Drudge turns 40 today.  I’d say something brilliant and profound here, but it just dawned on me that it could happen to me, too.  Where IS that siren?

Gawker editor Jessica “Matt Drudge Ignores Me — Again” Coen has finally left the blogosphere for an editorial stint at Vanity Fair.  I still half-believe a teensy bit of responsibility for upping his relevance in the overlapping Drudge Report-Gawker Media demographic lies with her. 

But while Matt’s computer screens won’t be cluttered with prank IMs from Gawker Central, the Drudge obsession (read: cheap throwaway allusions to the gay rumors) has been recycled by her successors. 

OK, I’ve lavished enough attention on them already.

(P.S.  You know that was an April Fool’s joke about her and Drudge on my post last spring, right?)

Last night, along with a prediction of Nancy Pelosi’s future star power that’s not getting due coverage at the moment, Matt Drudge discussed the 24-year-old Internet journalist Josh Wolf who has been in jail 57 days. Wolf was jailed on August 1 when he refused to testify or turn over unpublished video to a federal grand jury investigating a July 2005 anti-G8 demonstration. The Anti-Terrorism Task Force believes he may have information about individuals who were at the demonstration whom they want to question. If Wolf stays in the pen much longer, it might be the longest sentence served by a reporter in U.S. history…and Drudge does call him that. (“I don’t call them bloggers – Internet reporter.”)

Matt didn’t go into details on his feelings about the specifics of the Wolf case, but he did make clear that on a matter of principle, it should be treated no differently than that of Judith Miller if evidence is being withheld on a federal probe — Internet journalists should have the same privileges, same punishments as reporters holding traditional credentials. (Considering Drudge’s own libertarian leanings, he most likely sympathizes with Josh and his cause.)

Developing…

In the past week, I have been called Drudge’s “most dedicated dittohead” who is a “scumbag” like him for supposedly “defending” Mark Foley with a so-called “blame the victim” angle. Specifically, some bloggers and forum posters showcased this clip from last Sunday night’s radio as evidence:

And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I’ve seen what they’re doing on YouTube and I’ve seen what they’re doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You’re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven’t got the whole story on this.

If you listen to the entire video clip of his show, you will hear that Matt Drudge’s beef with the case is that there’s a lack of equity in sex crime accusations…a recurring theme familiar to anyone who’s tuned into the radio show since the Michael Jackson trials. An accuser doesn’t have to be identified but can easily ruin the life of an accusee with a lie. If you really paid attention, in fact, this is one of Matt’s libertarian streaks showing itself, not some GOP puppetry.

I don’t wholeheartedly agree with him on this issue, but I understood Drudge’s point. I think that minors need to be protected, period…but while Foley is solely responsible for his actions, maybe 16- and 17- year olds shouldn’t be infantilized to the point that their own actions aren’t at least examined. It’s not about blaming the victim. It’s about looking at all angles of this story. I think we can all handle that dialogue without losing our water.

However friendly Matt may be with Ann Coulter, this is hardly tantamount to quipping that certain 9/11 widows are “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths or that the victims might otherwise have divorced them. In fact, this issue raises LOTS of questions, which is what political dialogue should be all about — not producing “evidence” that Drudge or anyone else is out just for a political smear.

Matt Drudge is not my “messiah”, as has been accused. Nor, might you notice, do I agree with much of his politics. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, whom you either agree with or you don’t, reading or listening to Drudge can be a meaningful learning experience…even if Drudge himself doesn’t seem to be learning anything meaningful from his callers. He is the subject of my research project, and therefore I’ve spent lots of time understanding what he did and didn’t say in as accurate a context as possible.

I don’t put a great deal of stock in his opinions, because everyone has one. Basically he rants about things he finds interesting. Sometimes he’s ludicrous, sometimes he brings up original points and angles. He’s far from the sharpest knife in the drawer, but worthy of examination. I think most people who choose to read the content of this space can see that I’m interested in something beyond “spinning” or parroting him.

The reason I choose to research, blog about, discuss, and write a book inspired (in part) by Matt Drudge is because of the thick layers of misunderstanding that come in one of two forms:

1 - Conservatives tend to only want to hear about what a good Republican hero he is.
2 - Liberals tend to only want to hear about what a bad Republican smearmeister he is.

I want to look at his role in Internet journalism and the media at large as clearly as possible - neither dismissing him nor putting too much stock in his headlines or radio gab. There’s no “agenda”. There’s no angle he’s intentionally leaving out. He’s basically just shooting the breeze and sharing breaking news.

Which, pretty much, is what most of us “citizen journalists” do.

You may notice that my last entry is missing.  Apparently we had an uninvited visitor who decided to have a little fun with this site early yesterday morning, and in doing so erased an essay that took more time to compose than innocent working types like myself really have.  Luckily it wasn’t a “political” hacker, and the only items changed were the site title and most recent entry.  But even when an essay is saved, the logistics of linking can chew up a surprising amount of time — which I won’t have for a few days, and therefore a time-sensitive topic won’t get covered when it’s hot.

I realize that some readers out there are not going to understand the point of devoting bandwidth and time to a seemingly single subject.  But contrary to the comment in my “Night Shift” entry, I actually have a little too much of a life to spend writing about “Drudge issues”.  It’s not about passing the time or supporting one individual –it’s about opening philosophical dialogue on ideas and news angles that aren’t really broached or dissected elsewhere.

Hackers don’t just invade property.  They throw a monkey wrench in the lines of communication.  It’s no more funny or constructive than breaking into someone’s house or interrupting a radio broadcast. 

Don’t mess with the bull, hack-holes, or you’ll get the horns.

Coming up is an update on a new book discussing Matt Drudge’s role in American politics and the news media…When, that is, I have time.