Slashdot Mirror


Drudge Generates More News Traffic Than Social Media

tcd004 writes "A report released today by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the Drudge Report is a far more important driver of online news traffic than Facebook or Twitter. In fact, for the top 25 news websites, Twitter barely registers as a source of traffic. The report hits on several other interesting findings about news behavior."

144 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Ugly by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 2

    It might just be my connection, but for being such an important site, DrudgeReport.com is one uuuuugly site.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
    1. Re:Ugly by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It beats the hell out of the network news sites, with their pervasive cookies, auto-start videos, and general unwanted flash-a-palooza.

    2. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's because you don't need to waste money/time on making your site look pretty when you actually have content (yes, i am aware that the drudgereport doesn't really have any of their own content).
      It's the old style over substance routine. When someone wastes all of their time trying to look good, they rarely have anything worth showing you.

    3. Re:Ugly by alen · · Score: 2

      in the middle in a huge font is the story of the day. the rest of the stories are in the other columns. makes it easy to get a quick read of the daily news for busy people

    4. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't read the drudge report, but the layout beats the hell out of most sites, slashdot included.

      Javascript isn't always a good thing and on news sites (or aggregators), it's just unnecessary.

    5. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Everything to program the neanderthal Retardicans needs to be right at the front - they have a limited size buffer in those protohuman brains, if you overflow it everything else goes into the bit-bucket rather than into long-term storage.

      Way to elevate the discussion there, chief--call your ideological opponents subhuman. I could [i]so[/i] go all Godwin's Law on you right now and we're only 10 posts into this thing.

    6. Re:Ugly by somersault · · Score: 1

      It looks more like they've spent time making it look bad, than "wasted" any time trying to make it look good. Seriously, I like courier/monospaced fonts in some places (coding/shells), but the way they've done courier and underlined.. yuck!

      I prefer functionality over style too, but the thing is.. once something works, it doesn't take that much to clean it up. Keeping things simple helps your design to feel classy. It would look much better without all the underlining.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Ugly by brit74 · · Score: 2

      That's why I only go to websites with rainbow colors and flashing comic sans font for information. Also, these guys are doing everything right: http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-white-nation-will-never-resume-its-rightful-pl,20303/

    8. Re:Ugly by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      So is Craigslist, they both go with the no frills minimalism to keep the page small and to reduce the work it takes to make them work with all the browsers out there.

    9. Re:Ugly by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Tell me, who else liked to degrade his opponents by relating them to simians?

    10. Re:Ugly by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Just wait till there is breaking news and Drudge breaks out the police lights. Or Memorial Day and Fourth of July when all the text is red, white and blue, or Christmas when it's green and red.

    11. Re:Ugly by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      I'm on a computer at 1440x900 resolution and I can barely see the top quarter of that headline. I had to scroll down two or three screen heights to see it on my netbook. That is NOT a well-designed site.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    12. Re:Ugly by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      From a paranoid (in the best sort of way) viewpoint, sure- but from an aesthetic viewpoint, I can get the headline and many top stories without scrolling from CNN. No such luck on DrudgeReport.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    13. Re:Ugly by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      Minimalism I have no problem with- it's just that it can't be hard to design a site so you can get most of the info without having to scroll.

      Actually, the design reeks of a mobile site- two birds with one stone, perhaps?

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    14. Re:Ugly by somersault · · Score: 1

      Meh, I'm sticking to Slashdot for now. If I frequented too many other news sites I'd never get any work done - plus here, the worst I can expect is ponies.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's a good liberal, when confronted by something you don't agree with, attack it. How very tolerant of you.

    16. Re:Ugly by chill · · Score: 1

      Try their "mobile" site. Just as fugly, but oriented for smaller screens.

      http://idrudgereport.com/

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    17. Re:Ugly by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Naw, Drudgereport has been the same since before mobile browsers. It really hasn't changed layout wise since 1996.

    18. Re:Ugly by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would gripe that if you look at either CNN or Fox (or whomever's) website, it's so busy that it's offensive, even after you take out scripts, flash, videos, etc. Simplify. (Maybe just a personal preference)

      My bane lately is the trend toward these major news sites linking to "stories" that are only videos.

      I don't WANT to watch video unless I ask for it. I want to see text. I want to see a version of the information that is quiet and doesn't waste bandwidth or require flash. I want to be able to scan relevant details without clunking through some 3 minute clip just to get the one detail I'm after.

      (sorry. rant over)

    19. Re:Ugly by x*yy*x · · Score: 1

      Well, slashdot includes actual content like summaries and lots of comments. I do understand why the report it says it brings a lot of traffic to news site tho, since there is nothing else than external links to click on. Social media is a lot more than that.

