Chris Cillizza defends Matt Drudge against accusations that he's just some "conservative mouthpiece."
What explains the change in tone? It's easy to lapse into the tired old logic that Drudge is nothing more than a conservative mouthpiece returning to his roots as Election Day nears.So pointing out that Drudge has a "right-wing agenda" is "tired logic," while the MSM continue to follow Drudge's lead never gets old. It just so happens that Drudge's "healthy disdain for the mainstream media and their perceived biases" comes from his perception that the media is excessively liberal (despite the fact that they all admit following his lead -- but that's just more tired logic). Let Cillizza explain to you all about Drudge's independence:But, those who follow the news choices that Drudge makes on a day-in and day-out basis -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- argue that the shift in focus by Drudge is in keeping with a longtime strain of his site: a healthy disdain for the mainstream media and their perceived biases.
The emphasis on Obama's Hollywood ties and the omission of two negative McCain items is consistent with a broader trend over the past month (or so) that has seen the Arizona senator receive far better treatment from Drudge than he had during the primary season when, as several other acute political observers noted at the time, a number of tough stories for McCain regularly appeared on Drudge.
The primary season was months ago, and that negative emphasis on McCain was consistent with the broader attitude of the conservative intelligentsia, which at the time, hated McCain. How is that NOT furthering a Right Wing agenda? Now that McCain is the Republican nominee, Drudge tries to drive negative storylines about the Democratic candidate instead. I know, more tired logic, but I just can't help myself. Cillizza moves on to Palin: The McCain campaign smartly turned those stories into an "us versus them" narrative all its own, alleging that the mainstream media was trying to destroy Palin because she didn't fit the press' image of what a vice-presidential candidate should look like.
Drudge, believing that the media had gone overboard in its skewering of Palin, began playing up stories that highlighted Palin's crowds and the polls that showed that the Alaska governor had helped bring McCain back to even in national head-to-heads. (Two recent prominent links from Drudge that provide evidence for the above statements: this item from the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol about Palin coverage in the Post and this one reminding Newsweek of the favorable coverage they gave Palin in 2007.)
Palin -- and the mainstream media's coverage of her -- reminded us of another insight into Drudge: his strongest motivator is driving traffic to his site, not pushing some ideological agenda.
So Drudge pushes the exact storylines the McCain campaign is looking for, but that doesn't mean he has a conservative agenda, but this is more proof of Drudge as an independent actor.
Couple Palin's natural appeal on the Web and the hint of media bias, and it's easy to see the perfect storm of Web traffic brewing and a smart explanation of the flood of more positive coverage for McCain and more negative coverage for Obama on Drudge of late.TAPPED readers my be exhausted by my logic, but it's easy to explain why Drudge has been giving Obama negative coverage and McCain positive coverage: He's part of the Right Wing noise machine and always has been. By Cillizza's logic, Rush Limbaugh is Lincoln Chafee. Noting the differences between Drudge's coverage of each candidate during the primaries and now without noting the competing political interests at the time is absurd. Greg Sargent argues that Cillizza is overstating Drudge's influence, but even if he is, it's more frustrating that he spends so much time justifying it.
I don't know what's worse, that Drudge has so much influence on the news cycle or that he's convinced reporters to bend over backward in justifying his influence by presenting his consistent adherence to the conservative agenda as evidence of his ideological independence. It's like a crackhead explaining why crack is good for you. (It's got electrolytes.)
--A. Serwer
