Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PHAEDRUS242
Matt Drudge has been proven time and time again as an internet sensationalist with no more credability than the National Enquirer. Like them, even he gets a story right every now and then, but fact checking has not been his strong point. I expect a Dan Rather comment inserted here. Although not a big fan, he did get more things right than wrong, which is not something one could substantiate about our fat little internet friend Matt. Now I can understand why one might enjoy reading Drudge; he's entertaining. But that's what it is, entertainment. He is no more a credible news source than Mother Jones (which I find quite entertaining).
|
Well he was one of the people who helped bring to common knowledge what the bloggers got on Dan Rather.........and if you dig deep enough you are going to find any media outlet gets things wrong....TV, radio, newpaper, magazines...
Time, The Washington Post, and New York Times, not to mention NBC's Dateline, and the all famous Dan Rather report on 60 Minutes...these all had some very high profile falsehoods that were TOP stories....
Does that render all of them as unreliable in your mind too? are they equal to the National Enquirer? Just curious. becasue by your set of standards your answer should be yes.