    20. Re:Ugly by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      I could read the headline without scrolling. It's an improvement, anyway.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    21. Re:Ugly by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      It might just be my connection, but for being such an important site, DrudgeReport.com is one uuuuugly site.

      Really? I liked it! :) Perhaps it can be cleaner, but it's not ugly.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    22. Re:Ugly by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It beats the hell out of the network news sites, with their pervasive cookies, auto-start videos, and general unwanted flash-a-palooza.

      Drudge has a javascript refresh in place, which is how they get their massive page views every month.
      I really hate pointless page refreshing.

      var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3);
      function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    23. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL, in other words you want to browse the tabloids (MSNBC, CNN, etc) discreetly while at work. Quit surfing and get back to work.

    24. Re:Ugly by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Wow. Drudge Report is ugly: maybe it's the bold letters, so 90'. Although I am aesthetically retarded, I can tell I don't like the page design. :P

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    25. Re:Ugly by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Heh, I have a hard time believing the Drudge Report generates any more traffic than http://fark.com/

      At least I can tell what Fark is by looking at it... and I'm much more likely to click on the link just to try to figure out the punchline. Plus, Fark includes helpful analysis in the comments... with just about equal representation by loons from both the left and right... humorous (and actually quite civil) discourse I find lacking on most other sites.

      If you keep up with Fark you can pretty much ace "Wait, wait don't tell me" at the end of the week.

    26. Re:Ugly by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      If you're new to the site, it can be a bit overwhelming, I'll admit. However, for a vet like me (And you have no idea how much it hurts to admit that I'm a Fox veteran) the information is right there. I know what to look for and where to go.

      No excuse, I know, but again, no scrolling.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    27. Re:Ugly by brit74 · · Score: 1

      I think Craigslist does that to reduce bandwidth costs. They're a tiny company (about 30 employees) with 20 billion pageviews/month. For a long time, they had no way to generate revenue at all - until they started charging for job postings.

    28. Re:Ugly by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      Figuring Drudge has had the same basic site in place with almost no changes since the mid 90's (remember, he broke the Lewinski scandal the Newsweek tried to bury), of course the site is a 90's look.

    29. Re:Ugly by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      They get massive page views from that? Auto-refreshing every 3 minutes? Who sits on the page for 3 minutes?

      (And that's only to get one additional view)

    30. Re:Ugly by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      I don't read the drudge report, but the layout beats the hell out of most sites, slashdot included.

      slashdot = stagnated.

      Wow, it's not very often you get a chance to post something semi-on-topic! Congrats!!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    31. Re:Ugly by byronne · · Score: 1

      There are no ponies. I only like sites featuring ponies.

      --
      "Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
    32. Re:Ugly by zeptic · · Score: 1

      I use iGoogle.com and cannot see why anybody would use drudgereport.com. Everything is just headlines. In iGoogle you at least get to read the start of the article/rss-feed before you proceed. How many times haven't you clicked on a headline and got disappointed when you discovered the article was about something completely different from what you expected?

      I know google tracks me but I don't mind when I get something in return. In this case a useful feature...

    33. Re:Ugly by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Changed my mind, see below. :P I was reading the PBS site.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    34. Re:Ugly by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Everything to program the neanderthal Retardicans needs to be right at the front - they have a limited size buffer in those protohuman brains, if you overflow it everything else goes into the bit-bucket rather than into long-term storage.

      THIS is for you!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    35. Re:Ugly by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      What explains their positively massive referral rate, if their page views are grossly inflated? Seems like they must have some real, solid traffic to be driving referrals at the volumes Pew found.

    36. Re:Ugly by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      It beats the hell out of the network news sites, with their pervasive cookies, auto-start videos, and general unwanted flash-a-palooza.

      Drudge has a javascript refresh in place, which is how they get their massive page views every month.
      I really hate pointless page refreshing.

      var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3);
      function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}

      This is not about how many page hits Drudge receives, but how many times someone clicks a link on Drudge that links to another site. Auto-refresh has no effect on that.

      Also, it's not really "pointless" refreshing. The idea is to leave the page up in the background and it stays current. There is no restoring the window on Monday morning and seeing Friday's news.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:Ugly by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      I read drudge on a regular basis the headlines are very tabloid and biased.

    38. Re:Ugly by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      If only government was as limited as my brain size, we would all be much better off.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    39. Re:Ugly by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Drudge is a one man operation with the occasional minion as well.

      I heard he makes about 1.3-2 million dollars a year on the site.

    40. Re:Ugly by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 2

      I have to agree the auto refresh is very annoying. It's not like the page is updated every few minutes.

