FAQs on Drudge, Part 3
By RegoPark
Contributing Writer
More FAQs coming up. I just thought I’d address a few items that I haven’t answered in previous posts.
Q. What is Matt Drudge’s relationship with the hosts of Drudge Blog and Drudge Forum?
A. Matt, as it says at the bottom of the screen, is not connected with either site in any way. We have neither initiated nor received any communication from him and our educated guess is that we’re unlikely to.
Q. Are you concerned that he might take legal action for using his name?
A. Were he ever interested in pursuing that, he would first go after Drudge Retort (drudge.com) and perhaps other Drudge parody sites. We would have no legal protection were we to employ the term “Matt Drudge Blog” or something to that effect. For example, “BillO’ReillySucks.com” is a legally unprotected domain name, but “O’ReillySucks” is protected.
Matt has passed up opportunities to sue people over more serious issues than this, and I can’t imagine him initiating a lawsuit of any kind unless in the case of an unforseen catastrophe. If Matt Drudge had continued his relationship with FOX News, I am sure that the network attorneys would have gone after actionable legal claims on his behalf.
Q. So who are you guys?
A. Um, we’re just…innocent blogging types? Like the Drudge Report, this is a two-person operation headed by Lance, the administrator of Drudge Forum, which RegoPark (yours truly) started posting her “Drudge research” in the fall of 2004. (Not unlike how Matt Drudge himself started out…but that’s for another entry…)
My personal observation is that both Lance and I agree with Drudge on some issues and disagree on others.
I won’t reveal identifying information, but both of us have worked in marketing communications in some capacity in the past. We have never met in person and our communication has been limited to brief Drudge Forum postings and PMs.
Come to think of it, I don’t really know who this Lance character is.
Q. It’s been a long time since the Lewinsky and Blumenthal dramas. Isn’t Matt Drudge past his peak a bit? Is he the same powerhouse he once was?
A. Most of the early DR pages are not archived, but what I’ve gleaned looks like mostly superficial changes. He removes links to sites that charge for content – or people who have burned him (although he has added a link to Sidney Blumenthal and others who don’t like him). Maybe he’s more careful about the Blumenthal lawsuit. Otherwise, not that much is different. He has more friends in higher places, but DR is still known as the place to link an anonymous tip – if he’ll notice it amongst the tons of daily e-mail he sifts through. (He got thousands of daily e-mail even in the early years.)
I’ve heard that now all he does is post links, that he’s obsessed with everything from the weather to Democrats’ sexual peccadillos to photos taken out of context. He’s always done that. I suspect what really changed was the public perception of Drudge and expectations of what his site is supposed to represent. Readers are more aware of brand attributes that have, for the most part, been there all along. I’d say he has decidedly more power and clout than the webloggers, but still in the “citizen journalist” camp. I see him somewhere in the middle of the respectability continuum - still an outsider, just no longer a pariah.
I think DR changes only with the items in the news. It’s twofold. On one hand, he generates publicity on obscure news stories; on the other hand, the daily links to a certain extent reflect what the major media players have already deemed newsworthy. I don’t think for one second that Matt cares about Jessica Simpson’s divorce or Paris’s supposedly hacked Sidekick. He scrutinizes their press coverage. He wants to keep his finger on the pulse of what’s going on in the world.
This is someone who, for better or worse, really does not care what people think of him. He has stated in several different interviews that he doesn’t expect his reign to last. People could tire of him, something else could come along to outshine or supplant him, a major computer virus or too many online news sources charging for content could throw a monkey wrench in it all. I see him as someone who enjoys what he is doing and wants to carry on as long as he can. Maybe that’s what I like most about him.
Q. What got you interested enough in Drudge to work on a website?
Lance:I find the Drudge Report fascinating. Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report have had a major impact on media, newsgathering, politics and the internet as a whole. I think there are many reasons why the Drudge Report is very intellectually stimulating and unique. This goes way beyond just his politics or the news that he posts. What I’ve found to be missing out there is any detailed analysis or discussion of what goes on each day on the Drudge Report. Sure, some bloggers discuss it on occasion, but it’s usually focused only on the news stories themselves - not as much the unique way that the story came to be, or what happened before or after, or how it relates to a story Drudge ran previously.
