Originally Posted by Direckshun
More crucially to my point:
Drudge's problem is twofold:
1. He is a Republican propaganda outlet, presenting selective news only if it favors the Republican agenda. So while sometimes Drudge will cherry pick reliable information (such as the CNBC piece), he's doing just that: cherry picking. News of similar or greater weight does not get the full "Drudge treatment" if it does not play into the Republican narrative.
His other problem is pointed out by mcchiefsguy:
Yup, yup, and yup.
While I have nothing against CNBC, this is common practice on Drudge, and it's honestly the exact same formula they use on Fox News. Place nuggets of reliable information in a sea of hyperpartisan bullshit. Altogether, it creates an air of legitimacy when it's anything but.
This would carry much greater weight if Drudge was actually editing the stories, or altering them in some way. He presents links from a variety of sources, and he makes no claims at neutrality.
If he were claiming to be unbiased, perhaps your points would have more weight, but as it as, Drudge is just a collection of links to various news stories. The stories themselves do not become propaganda just because Drudge happens to like them and shares them on the internet.
Each source should be considered on its own merits, and not lumped into some "Drudge Propaganda" conspiracy.
Of course, if Rachel Maddow had a site and did what Drudge does, you would be singing her praises from the mountaintops, because she is a respectable journalist (not really, she is just a raging MSNBCer, but I know how you love to pretend she is unbiased).