drudge blog

What I try to do in this space is provide informed insight — be it amusing or serious — on topics germane to Matt Drudge or Internet journalism that the average media consumer does not possess.  Not that I’m infallible in my expertise by any means, but that I have a specific skill set that can sometimes generate meaningful dialogue that hasn’t already been hackneyed on the Web. Because I’ve worked in advertising,  I understand how media is purchased and can explain how unlikely Matt Drudge is to have or exercise control over his site’s pop-up ads.  From my PR work, I can discuss how he is media-savvy in some ways and self-defeating in others. And because I took the time to research his bio and work logistics, I usually have a thing or two to say about nearly any media decision he makes.

I’ve concluded many things. That he’s overly excitable but not histrionic. That he likes to make mischief but isn’t interested in launching a smear campaign or expending energy on a single political cause.

Like the “War on Christmas” controversy, the subject of Matt Drudge is divisive.  Some readers will never change their minds about him come hell or high water. They will view any Drudge headline or news story concerning Matt himself through their own politically tinged lens. But I do have facts that will shed light on both topics — info that doesn’t pop out on a cursory Google search. So irrespective of my own opinions on politics, religion, or what Matt Drudge, should or shouldn’t be, let me correct some misunderstandings that generated comments in last week’s entry.

From the AP reports linked on the Drudge Report, it is unclear who really shares blame for what in the Seatac Airport menorah controversy.  They offer a very specific account of the port authority’s actions but only a vague rendering of what Rabbi Bogomilsky said or did, when, and why.  The only “paper trail” I found of Bogomilsky submitting a draft of a lawsuit was reported on December 18 and 19, after the radio show and my posted commentary thereon.  Yet Drudge and others had formed stong opinions on his intentions (to see his faith noticeably represented? To neutralize Christmas?) and the merit of his argument and the haste of his actions without knowing for certain what they were. 

The rabbi’s perceived behavior doesn’t seem in line with the highly mission-centered, media-focused outreach organization he represents. While I don’t share Chabad’s political leanings or strain of Orthodoxy, it’s difficult to conveive of any Chabad-Lubavitcher showing his backside to an outsider as it appears on the surface…even in a private conversation.  Their modus operandi is forging civic relationships and exposing unaffiliated Jews to traditional Judaism in a nonthreatening way — a tall order at best, particularly in December when Jewish-Christian relations can be the most awkward.  Chabad arranges public menorah lightings in cities all over the country without any apparent strife with authorities.  It’s not about one individual rabbi’s ”jihad”.  He’s replicating a model that his colleagues do successfully everywhere. Even if he didn’t happen to be the most effective rabbi with the most educated heart, he couldn’t be that stupid.

News consumers form opinions on reports without thoroughly reading or understanding what they have read.  Too often, what they accept as informed fact is sloppy seconds from radio hosts and media pundits without reading the original stories firsthand.  Don’t think so?  Scour letters to the editor and blog commentaries on the first week of each April.  Also research Internet rumors and lampoon articles.  Did Tommy Hilfiger really tell Oprah on-air that he designed clothes for white people?  Did Joe Lieberman really announce he’d refuse to vacate his office even if he weren’t re-elected? Did Dollar General Corporation state its intention to purchase naming rights to a popular nature reserve and rechristen it Dollar General Lake? Was the Drudge Report bought out by MSNBC? Does Matt have a publicist named April Fools?

It’s incorrect that, unlike Christmas trees, menorahs are viewewd exclusively as religious symbols. Right or wrong, a hanukkiah carries strong cultural connotation for many secular or nonobservant Jews.   Not that everyone’s happy about that.  Many Jews of various levels of religious observance are not on board with Chabad’s or other Jews’ idea of menorahs on public property.  Arguments range from the commercialization of a religious holiday, First Amendment issues, the  false equivalence between Hanukkah and Christmas, and inflating the eight days’ significance. ( Hanukkah’s a minor holiday to begin with, primarily associated with home rituals.  Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah, Passover and Shavuot dwarf its importance in the scheme even further.)

Drudge tends to get carried away with the gestalt of social party poopers (eg. principals banning sugar in schools and other favorite kvetches). I feel that he passed the opportunity to think critically about something that should be second nature to him. He grew up in both a family and a metropolitan area of “Just Jewish” influences where socioreligious events are watered down to dreidels, Hanukkah presents, and latkes — just like Santa, Frosty and Rudolph tend to maneuver Jesus out of his prime placement spot. 

News stories should raise questions, not affirm pat answers.  When I read the Seatac story, I had a barrage of questions.  How did this happen?  How did the communication reach this nadir? How did the personalities of the players involved affect the outcome?  Who paid for those 14 Christmas trees? Was the rabbi in dialogue with only one authority or two? Why did the powers that be think it would be easier to erect, dismantle, and re-mantle over a dozen trees (an ACTUAL problem) than to erect the menorah and risk a barrage of similar requests (a THEORETICAL problem)?  And who leaked this story to the press?

But to Matt, there was already an answer: “Christmas and everything fun/innocent/good/stabilizing is under attack.”