I thought it would be fun to take on a blog that’s focused on the day-to-day happenings and analysis of the Drudge Report. I’ve talked about some Drudge topics on Drudge Forum, but haven’t really gone into the detail that I wanted…I think many Drudge fans are very busy or want to remain anonymous or even on the sidelines, so a forum may not be best for some. Let’s face it, the Drudge Report is probably a “dirty” little addiction for many people. You just have to look at it every day, but you may not want to tell anyone. That’s just the kind of thing I want to talk about here!
RegoPark: A friend of mine, a former political employee whose privacy I am protecting, ended up on the Drudge Report. What started out as a joking comment mushroomed horribly out of hand thanks in part to Matt’s original reporting. When I scanned my friend’s “news coverage” online, I thought Matt Drudge must be some pompous College Republican with a very ambitious home page. Who else but a kid would design a site like that? So I moved on to the “real” news, unaware that this Alex P. Keaton WAS the news generator.
Searching for freelance projects one day, I saw that Raw Story was establishing itself as a liberal equivalent of Matt Drudge. They were recruiting a corps of freelancers to duplicate what one guy did by himself. Still later, I spotted Matt’s profile in a public relations textbook – in one of his painfully cheesy posed shots, looking like a rat in a fedora. I figured I’d better do some media catch-up and that led to an evening of surfing the web.
“A Gay Who Backs the Gay Bashers!” pops up when you Google Matt Drudge. Mel Gibson’s “token Jew” at the Passion of the Christ premiere! The son of liberal parents with master’s degrees, who barely graduated high school and couldn’t finish the religious school requirements to have a bar mitzvah.
But a different picture emerged when I read actual interviews with Matt Drudge and carefully isolated the quotes from the reporters’ edits of their conversations. Matt clearly believes in what he is doing. He is more ethical than I first made him out to be, and he definitely has a legitimate place in the media landscape. He can come off as an alarmist, a suck-up, a buffoon, but he knows the media and is an inspiring entrepreneur story. If the New York Times is the superego, Drudge is the id. He’s the anti-perfectionist, with no pretentions. He knows his strengths – his extensive connections, reporting news items first – and doesn’t try to be anything he’s not.
Ultimately Drudge is the “nice Jewish bad boy”: a news source – and person – with many redeeming, menschlike qualities once you study him without prejudice. You introduce your parents to the Wall Street Journal. You take CNN to a charity function. You sneak around with Drudge, but if he knocks you up one day, you’ll both make the best of it.
I view Drudge from a PR angle, and he is one fascinating case study. When you get past the hype and the crap, this is one of the most genuinely interesting people in the media. A Drudge interview on C-SPAN is compelling. But he typically makes an ass of himself on Hannity & Colmes, where the guys push all the wrong buttons and bring out the worst in him.
Ultimately Matt inspired a character in a novel I’m writing, so I began accumulating an extensive Drudge archives to research the logistics of running a site like the Drudge Report. That’s how I discovered Drudge Forum and began sharing facts and interesting trivia, correcting other members’ misunderstandings about all things Drudge. About a year ago this writing, Lance invited yours truly to contribute postings on this space, The rest is history.

by RegoPark - 3:18 pm


January 17th, 2006 at 3:04 am
Matt’s site is nothing but links - basically it’s a portal. There is no eye candy, in fact, I asked my wife just to take a look at the site itself, and she said that it was plain. It does look like a site developed by some high-school kid. I looked at his source code (HTML and javascript) - and it’s no biggie. Anybody can write scripts like that.
BUT…I’m so fascinated w/ his site. How he gets stories out there that the mainstream (liberal) news doesn’t pick up. One question, if anyone knows it…where does he get his jpg’s (pics) that he puts on his site? It looks like from Yahoo when I look at the source code, but I could be wrong. Do you guys know?