    41. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      You're taking that out of context. When I look at the page, I see:

      <!--
      var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3);
      function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}
      //-->

    42. Re:Ugly by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Quick question: Is that a script you're using?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    43. Re:Ugly by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      face're using?

      Haha okay, thanks for answering my question. Have a good day, man.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    44. Re:Ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's really impressive when you consider that that code is comment out.

    45. Re:Ugly by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Astronaut George Taylor: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

    46. Re:Ugly by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Because seeing "by thePowerOfGrayskull" causes no end of amusement for my simple mind. Also because I forgot the account info and retired the email address used for my older real-name account. Though it's not like I make a secret of my real name in any case...

    47. Re:Ugly by neoform · · Score: 1

      Their CTR must be awful.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    48. Re:Ugly by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If you're new to the site, it can be a bit overwhelming, I'll admit. However, for a vet like me (And you have no idea how much it hurts to admit that I'm a Fox veteran) the information is right there. I know what to look for and where to go.

      No excuse, I know, but again, no scrolling.

      So, you're saying that the white space contains information? That's something I had always suspected. Thanks for the confirmation.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    49. Re:Ugly by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Naw, Drudgereport has been the same since before mobile browsers. It really hasn't changed layout wise since 1996.

      They must have gotten a really good deal on their monospaced font. Probably just stole it out of an old Linotype machine and never bothered to upgrade.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    50. Re:Ugly by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Well, you just have to think you're smarter than all of them.

      You're sitting pretty, dude.

    51. Re:Ugly by rcamans · · Score: 2

      You are such a clueless shit. I am not surprised that I can find you on slashdot.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    52. Re:Ugly by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      That, or you just get complete displacement. Someone posts on twitter: "Praise Allah, Osama bin Laden is dead." That's the story. There is no link to a "real" "news" website, you just read it and go celebrate.

    53. Re:Ugly by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Just because I hate Retardicans doesn't mean I hate Dumbicrats as much.

      That's the real reason I hate the stupid 2-party system. You can't say anything in support of one party without offending someone in the other party, and you can't condemn something one of them is doing without people assuming you approve of the other one. That silly logic would mean that every time I go into a restroom and say "wow, this one stinks" that means I eat off the floor in all the others because talking bad about one is support of all the others. Whether the restroom I'm in stinks is wholly unrelated to whether the next restroom stinks. In fact, from where I sit, looking at the political parties, I'd say they all stink. And arguing about which disgusting smell is slightly better or slightly worse than the other seems a waste of time when we should be cleaning them both out and starting over.

    54. Re:Ugly by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's always fun that way though. If the topic is covered in two places, CBS news and a blog by some guy who can't write worthy of a 3rd grade education, Slashdot will always link the blog. Why? Because anyone that wants to discuss the story will, and Slashdot will also get more views/comments because of all the people who will complain about the stupid method in which Slashdot links to blogs and not the original source.

    55. Re:Ugly by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It might just be my connection, but for being such an important site, DrudgeReport.com is one uuuuugly site.

      Really? I liked it! :) Perhaps it can be cleaner, but it's not ugly.

      Yes it is ugly. I've seen it for the first time today (as a non-American I have no great interest in US news sites) and it is like something out of a "build yourself a website in 24 hours" tutorial from the 1990s.

      Google is minimalist, the Drudge Report is fucking agricultural, if that's not unfair on farmers..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:Ugly by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Figuring Drudge has had the same basic site in place with almost no changes since the mid 90's (remember, he broke the Lewinski scandal the Newsweek tried to bury), of course the site is a 90's look.

      That is not an adequate excuse.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:Ugly by hoshino · · Score: 1

      Javascripts run even when commented out using HTML comment tags. The comment tags are for backward compatibility so that older browsers that cannot parse Javascript won't display the script as raw text.

    58. Re:Ugly by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree with you: I was looking at the PBS page when I wrote that comment, not Drudge Report. :P

      And you my friend, like me, correctly guessed that the page has been the same since the 90' (they broke the Lewinsky scandal): it's the bold letters, isn't it? Maybe they lost the admin password and they are stuck with the original html... and it's ugly.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    59. Re:Ugly by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, were you still speaking? I was just basking in the wonderful glow of not having your face. 'tis a shame you'll never know the feeling.

    60. Re:Ugly by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      That's reverse psychology: you make the site ugly as in the days of HTML 3 or something.

      It purposely doesn't look corporate or marketing-y.

      Thereby gaining the trust of users. "This guy's for real."

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  2. Redirects by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't most links on Twitter go via redirects like bit.ly? In that case I'm not sure how you would tell if traffic is coming from Twitter.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Redirects by afidel · · Score: 1

      Good point, in addition they only define news traffic as that inbound to big media, I would think that the younger audience of social media sites would tend to skew towards more diversified news sources.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Redirects by x*yy*x · · Score: 2

      Even if they go via bit.ly the referrer still shows them coming from Twitter.

