By RegoPark
Contributing Writer

Since we don’t have the benefit of a Matt Drudge blog (that’s us, thank you very much), the attitude or opinion behind the linked headline on any given day’s Drudge Report is conjecture and speculation. One reason I tune into Matt’s radio show — even though I’m no fan of talk radio — is that it’s fun to monitor the Drudge Report’s daily links and see if the vibe I think I’m getting matches his own take on a story. But I find that Drudge site viewers and broadcast listeners look for what they want to see and listen for what they want to hear. Frankly, anyone leaning in any direction other than left of center was going to be demonized for being the first to report on a book that says Chelsea Clinton was conceived by rape. However we feel about the author or his intentions, it is newsworthy that someone with any remote connection to Bill Clinton would choose to share these allegations in a book and risk a broad range of consequences. The fact that Matt Drudge was “on” the story does not mean he is insensitive to someone’s pain or that he gleefully bore those tidings. But either you’re willing to consider this possibility, or you’re not. As with any other household media name, after awhile everyone has decided how they feel about Drudge, what his true modus operandi is, his role in a purported right-wing conspiracy, and the agenda behind today or tomorrow’s Drudge headline.

So I can’t imagine this week’s link to an example of the Internet’s underside is going to be interpreted in its intended context. “The Internet can go either way,” Matt said last Sunday night. “It’s going to tilt.” Not only is violent porn and grisly live footage of just about anything uploadable for our viewing pleasure, but some people have really upped the ante in the “brazenness” category. The link I’m talking about is to a video of a raw, vicious gang beating of a woman who snitched on the wrong person…enthusiastically taped by a participant in the madding crowd.

I fear that the only message will come out is that Drudge has “come to a new low in sleaze” or that he has himself “set a new precedent in shock journalism”. Which is a frustrating shame, because given the chance, something as simple as a Drudge link can powerfully communicate a philosophical issue as effectively as a photograph. How much bad should be taken with the good? Can — and should — material like this be regulated? What can be considered “freedom of the press” now that everyone can have their own Web presence and communicate a message or archive video and audio material for the world to access? I don’t see that Matt has made his own current opinions on Internet regulation clear. My own interpretation of this week’s links and radio comments is that he’s wrestling with that issue right now — not trying to effect shock or turn a political tide.

Unfortunately, this is bound to be misunderstood. When all is said and done, people will swallow what they want to digest.