Originally Posted by Direckshun
You're not getting off that easily.
We agreed on a definition of propaganda, did we not?
I presented ample evidence that Drudge fits that definition, did I not?
So where in my presentation of the evidence did you disagree?
I disagree that Drudge is lying by omission. He presents links to news articles. The sources of said articles include right leaning (fox news), left leaning (cnn), and far left wacko sites (msnbc). Are the liberal news sites in the minority? Sure they are, but they are still cited, and the articles from them are unedited. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, there was a HuffPo link even. Has HuffPo ever linked to the weekly standard, or any conservative source? (I am not asking to be a smartass, I don't read know much about HuffPo, and did not see anything other than left leaning slant when I have glanced over it)
Again, if Drudge was editing the news stories in a manner to present a certain point of view, your argument would be much stronger. The fact that Drudge merely provides links, and from a decent variety of sources from across the political spectrum, lessen the effectiveness of your argument.
You can continue to breath fire about how evil the Drudge site is...I just think most folks around here probably think of it as I do...as a page that links to a bunch of news stories, and that typically lean to the right.
Drudge even lists links to liberal columnists, like this one for Eleanor Clift:
Now, I have not read or heard anything from her for ages, but I remember her being one of the main left lean panelists on the McLaughlin Group on PBS back in the day. Hardly seems like someone that a true right wing propagandist would link too.
Drudge has a right wing biased. Is he a propagandist? I think he falls short of that definition. His bias is right wing, but sources from the left have links on his site, and while they are in the minority, they are there, and that makes the difference.