The Unsexy Truth About Matt Drudge’s Radio Departure
Despite the fun some people have had speculating about Matt Drudge’s retirement from radio, I can think of (and have shared) enough compelling-but-boring reasons why ten years might be a mighty good time to call it a life. At the time I announced the possibility on this space this month, it was still unclear whether Drudge was only leaving the Premiere Radio syndicate or whether he was leaving the industry altogether. I’m not especially wild about sowing the seeds of gossip, especially when my words will be taken out of context by journalists and readers with less than stellar reading comprehension (which, indeed, they were.) For what it’s worth, let me throw this out before moving along:
If the news of a radio host’s departure is newsworthy enough to report and speculate about, should a journalist:
(a) Seek further information from the syndicate (length of contract, termination clause, date of tendered resignation)
(b) Interview sources in the radio industry for pertinent industry information, radio contracts or other commentary that might offer legitimate clues,
(c) Scour available information on the radio host (other obligations, the tone and nature of recent broadcasts, any significant changes in work, life or job performance)
(d) Scour the grapevine?
Obviously, blogs and mainstream gossip columns aren’t written like term papers. They aren’t written for posterity or the historical record.
You might guess that I’m a real backseat driver when it comes to journalism, and a consummate legalist at that. I don’t go for hooded tribunals or kangaroo court, and if hearsay doesn’t have a place in the U.S. justice system, it won’t occupy one in my mind. To me, anonymous sources mean jack shit. I am not interested in anyone’s imaginary friends. Creative writing has its place…and is no more legitimate a presence in a news story than it would be in a legal brief or scientific abstract. I also have yet to be sold on the philosophy that “gossip is the glue that holds society together and shows that we all care about one another.”
But I do believe that the media is a court of sorts, and everyone is theoretically entitled to due process. That Matt Drudge is a less than reliable news source himself doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be fair and accurate reporting about him as well.
I can say this about anyone or any news subject. Drudge just happens to be one of my research subjects. That’s all.
While I could be wrong, I have doubts that the “Matt Drudge” commenter in Jeff Bercovici’s Portfolio column is the real McCoy. The documented e-mails and online interviews show Matt’s type in all-caps with shoddy spelling and punctuation. It’s more the exception than the rule for reporters never to hear from Drudge, who’s received daily e-mails in the thousands since the late 90s. One Miami New Times reporter, who was granted a 2001 interview, waited weeks for a response.
Why would Matt Drudge, who has not even acknowledged he is leaving radio (let alone commenting on the reasons), promptly post a response in a public comment box? It’s withing the realm of possibility but outside the realm of probability.
The Top Ten Unsexy Likelihoods Why Drudge is Leaving Radio
1. He’s done it ten years and has always expressed disdain for old fogeys like Walter Cronkite who don’t know when to hang it up.
2. He works 10-14 hours a day even without the show.
3. He travels 30% of the time and has to either broadcast from a studio in a major city, secure appropriate equipment, or arrange for a substitute every Sunday night.
4. Either Drudge or his syndicate wants to make changes in the contract that aren’t amenable to the other…and it seems like a good time for an amicable departure.
5. As he told Miami New Times: “The callers are boring.”
6. He may be serious about his radio rantings that he’ll leave the country if a tax-and-spend Democrat enters the White House.
7. His social or personal life is changing and something has to go.
8. He has to reduce his stress, even if the issue isn’t being forced right now.
9. Lowering his profile would be kinda-sorta nice, even if he isn’t ready for an icehouse in Minnesota.
10. He’s focusing on what he really has a passion for, doing it as long as he can.
RegoPark is a freelance writer with a background in marketing communications. She has recently completed a novel on the relationship between PR and new media. She can be reached at http://regopark.wordpress.com.
by RegoPark - 10:47 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Ah well welcome to the world of modern journalism, Rego — this wasn’t even a major news item but because of it you’ve gotten a first-hand taste of why the state of the practice has been such an obsession for me.
And you might change your mind about exempting Drudge entirely from your criticism of how news is covered were Drudge himself to be the one to pick up something you’ve posted and you experience directly what happens as a result of the way he treats it or spins it or places it and it gets exponentially more massive and distorted coverage. But enough about that.
Two thoughts:
o My gut news instinct tells me the poster at Jeff Bercovici’s Portfolio was indeed no less than the mad hatter himself. Contrary to your own speculation, everything about the post is entirely consistent with past and current practices of the real deal.
o Probably all of the reasons you give for Drudge quitting his radio show have some role in the decision. I still prefer as one of the top reasons the simple fact that virtually all newsies find it a real downer to have to work Sundays. Most like to unwind and watch the Sunday-morning talking heads give their opinions of what was news the week before and what it means (Drudge watches them all, probably the vast majority of the audiences of these shows are in fact reporters); old-school reporters still prefer to spend their entire Sunday luxuriating in reading the massive Sunday NYT and their local rag. Without Sundays off, to people in the business it feels like they have no weekends, period. Multiply that factor for Drudge, who works 24/7 as it is, and what to most journalists is already a downer — working Sundays — becomes a major bummer/quality of life issue, especially after 10 years.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Oh, I’ve been taken out of context before…And I saw what Drudge did with my friend. I think I can live without getting covered on the Drudge Report.
