Though Glenn Reynolds has repeatedly discouraged visiting his site for a primary news source, I've found that between the obviously wide range of his sources and the abundance of daily posts, one can generally find all the latest headlines alongside some tidbits you otherwise wouldn't have discovered on your own. And in record time. Sound familiar? Instapundit is the closest competitor to Matt Drudge, I've felt for a long time now, and even though Reynolds' relatively gigantic audience of nearly six figures a day is a pittance of that viewing the Drudge Report (one one-hundreth, to be exact), his coverage of news has come to be more valuable and reliable.
Drudge came first. His page, spartan even for late-1997 HTML and virtually unchanged since, easily predated the popularization of web diary programs like Movable Type and the off-the-record, remark-as-you-go demeanor that came with them. At the forefront of the 21st Century's "New Media," Drudge's system is an early prototype, and operates with a separation of editor and reader much closer to that of a newspaper than a weblog. Surely, if we didn't know that Drudge was right of center leaning libertarian, we could read it well enough in the selection and rewording of many linked stories. And if you've ever listened to him on the radio, you'll agree that he more than makes up on the microphone for the infrequency of explicit opinions online.
Yet the Drudge Report maintains a certain editorial silence that - again, much like a newspaper - can't help but imply a certain objectivity. Sometimes Drudge simply posts a headline verbatim; maybe he adds a picture. He might have chosen to start his page with it out of political preference, but just as often he's only reflecting what's in the news; a visitor is taken to the real story encountering a minimum of interpretation. Therein lies the problem. Even if we don't lead ourselves into thinking that Drudge's latest roundup - however first-rate - is the only clutch of hype around the world, we're left with his mirroring of news sources, many of which don't deserve to be linked without questions asked.
Not sure what I mean? Take the big story in London today - or the story that should be, the protests that never were. Nowhere near the promised throngs materialized yesterday, and the promised "100,000" have yet to assemble today. But neither you nor several million people over the last hours would have found that out through Drudge:
Far be it for a guy like Matt Drudge - who's filled in for Rush Limbaugh more than once over the past month - to patronize the BBC, but there it is: a provocative photo linking to a pro-rally story by the public broadcasters. The BBC places projections of total demonstrators by its leftist organizers right next to police estimates (numbers which, I might add, haven't been corroborated by anybody who wouldn't want to see them as high as possible). No explanation of the radicals actually running the event. If someone's single internet stop today were that Drudge Report headline, they'd come away having read only the BBC, with an impression exactly as intended by forces in opposition to Tony Blair and George W. Bush - which is, presumably, that the whole of Great Britain ducked work to thumb their nose at both leaders.
Here's where Instapundit comes in - and comes out ahead. You see, the mass rejection that the left was hoping for fell well short of expectations. Reynolds would have just as easily blogged the event if numbers had reached 100,000. But they didn't, and he blogged the left-in as it flopped. He provided a roundup including witnesses, and even linked the same BBC story as Drudge, putting the damned fluff-piece into proper context.
This isn't the first time the line drawn between Big Media and Alternate Media has separated Drudge from the blogosphere. Over the past year or so have I come to feel that Drudge's technique, once revolutionary, now often provides a megaphone for the same tilted angle from mainstream broadcasters. His site offers a variety of media grabs, but aside from occasional scoops (Bill O'Reilly's "Talkola" admittedly one of the best in recent months), the majority of Drudge's posts are straight from the mainstream media. Many of those linked stories are typically biased or misleading. Drudge may do well in some regard to remove as much bias as he can by keeping commentary on a given story to a minimum; but the consequence of withholding judgment is to leave the article's own spin completely intact. Does that trade-off make for good reporting, "objective" or not?
Time will tell. I can't fathom either pundit losing energy or viewers over the long term - quite the opposite. But it should be interesting to see how the growing popularity of weblogs - helped in no small measure by Instapundit - affects the supremacy Drudge has enjoyed for a few years. And that popularity can be challenged without detriment to the Report - it's not as if people can't check both pages in one sitting. Even though I'll hit Instapundit for headlines right after my Fox News homepage has popped up, the Drudge Report is not far behind. A reverse habit is just as easy to get into. The question is this: how do you want your news?
REVISIONS, REVISIONS: Via IP, Iain Murray links to the above BBC link. The BBC has been correcting the story since early afternoon; first the number of demonstrators drawn was 30,000, then 70,000 and now the hallowed 100,000. Some news outlets are still relaying the number of 70,000 - and to put it politely, I'm still looking for more than rabidly left-wing, British [or otherwise] news companies to report that the leftist-Islamist production company delivered. And actually revealing the event's organizers is unlikely to come from any of the celebrating broadcasters. [Though one must say, even if the rally missed the mark of 100,000 it wasn't quite a flop.] Advantage? The blogosphere over Drudge, I'd reckon, especially since several on the right - including Instapundit - are already recanting. But then old Drudge has moved on to the inherent sexiness of Johnny Depp, which is why, no matter what, we'll always love the Drudge Report.
ONE MORE THING: Thank goodness none of the anticipated [or threatened] violence occurred. No matter how horribly misguided the protesters were today, they were by and large peaceful.
DID I SAY ONE MORE?: Number games aside, here's the real victory, awarded to Bush and Blair by the conservative Telegraph. Much as we little gadflies might have chattered, the nonsense going on in Trafalgar didn't make a lick of difference to a couple of men charged with protecting and expanding the free world. Once the excitement of the past two days passes from the West, only the responsibilities ahead - made plain by the second slaughter of innocents in Turkey - will be left.