      It's a stupid comparison anyway, people go to Drudge to read news (I guess, I've never used it before) and Twitter isn't the same. Also Drudge only contains links to news sites, so there isn't anything else to click on anyway.

    3. Re:Redirects by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      no analytics sorts it out - I work for one of the major publishers and some of our "big publishing" sites get a ton of traffic of twitter - the question is does it convert i bet drudge traffic is low quality.

    4. Re:Redirects by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also Drudge only contains links to news sites, so there isn't anything else to click on anyway.

      What about all the lovely ads?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. PBS is about to get /.'d by jonescb · · Score: 1

    I bet PBS gets more traffic from /. today than from Drudge Report.

    Or perhaps not, since nobody will read TFA (which is only a graph).

  4. meta refresh by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 1

    How often does Drudge force a reload to drive up counts?

    1. Re:meta refresh by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

      Drudge forces a reload of a linked site? Neat feature, how's that work?

    2. Re:meta refresh by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      maybe they load the linked site in an iframe, then inject a new iframe directly on top of it every now and then?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    3. Re:meta refresh by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 1

      You are not thinking I read the article or actually visited his site are you?

      That site gave me cancer in 2000 and I am just now getting over it. I only have hives now.

    4. Re:meta refresh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that they don't, good point.

      Everything is a direct link.

  5. What is traffic? by headhot · · Score: 1

    Is the amount of data moved by the site counted or is it the transactions/sessions. The data moved by twitter would be small, but the transaction count would be high.

    1. Re:What is traffic? by genrader · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't went to Drudge to discover that they, gasp, link to other news sites and do very little reporting of their own.

  6. Interesting by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 2

    Not only are social media and "web 2.0" overrated, but apparently css is too. Actually the grand champion of traffic drivers is probably good ole' email.

    1. Re:Interesting by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the 10 million or so people who hear, "Just got this from Drudge".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs

  7. Attention, Attention! by GoNINzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just so we're clear here, a news aggregator site creates more traffic to news sites than a social media site.

    Breaking news: People reading a news site are more likely to read other news sites than people playing farmville, news at 11.

    --
    Gonzo Granzeau
    "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
    1. Re:Attention, Attention! by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      It should also be noted that the report is biased by the news sites they used. Their list is full of Old Media. (newspapers and cable channels) Here is the list: Yahoo, MSNBC, AOLNews, Cnn, NY Daily News, Fox News, Huffington Post, Google News, Washington Post, USA Today, LA Times, ABC News, NY Times, CBS News, Examiner, Daily Mail, Topix, NY Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston.com, SF Gate

    2. Re:Attention, Attention! by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      I wish that you had somehow linked a news story about Farmville so that I could have done the reverse and had my head explode.

    3. Re:Attention, Attention! by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      If think first we have to define online news. 'I just got a Prince Albert - PiXieT@P' may not be news that I'm interested in, but his Facebook crowd would likely be thrilled by this nugget of information.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  8. No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for news by ktappe · · Score: 2

    Everyone I know who is on Facebook is annoyed when I post news stories/links. They all seem to envision FB as being thoughtless fun. Sports posts are fine, what I had for breakfast is fine, people dying in Syria or Exxon buying the fracking rights under their land are verbotten. Seriously. FB is the new vast wasteland, so is it any wonder there are fewer news clicks coming from there?

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  9. Well, Drudge doesn't have Slashdot editors by poity · · Score: 1

    So you know it's concise and up to date :D Nowadays I've got breakingnews.com in its own window. Yeah, it's owned by MSNBC (not that there's anything wrong with it) but you get updates on freshly posted stories from popular news sites as well as twitter posts from journalists. I'm sure they have human editors to filter through everything, but they seem to be actually doing their job since stories and tweets are linked within minutes of going online.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  10. No surprise by Kabloink · · Score: 1

    People flock to social media sites to see information about friends, family and other people they are interested in. If they want news, they go to the news site or a news aggregate site like Google, Yahoo, or Drudge.

    --
    "Thbbft!" - Bill the Cat
  11. Re:Uhm... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Hate his politics if you want, but Drudge often breaks news before other venues do and it's a quick and easy place for a bunch of headlines at once without a bunch of javascript and streaming video nonsense.

