legitimacy and Drudge&the rest are blowing their bullhorns to the incresingly smaller and loonier audiences.
Eversince Colbert, they became aware of their irrelevance - just don't expect them to accept it too soon.
Remember the orchestrated lynch mob of Dan Rather? It seemed at the time that "blogger" was synonimous with "internet tool of the establishment" - just a novel way of astroturfing.
They know now this is no longer the case - but they'll resist.
When the news will break, we need to be sure the egg on their faces stinks to high heavens and they'll never live this down.
I propose we open as many Jasol Leopold threads then as we did for Colbert - it's THAT significant a moment.

[Patsy Stone]

6. Still stuck trying to get away from the "liberal bias"

Drudge is on the "* approved" list. He made his bones, if you will, "breaking" the Monica story. :eyes:

Also the same reason that every Dem or liberal talk show guest is usually outnumbered 2:1. The shows have to appear to not be "liberally biased". Feh.

[The Jacobin]

7. Because they read Drudge, not Truthout

If Truthout is right this time and Drudge is wrong, that might change.

[Notoverit]

9. I doubt that. They DON"T WANT TRUTHOUT TO BE LEGIT. K&R

Because the term "liberal media" is not supposed to reflect a reality.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. remember the truthiness in the kerry intern affair crap drudge started?

even when he's dead wrong, lil' matt still gets cited by the rw activist corporate media

[idgiehkt]

11. maybe they are all his...

"fuck buddies"?

[Recursion]

12. They hardly picked up Drudge immediately

As much as we despise him now, you have to admit Drudge earned the place he has as king of all syndicators. He made a few scoops (not just the dress) early until MSM finally recognized that online syndication is a valid platform (and now they all do it too). Maybe this will be a similar tipping point if JL is right.

[Robbie Michaels]

13. Drudge has a national radio show

I know it doesn't mean anything to us, but if he can be heard on the radio, the gullible will believe he's credible. That's just how sheeple think.

[johnfunk]

14. Air America shjould put Leopold and Pitt on the air...

... opposite Fatt Grudge. Maybe invite a few of Grudge's old "girlfriends" on to air some very steeeeenky laundry.