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.