OT : FUCK the police

[The Ref]

I wonder how many people know that Matt Drudge's site started as an entertainment industry gossip column.

[Riccardo]

It would only appear that way to ultra right wing loons. Did you even read the post that I was responding to? He was echoing the right wing nut-job paranoia that the police would take over the country if citizens didn't have guns.

Thanks for using yet another hackneyed stereotype to prove my point. Hilarious!

[JuTMSY4]

Thanks for using yet another hackneyed stereotype to prove my point. Hilarious!

lone wolf

[Riccardo]

poor ref

The left-wing whacko doesn't even realize that most cops are "right wing". It's the left that fears the cops, not the right.... good lord!

[RSE]

"Would" take over? No. I never said that. More likely, "would have."

I won't insult your intelligence by reciting an historical list of regimes which abolished private ownership of firearms upon taking the seat of government. There are few surprises, but I'm sure you know that.

More to my point, contemporary, enlightened western Eurpoean societies which severely restrict (not abolish) private ownership of weapons also restrict them in the hands of their constabularies.

You live in the fever swamps. Not me.

[TerpEagle]

I'm not talking about the person.

I'm talking about the website.

It's nothing but links to other media ... and, come on, anyone making a judgment on an issue based on a headline is a dope to begin with.

But that fact that his name is on it helps to define the website and is part of the reason it's famous and/or infamous. The source of information can be as important as the information itself.

As for someone being a dope - the world is full of them.

Wouldn't it seem likely that the "in your face" and "don't pay attention for more than my soundbite" tactics used by many media outlets are aimed for the dopes? They're not aimed for people that earnestly want to consider multiple sides of an issue and wade through the gray area. Those people make it their business to investigate things without being spoon fed.

[TerpEagle]

That's sort of a matter of opinion, isn't it.

Also, I was merely using Huffpo as an example because Ref did...

"Drudge only offers the headlines/pictures with the links."

That's fact. But like any media outlet they skew headlines and story choices to fit a narrative. That fact that it's linked to Matt Drudge drives both positive and negative opinions about it. He's made himself into a politico-celebrity so that trickles down to his site.

It's no longer an innocuous collection of new links - it has an agenda because Matt Drudge has an agenda. And it fosters that agenda even if it is relatively subtle.

[TerpEagle]

That's sort of a matter of opinion, isn't it.

Also, I was merely using Huffpo as an example because Ref did...

Current Drudge Headline:



NYPD RELEASES GAS IN SUBWAY FOR ATTACK DRILL

Actual article headline:

NYPD, Brookhaven Releasing Harmless Gases in Subway for Chemical Weapon Study
The NYPD and Brookhaven National Laboratory will begin studying air flow in the subway system

---
It's just a collection of links.

[JuTMSY4]

"Drudge only offers the headlines/pictures with the links."

That's fact. But like any media outlet they skew headlines and story choices to fit a narrative. That fact that it's linked to Matt Drudge drives both positive and negative opinions about it. He's made himself into a politico-celebrity so that trickles down to his site.

It's no longer an innocuous collection of new links - it has an agenda because Matt Drudge has an agenda. And it fosters that agenda even if it is relatively subtle.

This is what you said:

Drudge only offers the headlines/pictures with the links. It's not trying to intrigue the reader into reading an opinion, but rather incite based only on a headline.

(bolded for emphasis).

This is what I said:

That's sort of a matter of opinion, isn't it.

Also, I was merely using Huffpo as an example because Ref did...

Everyone knows Drudge has an agenda. Everyone knows Arianna Huffington (or I guess whoever owns them now) has an agenda. Whether Drudge's headlines are trying to "intrigue" the reader is a matter of opinion. Especially considering they're, yknow, links.

[slag]

And what exactly is Drudge trying to incite there?

Would anyone not immediately see in the link headline what's what?

No.

So what's your point ... that he's looking to get a click through for money?

OMG - what a unique manipulative agenda.

Stop already ... Drudge is vanilla.

[TerpEagle]

And what exactly is Drudge trying to incite there?

Would anyone not immediately see in the link headline what's what?

No.

So what's your point ... that he's looking to get a click through for money?

OMG - what a unique manipulative agenda.

Stop already ... Drudge is vanilla.

You're right. It's an innocuous rephrasing of the actual article headline - it just fails to mention that the gas is harmless.

And when I look up "chemical weapons study" in my thesaurus "attack drill" comes up at the first synonymous option.

Stop being dense. Drudge Report made it sound like something possibly sinister was happening meanwhile it's a study to improve safety.

Maybe I shouldn't have provided the actual headline for you and just let you see what Drudge wanted you to see.

[TerpEagle]

This is what you said:


(bolded for emphasis).

This is what I said:



Everyone knows Drudge has an agenda. Everyone knows Arianna Huffington (or I guess whoever owns them now) has an agenda. Whether Drudge's headlines are trying to "intrigue" the reader is a matter of opinion. Especially considering they're, yknow, links.

They're links that are re-written. Headlines alone drive an opinion. but Drudge goes further to make their own "headlines" to help their reader pre-determine an opinion.

Oh, but it's just a link to an article.

[JuTMSY4]

Headlines alone drive an opinion.

So what's the difference between a Huffpo headline and a drudge headline if everyone is drawing conclusions at line 1?

[TerpEagle]

So what's the difference between a Huffpo headline and a drudge headline if everyone is drawing conclusions at line 1?

I'm not saying HuffPo is some beacon of unbiased journalism - it's a tabloid. It's gives much greater depth into topics however than Drudge. Most links have articles and it contain original letters and opinion pieces.

Drudge throws out some sizzle to appease its "clickers" and doesn't care so much about the steak.

[hoo bleeds green]

So what's the difference between a Huffpo headline and a drudge headline if everyone is drawing conclusions at line 1?

I think the only real point is that Drudge's "headlines" are more egregiously exaggerated than HuffPo, not that HuffPo is some innocent production.