Mark Shrigley
Columbus, Ohio
January 17th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Thanks for your points and questions, Mark.
You’re absolutely right that anyone can write scripts like what we see on Drudge Report, and Matt certainly makes no bones about it. He’s about as likely to add eye candy or change the look as he is to wear a tutu to the Oscars. The way he was able to operate the site in the early years was with low overhead and maintenance. Drudge is the anti-perfectionist. As for his format, he says “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
I do need to correct you slightly: he does have occasional special reports and had more in the early years. But I think that’s part of the beauty of citizen journalism: if he really hasn’t leaked anything, no big deal. Deadline-driven news cycles and the pressure to produce compelling stories create serious problems. He has news when he has it.
He hasn’t really discussed the origin of the jpgs, but it’s safe to say that he gets them from the news sites he checks. Keep in mind that the links you see on the site are the ones that Matt Drudge actually checks daily. Also keep in mind the time constraints — the least amount of hours he’s said he works is 10 to 13. With news checking and massive e-mails, he has to keep photos and graphics as simple as the rest of his operation.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
RegoPark:
Thank you for your reply. I know I’m nit-picking here, but when I see his main pictures, there is no small print of who or what organization took those photos. Is he required by law to at least put in fine print by the photo where he received those pics? For an example, if he places a photo of Bush that he received off of Fox News, would he need to put in small print by the jpg, “Fox News”?
Not trying to bash him, just trying to understand him. I truly admire his work. The simplicity of his site yet millions flock to the domain name of DrudgeReport.com.
Truly amazing.
Have a good night.
Mark Shrigley
Columbus, Ohio
January 19th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Mark,
You’ve hit on one of the great mysteries of Drudge with the photo crediting thing. No one knows for sure.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Actually, Mark and Lance, Tom Tomorrow (the cartoonist) accused Matt Drudge of using and doctoring his graphics without permission.
I’m not defending him where defense isn’t due; I’m just offering a good educated guess here: He’s cranking out the site ASAP and has probably been legally careless at times.
I don’t think for a second, though, that Matt would deliberately doctor a photo to avoid crediting someone. It’s not the kind of thing he cares about.
But generally, it seems like the graphics hyperlink to their source.
The legality is actually an intellectual property issue I don’t know the exact answer to. But people do use his original reporting without permission and that issue is like gossip, in a way: legally actionable, but often more trouble than it’s worth to pursue.
January 22nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I found out how Drudge is getting these photos. He’s mostly going to Yahoo images. From there, if he sees a pic of a person or object he wants to put on his site, he’ll look at the source code of that page and he’ll grab the pic out of the page’s source code (for an example, he’ll copy the image tag - - and paste it in his source code on his own page).
How do I know this? I did a copy cat the other night of a pic of the whale that was in the Thames River in London (this was displayed on Drudge Report’s page). I looked at his source code, went to Yahoo images, type in “whale in London”, found an article w/ the same pic of the whale (which was an AP photo) that was on the Drudge Report, looked at the source code, found the image tag and copied/pasted it on a test page of mine - it was the same photo.
Here is what I copied:
This link goes directly to the pic of the whale. Pretty simple what he does actually. I really do think that he should have put “AP Photo” underneath the jpg since it really is the property of AP.
Mark Shrigley
Columbus, Ohio
January 25th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Thanks, Mark. I fully agree that he should credit every photo he utilizes. He probably doesn’t take the time to do it because he assumes everyone knows he’s not trying to pass it off as his own, but that doesn’t relieve him of responsibility.
I might do a blog entry on this. If I do, unlike Drudge, I’ll “credit” you.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Thanks RegoPark.
January 25th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
We can only guess what kind of arrangement, informal or formal, that Drudge might have with Yahoo. He’s been using their news images for years. I’m not so quick to assume he hasn’t worked with them on it. And if you pay (money or other arrangement) to use images, you generally don’t have to credit them.