Drudge, Swine Flu, & Audience Envy

You have to be wary when someone declares the death of something big. It's an easy thing to say, with ample bravado of course, that history is dead, that metaphysics is dead, or that the book, the magazine, the newspaper, or whatever else are all dead. But it's rarely true.

Michael Wolff, the Vanity Fair contributor, Rupert Murdoch biographer, and early Internet-industry commentator, came out last week to declare the death of what has long been considered the most influential online news outlet in America. "I do not think Drudge has disappeared," Wolff wrote in a scathing piece for Newser.com, which he helps run, "I think he's dead." And if the man himself hasn't actually flatlined then "he's definitely brain dead."

According to Wolff, the Drudge Report is a long-gone bygone, little more than the "leftover" tatters of transitional late 1990s media. He argues that the Drudge Report hasn't changed in years, that Matt Drudge hasn't done anything new, expanded his business, or even expanded his pay role, which, according to Wolff, is limited to Drudge and blogger Andrew Breitbart. (Ironically, one arrow Wolff slings at Drudge is that the famous internet newsman is "out of the loop." However, those "in the loop" have heard credible rumors that the relationship between Drudge and Breitbart has undergone a major change.)

Wolff also sneers a little at Drudge's monthly site visit count, or at least at the New Republic's reporting that Drudge sees "20 million hits per day" -- a statistic Wolff calls a "meaningless locution." He points out quite casually that, according to Compete.com, Drudge Report receives just 2.6 million unique visits a month - a sum that "clearly isn't going to make him millions."

Taking a quick look at the traffic for Wolff's Newser.com while heeding Wolff's wisdom about what it takes to make money from web traffic, a casual observer might end up very concerned for Michael Wolff's financial well-being. With Newser scraping together about 600,000 unique monthly visitors, the site's traffic clearly isn't going to make Wolff millions either - or even hundreds of thousands.

But Wolff knows that. He is arguably one of the sharpest and smartest media observers in the country. A few years ago I had the privilege of meeting him through a mutual friend for coffee. He spoke lucidly about things as varied as the possibilities for digital media storage and the future of the magazine industry. But the thing that stuck with me most was his discussion about new media and a very simple but (at the beginning of the Web 2.0 craze) non-obvious notion that content is still king and that it never abdicated.

This is exactly what is so surprising about Wolff's commentary on the Drudge Report: Matt Drudge wasn't just the first online media outlet to pay fealty to content-as-king (maybe he wasn't the first at all), but he was the only one to maintain his loyalty to content. Michael Wolff criticizes Drudge for not changing his style and, presumably, even the layout of the site. But that is precisely the power behind Drudge's draw.

Wolff's boldest accusation, however, is that Drudge hasn't caught a breaking headline in months. Bad timing for Wolff: it was the very next day when Drudge linked to a short and relatively obscure Reuters AlertNet article about a "strange new swine flu." "Seven people hit by strange new swine flu", were Drudge's headlined words. By comparison, the New York Times' coverage of the flu at that point was... nil. In other words, a one-page website run by a one-man operation caught the story that subsequently engulfed the entire media a full day before the New York Times - a multi-billion dollar media corporation with a newsroom of roughly 1,000 people.

But there's a very simple media litmus test which tells us much more than all of this. Think about the last time you asked someone, or someone asked you, "Did you see Drudge today?", and then think of the last time you asked someone (or someone asked you), "Did you see Newser.com today?" Wolff is often right on media issues, and often well before anyone else. But in this case one has to wonder if it isn't just a case of audience envy.

Comments

[jerrypl]

Here is the truth about the Swine Virus--The swines within the Wall Street financial banking crime syndicate have infected the entire world with their viruses. It makes many American complacent and depressed, as well as afraid that the infection will further erode confidence and economic stability. I believe that Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and even President Obama have been infected with the Swine's infection. They end up pumping trillions of dollars into the Swine's made up treatment programs. It just does not seem to have worked. The world continues to be feeling feverish, sneezing and coughing horribly.

I really don't see any real rescue relief anytime soon. The cure is to protect everything you own from disappearing, as this Swine Infection can do when it begins to morph and become stronger.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[larry278]

You are insulting innocent pigs, aka swine, by comparing pigs to the greedy vermin which infest Wall St & other locations throughout the world. Maybe I shouldn't compare those who use Wall St & other sites to make money under false pretexts to vermin either. Some vermin live on garbage & rotten flesh. These vermin are Mother Nature's clean up crew. But the bed bugs who gnaw me nightly bite me often. I have no use for bed bugs, Hank Greenberg, Larry Summers & their ilk.
Calling those who infest Wall St pigs is a big no, no. Maybe a new pejorative for Wall St types is in order.