I don’t hold Drudge to  a politically or religiousl correct standard of what a Jewish person should be.  If I did, I’d find fault on his on-air and online defense of Judith Regan, who was accused this week of anti-Semitic remarks. I understand from the context of hsi statements that there’s a frightful amount of bad blood between her and Rupert Murdoch’s minions.  She should be given the benefit of the doubt until more information is known.  Would that it were the case for Matt’s own public opinion!  And would that it were the case for public opinion toward Bogomilsky!

What I do expect of Matt Drudge is to be cognizant of nuances. I expect him to know that Menorahgate is not a cut-and-dried issue. I expect him, a First Amendment and civil libertarian, to at least understand where all these apparent anti-Christmas boogeymen are coming from.  I expect him to realize that, while he understands what he chooses not to agree with, he is perpetuating one misunderstanding he could clear up, or at least not fuel:

There is no united or agenda-driven war on Christmas.  There may be a threat to the social order and Christmas culture that you value.  It is arguable that some lawsuits may go to o far, but there is no conscious ambush on the holiday itself.  Even among the Jewish community, there is a diversity of opinion of whether addressing a church/state violation is worth the ensuing drama, effort, misunderstanding, and ill will.  A rabbi whom I interviewed for a college paper on the subject summed it up like this:  “Even if the law is clearly being broken, it’s often like leaving a store realizing the cashier shortchanged you.   Probably neither of us will go back for a nickel.  We’ll both go back for a hundred dollars. That doesn’t make it a non-issue. But we have different limits.”

Likewise, Matt Drudge is not waging an agenda-driven war on anything or anybody.  There is no campaign. There is no intrigue.  There is no plot.  So if you want to honor the spirit of the Christmas message of “peace on earth, good will toward men”, STOP CREATING IMAGINARY CONQUISTADORS!

Happy holidays! Your Christmas is safe with me.

Well, this is an emotional moment for me as well as an auspicious one.  I’d like to thank my family, my professional colleagues, Drudge Forum, Lance for inviting me to contribute to this site.  Thank you for making me the Person of the Year. 

I’d like to thank each and everyone who took the time out of their busy schedules to comment on this site.  Who told me about online poker.  Free porn.  Ways to increase my johnson.  And of all the strangers to accost and beg for money, they chose me.  I’m not entirely sure how my need for Viagra leaked out into cyberspace, but maybe the 350 friends I haven’t met yet have a point.  In any case, whenever I screen Drudge Blog’s comment box, I am reminded time and time again that someone out there is there and they care.  Especially when they assume other people’s identities or “borrow” their e-mail addresses. You may not make it past my velvet rope, but never fear. Someone noticed you standing in line. 

And I’d like to thank YOU.  Whoever YOU are.

(P.S. YOU are also Time’s Person of the Year. Don’t sweat it.  Drudge admits thinking they were talking about him, too.)

I can’t say that Drudge’s reaction to the Seattle Airport “Christmas deforestation” is any different than many other Christmas decoration jihadists who all think the observant Jews of the world are the Grinches out to steal Christmas.  I believe his reaction is genuine rather than histrionic — most people consuming this layered news story really seem to ”understand” that a local rabbi pushed the airport to remove all Christmas decorations when, in fact, he neither expected nor wanted them to.  It was the decision of the airport director to remove the trees already in place when they could not work out the logistics to erect the menorah the rabbi wanted.  Guess who looks like the bad guy? 

What fills me with consternation is Drudge’s ramblings last night that the rabbi was hurting Jewish-Christian relations and that someone “should sue him for threatening to sue the airport”.  Bubbeleh, I think you are hurting interfaith relations when you report and comment on a ”December dilemma” story you don’t understand.  Just because you flunked out of Hebrew school doesn’t mean you have to dumb down your limited knowledge for the rest of us.  And another thing: understand your own damn religion and community before you tear down its esteem to all of middle America.

It wouldn’t be so amusing were there any possibility of calculated histrionics.  But after you follow him for awhile and know what makes him ornery, it’s a hoot to listen to Drudge go running off at the mouth over an injustice he’s passionate about (see yesterday’s entry).  But then came words I never expected to hear out of his mouth: “I’m sorry for the rant and rave about the full-body X-ray.”

I’ve never known for Drudge to really apologize or backtrack for anything publicly since the post-Blumenthal mea culpa in the Washington Post…Just found it amusing, that’s all.

One of Drudge’s most nurtured pet peeves makes headlines on the Drudge Report and elsewhere this week.  Phoenix, a city where Matt himself has appeared more than once, is experimenting with the controversial “backscatter” X-ray that has civil libertarians like him up in arms.  It’s always a guilty jolly when he’s got his boxers in a wad over the threat of the exposition and government databasing of his “manhood”.  (Maybe we shouldn’t be laughing…Yes, we should.)

Last week was a rare Drudge absence on the radio show, so tonight our boy should be heavy on mojo and adorned with his usual populist warpaint.

Step on His Blue Suede Shoes, Just Keep Your Grubby X-Rays Off His Manhood