O'Reilly didn't say this, but I still think it's a better way of defining the differences between him and RMS: Stallman denies that proprietary software can even *be* ethical. Unless I've totally misunderstood him (and I'd be happy to be corrected), his view is that to release proprietary software is intrinsically unethical.
This, as far as I'm concerned, is balderdash. While it is certainly generous for software authors to give away their work, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with choosing not to do so. Stallman denies this, and his insistence upon it is what makes him such an irritant. Being an advocate for free software is one thing; RMS would condemn all authors of proprietary code to hell if he could, I suspect.
Yes, I am. Exactly. Should I -- should you -- should he -- be satisfied with him just being a Boomer? No. Emphatically, no. If what his generation represents is screwed up, then I will not praise nor endorse a faithful representation of it. What is needed is rising above it. I surely don't think that I can change him (or anyone else -- excepting me, and I'm not all that sure about being able to do that either), but I can surely try to persuade him to change his own self-centered, self-absorbed view of the world.
Good post, by the way. A thoughtful response is not what I was expecting.
First, I didn't particularly enjoy the article, for the same reasons I rarely enjoy any Katz article: cheap potshots at groups with whom he disagrees (and about which he seems to know very little); the "we're so good; how'd all those people in history have everything so screwed up? tone that pervades almost every sentence of a Katz commentary.
The American Revolution was hardly born out of the Enlightenment. This is absurd on its face. The differences between it and the French Revolution were profound. The leaders of the American Revolution were not blind to the realities of human nature. The butchery of the French Revolution doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the American War for Independence.
Perhaps the most consistently annoying thing about a Katz article (including this one) is how self-congratulatory he is about modern society. Perhaps the principal characteristic of 20th Century Western culture is how blind it is to the past. Drunk with his own importance, the 20th century man can't learn a thing from history. "All that came before me were blinded by their own prejudices," he declaims; yet he can't see his own bigotries for what they are. He can't see that in the name of "tolerance" and for the sake of "equality" he imposes tyrannies even worse than those in the past that he condemns as dictatorial, as chains on the human spirit.
Katz needs to lighten up. We're not as important as he thinks. We're just a drop in the bucket of history, and a dirty little drop we are, too.
BTW, why is it OK for/. to delete comments but not OK for the FSF to ask programmers to use a particular license?
Okay, I'll admit that "pseudo-ethical" wasn't the best choice of words. Instead, try this: The FSF jihad claims that free software is an ethical issue, and that is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my entire life. GPL-ed code is no more ethical in and of itself than proprietary code.
There, is that any clearer?
I have no problem with the GPL. I have no problem at all with a programmer choosing to use ANY license he wishes for his software -- even if it's proprietary. What I object to is the ridiculous idea (argued for by the FSF jihad literally every time licensing issues come up here on Slashdot) that the GPL is the only moral license one can use for free software. This is bogus. It is laughably, pathetically false.
This is not to say that the GPL is necessarily completely bad (though the "viral" aspects of it might be legitimately disliked by some). My point is that the GPL is ONE free license. It's not the ONLY one, and may not even be the BEST one, and it's CERTAINLY not the only moral one -- despite the ravings of the jihad.
if he is willing to accept non-GPL license agreements does that mean he is willing to accept MSEUL? I doubt it, but you worded it wrong.
No I didn't. I said he is willing to accept non-GPL free licenses. Read my post again. Clearly the fact that he declares the QPL to be a free license means he can accept it, even if he personally prefers some other license. And Microsoft's EULA is not something that anyone would reasonably construe as a "free" license.
The QPL is a free license unless your definition of "free" is that of the FSF jihad. The fact that you must pay for Qt if you wish to develop commercial software with it has no impact whatever on the nature of the QPL...unless, of course, your interest is free beer rather than this "free speech" I hear so much about?
You don't have to do anything. That's the beauty of it. You don't like it? Don't use it.
This has nothing to do with whether it's free or proprietary, and really all code except public domain code is "proprietary": someone owns it, and they have released (or not released) it under certain terms. Sometimes the terms are more liberal (the BSD license); other times they are stricter (the GPL); and still other times they require patches.
You don't own GPL-ed code. You never have. You never will unless it's code of your own. It's free to use as the author dictates. Same with Qt.
If you don't like it: don't use it. My, that's simple, isn't it? Choice is a beautiful thing. It's a shame the FSF jihad refuses to see that.
Yeah, I know. The issue in this thread, however, is the QPL. He realizes that it's "free". Far too many of the jihad refuse to accept that.
My conclusion is that though Bruce is strongly in favor of free software, he's willing to accept non-GPL free licenses. Some folk seem incapable of doing that, and they're really the target of my screed.
I don't know what happened -- Slashdot bug or Slashdot editorial policy -- but my reply to this disappeared (it was there last night). So I'll try one more time.