Hmm…in what way does the Portfolio comment seem consistent with past and current practices? It would be interesting to know the truth, and it’s not like the content of the comment doesn’t sound like it could be Drudge…Nothing against Jeff Bercovici, but why would Drudge respond to him, of all people, and be utterly silent elsewhere? Also keep in mind the less-than-cordial comment dialogue on that post between Jeff and whom he assumes to be Philip Weiss of New York, who wrote the initial article about Drudge. Then consider that It was New York’s Intellligencer column that made fun of Bercovici (and were the ones who took me out of context, btw). Could the “Matt Drudge” poster be someone from New York mag? The bite that ran was “ha, ha, some crazy cats are saying he’s leaving because of the article we wrote, but Matt himself left a comment saying he gave notice in July.”
This gets into the crux of my last post: silence feeds the frenzy. I’m more curious about Drudge’s decision to reveal or not reveal his news than I am about the content of the news itself.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Drudge might not reply to most reporters seeking an interview or comment these days — but he does read what they write about him and is known to send emails after-the-fact-of-publication pretty promptly (especially if requesting a correction). That post is essentially the same thing as such online correspondence and he did just that in it — provided a clarification with information unique to Drudge and Premiere Radio that no reporter had known before it appeared but that could be confirmed once the post/online correspondence appeared. And he’s famously brief — two or three sentences, tops. Usually all caps. And usually including at least one glaring misspelling. And he’s virtually always polite — it’s almost his signature to end an interaction with another journalist/radio show host/etc by wishing them good luck with their blog/radio program/what have you (and if he thinks the person and their forum is going to take off he’ll often add that over at the Drudge Report he’ll be watching what kinds of news the site/person/whatever might be breaking in the future — though he didn’t in this case, ha.)
September 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Just to be clear — I said he *usually* types such online correspondence in all caps and *usually* it contains at least one glaring misspelling. But Rego, sometimes you stick so literally to everything he has said or done in the past it makes me wonder whether you can allow for even the slightest deviation –surely it’s within the realm of possibility that he can and has written off a two- or three-sentence online correspondence without all caps and without a misspelling? The poster is *not* from NY Mag. He takes a backhand swipe at the competence of the mag’s million-word piece on him. I assure you the writer and editors were not seeking for Matt Drudge (or anyone pretending to be him online, especially if it was one of them!) to say the serious-toned piece they invested lots of time, money, and print space into producing was “a riot!”.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
My post above reads that it was WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY but OUTSIDE THE REALM OF PROBABILITY.
It raised my eyebrows. It got me thinking. But I also have an active bullshit detector. If Matt Drudge himself somehow decided I was worth contacting (VERY MUCH within the realm of possibility but far outside the realm of probability)you can bet on it I’d be checking the ISP,the spelling and content…or if I heard his voice, I’d say “prove it,” or, even if someone were in front of me claiming to be him, you can bet I’d be checking the height, eye shape, and facial hair pattern.
It’s not about being literal, but being legalistic: not accepting conclusions that haven’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and also stopping short of the slippery slope of assumptions that occur when journalists play the “my sources said this” game…
And I’m not saying that the poster was definitely from New York mag, but that there are other possibilities besides the poster being Drudge. And some untraceable poster could still be from the Intelligencer, even though it works for the same mag as Philip Weiss, or could be someone else interested in stirring something up.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am
Drudge Podcast: The Final Show?…
Will tonight be Matt Drudge’s radio farewell? HOTAIR: Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination HOTAIR: Video: There are no gays in Iran, says Ahmadinejad HOTAIR: Mark Levin: Media Matters is a “criminal enterprise…
October 1st, 2007 at 12:32 am
I think Matt’s got a super sexy project up his sleeve. dum. dum. duummmmmm.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:36 am
Well, he hinted on that on his final broadcast, didn’t he?
Looks like my speculation was on the money! After being taken out of context by silly gossips, the reasons I’ve offered all September…which I’ve discussed in previous posts…are exactly what he described on the last show. Okay. I’ve done my little “Told You So” dance of joy.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:12 am
The Drudge Report cover page has not changed in 3 days. I guess he’s leaving that to die on the vine too.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Nah. I’ve noticed some changes. He’s probably on that “extended travel” he talked about, though.