  12. Influences the news cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whatever you might think of Drudge's political leanings, there are a few things to consider:

    * If it's on Drudge the larger news outlets will soon be talking about it. His page has become what the NYT front page used to be. The 6-year old kid and the TSA agent story became a mainstream story because it was on Drudge. This morning there's TSA inspecting an infant. Expect that one to be picked up by the news outlets soon.
    * Drudge has influence over the political environment. One of the best ways to get a glimpse of the upcoming presidential race is to follow Drudge, even if it's with a "know you enemy" POV.
    * Most of Drudge is simply links to other news outlets. Occasionally he has his own exclusives. 90% or more of the news links take you AWAY from Drudge to sites with an array of political leanings, both right and left.

    1. Re:Influences the news cycle by brit74 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > "90% or more of the news links take you AWAY from Drudge to sites with an array of political leanings, both right and left."

      Heh, heh. Drudge isn't really linking to left-leaning articles. I used to visit Drudge for a while. Pretty soon, I'd play a game called "name the political party". Whenever they had a headline about a politician where I didn't recognize who they were or which political party they were with, I'd play a game called "name the political party". I was actually pretty good at it. If the headline was downplaying a politician's wrongdoing, then you could pretty much guess he was Republican. If it was a blistering headline attacking the politician, it was either a Democrat or a Republican that they were turning their back on because he had dome something they couldn't condone. The very fact that I could guess the political party based on how harshly they attacked them in the headline should be pretty good evidence of a right-wing bias.

      I also thought it was interesting in the last election that they refused to give the electoral vote count between Obama and McCain, choosing, instead to show the popular vote. Of course, the electoral vote tends to magnify the gap between the winner and loser, and they wanted to minimize how badly McCain lost. I'd bet money that they showed the electoral count and minimized the popular vote count during the Bush-Gore election, since Gore won the popular vote.

      Do you really think Drudge would get an approving nod from Rush Limbaugh if he wasn't a right winger? "Matt Drudge is the man who is to the Internet, what I am to broadcasting." -- Rush Limbaugh

      I think Drudge's favorite newsource is Andrew Breitbart, who is most definitely conservative.

    2. Re:Influences the news cycle by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Breitbart was an assistant editor for Drudge Report, so it only makes sense that Matt Drudge and him are friends. He also helped create the Huffington Post. Before he started the Big sites, he started his own news and video aggregator sites (which Drudge typically links to for wire stories from AP/Reuters/etc). He's definitely a conservative, but he's in the journalism business as much as any other publisher is (and virtually everyone in the journalism business carries a bias, so I'm not sure why you need to call out only one of them in particular).

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    3. Re:Influences the news cycle by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      * If it's on Drudge the larger news outlets will soon be talking about it.

      Small problem with this argument: Do they talk about it because it is news or because "another news source is talking about it?"

      Make no mistake, some news agencies talk about stories Drudge links to because they feel obligated to play catch-up. That doesn't necessarily make Drudge's content valuable, rather it implies that his influence drives stories.

    4. Re:Influences the news cycle by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      who is defending Breitbart? I simply gave some background information on him and why Drudge links to him. If that's "defending" to you, maybe you're a little too partisan in your reality with the well known liberal bias.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
  13. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by Foolhardly · · Score: 1

    If anything, I've always seen Facebook and Twitter as a distraction from reality (in the US). Perhaps the reasons too few people care about US foreign policy, Wikileaks information, and voting is because they're busy playing Farmville or catching up on the lasted Royal Wedding details.

  14. Re:Uhm... by cultiv8 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I read Drudge b/c I want to know what Republicans are saying, and then I go to Salon (and oddly enough, Jon Stewart) for the other side. Drudge has a powerful voice; he puts his spin on the news through his "clever" (ie. biased) phrasing of news events, which is usually picked up by the local and regional news stations. So the news might be (real-time example) "Too Much Fear? Package Threat Forces Evacuation Of Dallas DART Station" but Drudge titles it "USA FREAK OUT: TERROR FEARS; FALSE ALARMS". Interested to see what Fox has to say about it this evening...

    If I'm looking for "real" news, I usually go to NPR or /.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  15. i consider it to be the most beautiful site by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    because it is simple, elegant, utilitarian, and spare, like the google front page. it gets the job done without unnecessary showing off

    whenever substance trumps style, i am an ally, even though i hate drudge's politics

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i consider it to be the most beautiful site by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      On a computer rendering at 1440x900 I have to scroll down to see the headline.

      Again, utilitarianism and simplicity are my friends, but when I have to scroll to see the info there are better sites. Fox, or CNN for example.

      (note- this is not an endorsement of the content of Fox or CNN, merely they way they lay out their site)

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    2. Re:i consider it to be the most beautiful site by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yeah but you can see and read the headline. it isn't crowded out by a million little busy div boxes

      sparse. simple. plain. perfection

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:i consider it to be the most beautiful site by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1, Troll

      I really wish you would post this about 800 more times. It's very important that everyone who reads Slashdot knows your screen resolution and how opposed to scrolling you are.