Bruce, you should save your breath. The FSF jihad will never stop, because their viewpoint is essentially theological, and they have made conformity to the GPL into a pseudo-ethical issue.
It is a crusade for them, like the Crusades of old: "Use the GPL, or we'll verbally destroy you!!!" They're not worth the time or energy. You can't argue with zealots.
BTW: If my first reply to this was censored: Yes, Slashdot has the right to do so. I admit that, and have no problem with it. But as far as I'm concerned it also shows the lengths to which the FSF jihad is willing to go to "win" in its holy war against all those who have the temerity to question the jihad.
RMS is already infamous for interrupting and berating people for saying "Linux" in his presence rather than his lame phrase. The man is incapable of carrying on a civil conversation about the subject if he resorts to that sort of nonsense.
I stand by what I said: he's trying to force people to use his terms. There are different levels and degrees of force. Obviously a gun to the head is one degree. Another is being such an obnoxious boor that you refuse to let another person use in your presence whatever words they want to describe an operating system without hurling insults or pitching a fit or interrupting them to "correct" them (as though they had misused the English language).
So please tell me who's throwing the tantrum here: Me, when I insist on the right to call Linux what I want, or RMS, who can't even engage in a conversation about it unless it's called "[insert his useless, ugly phrase here]"?
People can call it what they want. They don't need RMS or anyone else berating them because they use common terms to refer to Linux.
What you have demonstrated is the absurdity of the jihad's position. Linus is way down there at 726, yet we all call it what he says. And where is the moaning and complaining of the other authors who play such a big role in the success of Linux? Why doesn't Don Becker demand that it be called "Don/Linux" or "NASA/Linux"? Why doesn't Alan Cox or Ted T'so cry for recognition?
Because they are grownups. Because they don't have this jihad mentality of the FSF.
No one was saying -- no one has ever said -- that FSF tools were an insignificant part of the system. But it's bogus to think that because of their importance they somehow deserve special recognition in the name, IMO.
No, it's NOT a plurality of FSF stuff.
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
It's a plurality of "unrecognized."
No, we don't want to call it "Unrecognized/Linux". As others have said, we want to call it Linux. It's the FSF jihad that wants to add to the name. By their own argument, it's time for them to start calling it "Unrecognized/Linux", right? After all, credit where credit is due, right? We wouldn't have a system without that contribution, right?
See, this is all nonsense. People can call it what they want. If Stallman wants to call it "GNU/Linux" or "MyLinux" or even "RMS/Linux", go ahead. But he now ought to stop trying to force his ludicrous viewpoint on others.
a handful of idiots outed Bush's mistress while he was in office.
I recall this, and as it turned out later reports confirmed that there was actually no evidence to establish that he had a mistress. This, of course, has nothing whatever to do with whether he actually did: but it was never proven. The same cannot be said about Boy Clinton.
But they are gossip-column items And like I said: Drudge wouldn't really deny that. Whether they're tabloid fare from time to time has nothing to do with whether they're true (note: I am not here approving of everything I read on Drudge's site).
I still don't think his motives are pure. I won't presume to judge, and I don't think that matters all that much so long as he a) prints the truth; and b) acknowledges when he makes a mistake. Isn't that all we expect from any journalist? I assure you, I can easily think of some mainstream reporters who have demonstrated less than pristine motivations from time to time. But what's the point?
Concerning his revising of headlines: Either he is correcting a mistake or the first one is a "hook". If it's a hook, then I condemn it. I think he's done this more than once, and I don't think it's a good idea. If he's correcting a mistake, fine. As to the video you mention: The video existed; I saw clips of it somewhere on the Net (following links from Drudge's site, if I recall; but it's been awhile). Drudge possibly insinuated too much about it. But given the salacious behavior of Clinton, there's certainly room for wondering just exactly who the girl was and what they were doing. Still, there's something to be said for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and Drudge may have been showing those "evil motives" you suggest.
Were his reports on Willey, if there were any, right or wrong?
I don't know if she was a liar or not. But even 60 Minutes considered her worth a story, so if we condemn Drudge over her, we have to condemn them as well.
Every time I visit his site, it's Clinton stuff.
Well, considering that Clinton coverage made him the celebrity he is, I think that's understandable. He doesn't cover GOP scandals as much; I suppose he generally leaves that to the mainstream media -- a la the Bob Packwood mess.
The best they've done is the old canard about the "liberal media".
Oh, I can do better than that! Like: The Riadys, who control one of the only major sources of clean-burning coal in the world, give beaucoup $$ to Clinton's campaign. Then, Billy-boy declares the United States' largest reserve of such coal to be a national monument or preserve, effectively preventing anyone from developing that coal. Coincidence? Or: how about all that Chinese money being funnelled into his campaign? And what about all these allegations of the Chinese stealing our technology? And these allegations that the Clinton Administration did nothing for over two years upon learning of it???? Coincidence???? I don't think so. And don't get me started about Mena, Arkansas during Clinton's days as governor.