[roxsteady]

Their brand is dead, just like the rebuplican party and the conservative movement in terms of ever being able to attract the very people they'll need to grow their pathetic party. And it's true, regardless of whether Drudge breaks a story first, as someone pointed out, it's not taken seriously until it's aired on more reputible news sites. I checked out his site back during the Clinton years and haven't been back since. They should all face reality. Drudge, Fauxnews and all of the other crazy wingnut sites and outlets can't get the real number they need as far as getting someone elected to the Whitehouse any time soon and that's the best news every!

[jpsd]

check the years 1966, 1980, 1994 every time in the last 40 yrs dems have had complete control the blow it and are wipe out in the next election. They will always scare the he ll out of the electorate with their radical ideas. Obama is a bubble president blown up on hope and change with no experience or substance. Like all bubbles (tech, housing, credit) he will pop an crater rapidly...watch and cry!

[seted]

How do they make money from their websites? Advertisments?

[tfoley]

If you want to know what is going to be on the Huffington post in a few hours just read Drudge. The only thing missing will be anything not favorable about Obama

[Grasse7]

And if you want to see anything even remotely favorable about Obama, don't read Drudge.

[MajorKong]

Drudge exists primarily to inject conservative talking-points into the media stream.

The lifecycle of a conservative talking point tends to be:

Drudge->Talk Radio (Rush, Hannity etc)->Fox->MSM

[cmvortex]

I suspect Drudge is still very influential, especially among conservatives. He seems to provide all the the news stories for Fox News. Further, Drudge stories are quickly passed along via internet and other news sources. The biggest problem is that because Drudge is still very popular among conservatives, Drudge is still dangerous in the way he cherry-picks articles to present an issue in a certain way, and then further, he often provides misleading or hyped up headlines on the links to an article that is far more reasonable than it first sounds. The way the data is selectively presented on that site provides a very biased environment for the reader. One example is climate change. Drudge is always cherry picking for any detail or headline that could construe climate change as a hoax. He'll often provide links to press coverage of scientific work on things like solar cycles and other things that conservatives use as counterarguments for man-made global warming. He loves to find articles when a severe cold wave hits the eastern US or Europe. But he will definitely NOT provide a balanced view of the subject. That's the problem and a huge reason why such a significant number of people are misinformed on important issues. Anyway, Drudge shouldn't be so easily dismissed in my opinion.

[justthefacts17]

"Drudge is still dangerous". WOW, very scary.And he "doesn't provide
balance" on global/climate warming whatever? The world has
been cooling for 10 years but that shouldn't be addressed ?

[Chickpealover2]

Regardless of Drudge's political biases, the article points out correctly that Drudge remains important and that he influences the news even if he is just giving a wider platform to other news sources. Rindsberg does a good job here of pointing this out and I'm not sure why there is criticism of him - wishful thinking about Drudge's place in the media doesn't seem to have been the point of the article: reality is.

[nk007]

Personally, I do not trust the Drudge Report any more than I trust Bill O'Reiley, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity; Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. For the most part Drudge's Report is nothing but a judicial manipulation now and then he might unearth an important story not covered by MSM, about 90% of the info at the Drudge Report is nothing but manufactured lies by the ultra conservative right wingers. With respect to Swine flu, Drudge was not really the first one to cover this. So your suggestions that people critical of Drudge's ultra right wing conservative biases is nothing but "Audience Envy" is without merit and clearly reveals your biases. Just because Drudge may have been accurate 5% of the time does not negate the 95% when he has done nothing but push the Conservative on the basis of erroneous information.

[justthefacts17]

I don't trust Maddow,Colbert, Stewart ,Hartmann, and all the lowrated Left
pundits. Olbermann the least. But I do monitor all the sites and keep up
with enemy thinking. I enjoy observing their hatred for all things conservative.
My own family has several of these members and we engage. When they get too
emotional and cry then it's over until the next visit. They use all the usual canards
which I love to point out. It's life.

[Hugh-Gee]

Colbert? Stewart? As examples of "lowrated Left pundits?"

Ummm...news flash for you: those two are comedians, not pundits.

Read Krugman if you want to get the views of an influential leftist whose opinions you'll love to hate.

[ramblin jack]

If you are from the right in America today i doubt if you have anything to point out that is of substance.

[swan1]

Drudge has seen better days.

[Bruupo]

Drudge took a major hit after touting Ashley "backwards-B", and lots of blogosphere wing-nuts paid for trusting him on that, by looking as foolish as humanly possible.

People basically go for the links, anyway, but after that hoax no one is eager to trust Drudge alone on some "breaking news" story that they only find at Drudge. So whether or not he may be the first major site to post about swine flu, no one with a brain would give it any credence until it had been confirmed elsewhere.

So yes, the traffic numbers are great and all, but Drudge still ain't doing so hot. I think you can chalk those numbers up to habit as much as anything else.

[BobLablah]

What exactly is a "newser'?