    4. Re:i consider it to be the most beautiful site by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      1440x900. 1024x768 on my netbook. Also, people who need to scroll are jerks.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
  16. Drudge Doesn't Host News by ideonexus · · Score: 1

    Parent makes an important point. Drudge doesn't host any news. It's sole purpose is highlighting content elsewhere on the Internet. The Huffington Post generates far more traffic than Drudge (source (this is debatable, I know)), but the site doesn't drive traffic elsewhere. It will link to another site only for as long as it takes them to copy that site's content and get their own page up to keep you on the HuffPo.

    I'm curious about how they measured this also. Twitter and Facebook drive traffic to lots of places not news-related. I follow hundreds of scientists of Twitter and we don't link to the news stories about research, we link directly to the research papers themselves. There's a wide variety of "news content" that involves going directly to the primary source instead of having it mistranlated by some non-specialist. Pew has a very silly and antiquated definition of news.

    So I take this study as interesting trivia, and like most trivia it's not terribly informative about the importance or influence of any of these media.

    --
    i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
  17. social media = young = uninterested in news by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The purpose of social media is find out what your friends or contacts are doing, not far-away news.

  18. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the reasons too few people care about US foreign policy, Wikileaks information, and voting is because they're busy playing Farmville or catching up on the lasted Royal Wedding details.

    I suspect it's more that they've tried voting for people who promise Change! and discovered that it makes no difference.

  19. Only focusing on those that hit www.*.com? by aztektum · · Score: 1

    Most people I know with a Facebook or especially Twitter, do updates from an app on their phone. In Twitter's case there are also dozens of desktop apps available. I believe there are some for Facebook as well.

    Traffic measured by hits to a URL isn't giving the whole picture.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  20. Re:FudgePacking more exciting than being sociable by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

    Schizophrenia is a hell of a disease.

  21. Redirects make this study useless by jaffray · · Score: 1

    Of course Twitter refers almost no traffic to news sites - Twitter sends traffic to bit.ly and the like, which then redirect to news sites. To a lesser extent, so does Facebook.

    Looking through the original study, they don't even attempt to address this issue. Remarkably shoddy work.

    1. Re:Redirects make this study useless by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      I couldn't determine in the original study whether they accounted for redirectors or not. If they didn't I'm very surprised twitter showed up at all statistically, which makes me suspect that they did. Did you see something in their methodology that suggests or states that they did not account for URL shorteners when dealing with traffic from twitter or FB? If they didn't account for URL shorteners then as you suggest the study is worthless and will create FUD only. Thanks for any references on methodology. I know some folks at Pew so I will make a little noise over there if you (or others) can give me a leg to stand on.

  22. Only counting redirects by makubesu · · Score: 1

    so maybe folks on facebook just don't rtfa.

  23. How Odd by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    How odd it is to see the phrases "Excellence in Journalism" and "Drudge Report" in the same sentence.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:How Odd by webdog314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, I'd mod this flamebait, but I really don't think you're that smart.

      Did it even occur to you that if 90% of the media is contrary to your chosen political view, that it might actually be due to the fact that *you* are the "radical" and there might be a legitimate reason they disagree with you? Or even that your political view itself is too "exclusive" to allow unbiased reporting in *any* news organization?

    2. Re:How Odd by brit74 · · Score: 1

      I think I'd be a lot happier if conservative news and conservative viewers would actually admit that they have a right-wing bias. Instead, they constantly like to pretend that they've got The Unvarnished Truth, and everybody else has left-wing-bias blinders on. If some right-winger wants to complain that Keith Olbermann or John Stewart are biased towards the left, I don't have a problem with that. I understand that. But, if I complain that they aren't getting the full story from their biased news sources, they get all pissy, like FOX News, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh's musings were handed down from on high and I'm a dirty infidel for undermining The Truth.

    3. Re:How Odd by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The problem with the left is that it is Statist in philosophy and Statists recognize one and only one virtue and that virtue is obedience. To a Statist, honesty is not a virtue, honorable dealings is not a virtue, a sense of fair play is not a virtue - nothing is a virtue except obediently touting the party line.

      You seem to be confusing the terms "left wing" and "unreconstructed ultra-hardline stereotypical bogeyman Stalinist".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:How Odd by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Leftist radicals still control most of the media

      Yes, because people like Rupert Murdoch are leftist radicals. On Planet Loony Tunes.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  24. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

    It's been my experience that even the people who post news and political rants, seldom actually want to actually discuss the things they're saying. I had a guy post a rant about a political candidate. When I commented on it, politely expressing an opposing view and asking where he got his information, he first called me names, then accused me of drug-use, then complained about people always thinking they're experts and wanting to tell him how to vote. Finally told me to keep my political opinions to myself. This was all after he posted a political opinion in a public forum...

    Needless to say, I removed the jerk from my "friends" list. I guess I learned not to put people on my friends list just because they lived in the same dorm as me in college.

  25. Not twitter's problem... by raehl · · Score: 1

    Twitter's real problem is many of their users are receiving tweets on devices that are not conducive to reading the news, and on devices being held by people who are far less likely to be able / want to read the news anyway.

    Think about it - if someone's preferred method of communication is 160 characters or less, how likely are they to want to read an article?

  26. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by Unequivocal · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't call FB a wasteland, I would call it an async cocktail party. Not many people want to be bummed out by the guy with all the global warming crisis news at the cocktail party. It's just not the right venue -- people go to FB for a very specific, personal purpose, which in many cases (I think) bears a lot of similarity to the kind of communication that occurs at cocktail parties (bumping into people who you haven't seen in awhile, 1 and 2 degree of separation conversations, and lots of random tidbits from a whole bunch of people).

    Note: If you don't like the word cocktail party, call it "kegger" or "house party" or whatever your demographic uses for same social function.

  27. Not for Massive Page Views by The+O+Rly+Factor · · Score: 1

    That sort of Javascript code usually says: "Well we were too lazy / too cheap to hire proper Ajax developers."

    1. Re:Not for Massive Page Views by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      By 'proper' you mean 'billable hours for me and my buddies,' correct?

  28. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by rthille · · Score: 1

    You've got the wrong group of FB friends... At least for that content.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  29. Re:false numbers via auto-reloads by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    They are not comparing page views. They are comparing referrals. That only occurs when someone clicks on a link and is redirected to one of those 21 web pages. How often his page refreshes doesn't matter at all.

  30. You say news by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I say propaganda.

  31. Very misleading article and title by wealthychef · · Score: 1

    If you define "generates news traffic" as "driving news traffic to top Web sites," which the study does, then yes, Drudge is important. But who says those "top news sites" are themselves important? The implication here is that somehow more people use Drudge than Facebook for news, and I think that's debatable! Anyhow, the premise here is weird and reflects some old-school thinking.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  32. Facebook good for breaking news by Relayman · · Score: 2

    You need new Facebook friends. My wife is connected with a bunch of journalists and she gets breaking news through it before the MSM picks it up. For example, when President Obama announced he was going to speak to the nation a week ago Sunday, she heard about it first on Facebook. Then we turned on the television. But news like this doesn't need a link so the news sites might not have gotten a hit from this.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  33. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by Relayman · · Score: 1

    It's all about who your friends are. Do the interests of your Facebook friends reflect on you? I don't want to go there.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  34. Drudge: Site Design from 1997 by salesgeek · · Score: 1

    Table layout... vlines... too many links... an animated GIF (of a bubble-gum machine style police light)... 1997 design at it's best! The best part is that Drudge has kicked most major news outlets in the ass for over 10 years...

    --
    -- $G
    1. Re:Drudge: Site Design from 1997 by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Counts just as much as the liberal propaganda.

      I'm more into the libertarian propaganda lately, though.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  35. Drudge generates more inane comment traffic than.. by ajdub · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm always amused by the comment sections on stories that get linked by Drudge. It's like a freakin' firehose that sprays misspelled conspiracy theories about illegal space alien Obama clones that maraud across the countryside in the thick of night, eating babies and freedom while dropping turds of poisonous socialism that are festering with job eating worms.

  36. And that aint all! by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    Drudge report also generates more news than this article!

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
  37. Re:Uhm... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    A small protest in eastern rural Botswana against local bread prices led to a minor scuffle in which two protesters received minor injuries. Coming up next a half-hour interview with a mother of three from At-Bashi, Kyrgyzstan about her life as a clay pottery store owner.

    LOL so true XD

    - GIMP version 3.5.1.3a.4.0.1 released with updated color-selector logic

    Hah I'd welcome such a story on Slashdot these days. Now it's like "dumbed-down toy for computer-illiterate grandmas now available in new color!"

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  38. Searching for OBL titbit. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    After OBL was killed there were plenty of news reports about "Who is Osama?" topping the search queries and tweets. I recall one of the teens interviewed about not known who OBL was prior to this news said, "I don't google or search for anything anymore. If I want to know something, I tweet and someone who knows will tell me". Looks the tweeterati considers only stuff about their core group as "news" and everything else something secondary to their self absorbed life. No wonder tweets do not direct people to news stories.

    Find the kids with huge number of followers. And start calling them "Sir" or "Madam", they are your next Senator or Rep or a Prez.

    Scared ya, right? OBL was nothing folks. This is scary.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  39. Re:Drudge generates more inane comment traffic tha by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And other than political orientation - that's different from Slashdot how? (Yeah, I grant most Slashdotters can actually spell.)

  40. Re:Drudge generates more inane comment traffic tha by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    That is a bother. It's about as bad as the HuffPo site comments that blame Bush for personally executing 15,000 Iraqis a day and physically planting the the explosive that brought down the Twin Towers, while Sarah Palin was rounding up operatives to shoot down moderate Democrats with the aid of campaign posters.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  41. Re:Drudge generates more inane comment traffic tha by halivar · · Score: 2

    (Yeah, I grant most Slashdotters can actually spell.)

    You must be new here.

    /checks-uid

    Wait...

  42. Re:Look in the mirror: by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

    Well I heard that if you hang around UofH long enough AND give them enough money they'll just give you a degree. :)

    --
    This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
  43. The shashdot effect by bobs666 · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember the slashdot effect, where we would shutdown servers due to all the traffic we would send.

    I guess nerds do not rate the news.

  44. Re:Look in the mirror: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't be all that surprised. If it works for star athletes, its gotta work for heavy donors.

    When I was an undergrad, there was a guy working on a physics degree who was also playing football (not a starter by any means). Apparently one of the physics advisors took him aside and told him he really needed to get serious about physics and give up football. Soon after, one of the coaches took him aside and told him he really needed to get serious about football and give up physics.

  45. Drudge: popular through terse, consistent design by Loopy · · Score: 2

    Drudge succeeds at the newsfeed game for the same reason Google did as a search engine: Just The Facts, Ma'am(tm). Go to CNN, Fox, Huffpo, whatever and you are bombarded by flashy-blinky-OMGTHEYMAKETHATCOLOR? bits of stuff that may or may not be related to news. And drudge is text, making it easy to view on mobile devices.

    I really don't care if my news site has New and Improved(tm) columns and colors every 6 months. I'm only here for the data, bro.

  46. And you can get malware there, too! by PNutts · · Score: 1

    Guy in the cube next to me got zapped when he went to Drudge to verify Internet connectivity. Sure, probably a rouge ad server but we haven't been back since. Drudge denied anyone reported it to him (we did) and also claimed it was a political lie to discredit his site (it wasn't).

    1. Re:And you can get malware there, too! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      3rd party advertisement sites are getting hacked through SQL injection exploits. It turns them into FakeAV servers hosting out that drive-by malware to any website that's a member of these advertisement agencies.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  47. Must be right... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

    Since I have seen this story referenced on drudge and nobody I know has tweeted it... Makes sense I guess....

    --
    FragHARD or don't frag at all
  48. Re:Look in the mirror: by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    No, you should never vote for, never mind register as a member of a political party you don't believe in. If you have a choice between what you consider two evils, you do not choose the lesser evil, you go outside the system. There is seldom an A or B only choice in life.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  49. Re:Never heard of it by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I'm the only one that has never heard of this Drudge thing before?

    Like me, you're probably not American. I always thought it was some sort of shitty celebrity gossip site like Perez Hilton's, mainly because it first became famous over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  50. Re:Look in the mirror: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    So, that implies you vote straight ticket of whatever party you've chosen, if you indeed chose one. Else, you'd have to say you believe in various parties, and it doesn't sound like that's what you're saying.

    That party really loves you. It also means that they can take your vote for granted unless you go directly to the "outside the system" option.

    Rarely are you going to find a party who you agree with on all issues.

  51. Re:uninterested in news? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    We aren't uninterested in news - we just don't use Facebook to find it. You also don't typically find porn through Facebook but no-one's doubting porn's popularity among the young.

    I wondered why all those attractive young women on facebook refused to friend me.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  52. Re:No Surprise--Facebook is apparently not for new by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I had a guy post a rant about a political candidate. When I commented on it, politely expressing an opposing view and asking where he got his information, he first called me names, then accused me of drug-use, then complained about people always thinking they're experts and wanting to tell him how to vote. Finally told me to keep my political opinions to myself. This was all after he posted a political opinion in a public forum

    Shitcock!

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  53. More chevettes than Ferarris, too. by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Sometimes the most common isn't the best. A lot of times, actually.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  54. Re:Look in the mirror: by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

    Yep, hard to say which one would be better? Short career with your abilities giving out in your early 30s and not much to show for a life's work or you could choose football. I did spend a bit of time at good old U of H. Thought it was a good school. Please take these comments in the spirit that they are meant. Just poking fun here. I am not a physicist but I used to work for a bunch of em.

    --
    This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.