See? I told you I could do better than just the liberal media (though they *are* liberal).!:-)
I know I said I was done with this, but I can't help myself. I'm just a glutton for punishment, I suppose.
Again, the Murdoch connection.
Again, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" nonsense. You're not helping your case with this. Let's make an agreement: I won't babble insanely about vast left-wing conspiracies, and you don't babble about vast right-wing ones.
Yes, the whole love child thing proved to be bogus, as Drudge acknowledged when it was all over. Big Whoop. And he reported the results in the exact same space where he reported the allegations in the first place, which is far more than you'd typically get from the New York Times, that bastion of "responsible journalism" where corrections are relegated to a corner on an inside page if they get reported at all.
Whether it was ethical to publish or not as the matter unfolded is another question. I suppose I'd probably agree with you that it's better not to report it at first. Nevertheless, your "responsible journalists" are frequently no better. I have been involved in cases where TV reporters broadcast a lie. When presented with documentary evidence that they were wrong, they responded with "Well, I couldn't be expected to read that!" And no retraction ever broadcast either. So much for ethics. And how many times do "responsible journalists" publish stories of some woman or other claiming that she was raped by an athlete? Later, if anyone's listening, the charges are discredited. Sometimes the woman gets thrown in jail for perjury (imagine! Jail for a lie about SEX!!!). But does that fact get published with the same reckless abandon that the allegations did? No it does not.
Spare me the condemnations of Drudge over this. He's no worse than his mainstream counterparts. I'd feel better if you condemned them for the same thing.
Here's the juicy "facts" about Drudge's "50% error rate":
Brill's Content reviewed the 51 stories Drudge labeled "Exclusive" between January and September 1998, it found that of the 31 stories that actually were exclusive, ten (32 percent) were untrue and/or never happened, 11 (36 percent) were true, and the accuracy of the remaining ten (32 percent) is debatable or still unknown.
That's it, folks. No actual data: just "statistics" without any reference to actual data substantiating the claims the numbers represent.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the rather lengthy article we are presented case after case after case where Drudge actually got it right. There were, I think, one or two cases where Drudge corrected headlines that were erroneous; but again, he corrected himself.
Get over it folks. You have yet to prove Drudge a liar; you have yet to substantiate your claim that he presents errors that he leaves uncorrected. You don't have to like him. But you're so far doing a poor job of discrediting him, it seems to me.
Why don't you start by giving me stories ("exclusives", not wire-service or second-hand reports) that he's gotten right?
I doubt that you'll accept this, but Monica Lewinsky sure comes to my mind real easily. Another: King Hussein of Jordan's ill health (Drudge reported that the king was nearing death a full two weeks before the story crept into any other outlet that I know of).
I don't accept your definition of terms anyway, if by "second-hand reports" you are attempting to omit stories that Drudge learns others are about to publish (or spike, as in the Lewinsky matter and the Juanita Broaddrick rape case).
Secondly, what makes you think that I believe everything Drudge writes? I certainly don't believe everything I see on TV, hear on the radio or read in the NYTimes or Washington Post. I accord Drudge the same respect.
I'm grasping at straws
I'll help you: Drudge was wrong about Sidney Blumenthal's marital problems. He went to press with a story he had not checked at all, and was wrong. He published a retraction upon learning of the error (of course, this wasn't good enough for Sidney the Hatchet Man).
Personally, I could not care less about your preposterous "list". As if conservatives couldn't fabricate something exactly similar for Bill & Co. And it really has nothing whatever to do with the issue. You were asked to present a single case where Drudge was wrong on a story. The instance you presented -- the love child -- was inadequate, because Drudge acknowledged the truth on his site. You are still in the position of having failed in the one challenge you were given. A "rumor" that is not substantiated enough to suit you is not necessarily false (and yes, it's not necessarily true either).
Drudge acknowledges that he is something of a gossip columnist. I don't think that anyone would question that. Nevertheless, he actually has broken some stories that others refused to cover. Whether you like it or not is another matter.
Note, too, that Drudge also covered the news that Hyde and other Republicans had a less-than-pristine background themselves.
I'm done with this thread; it really has nothing to do with customizing Slashdot!:-)
Drudge reported this story, and he reported the efforts to verify it via DNA, and he reported that the DNA tests disproved it.
How exactly is this "wrong", aside from opinions as to whether he should have reported it? I submit that if this had been a "Henry Hyde lovechild", the Big Four plus the major newspapers would have been all over it. I assure you that had it been Clarence Thomas, they would have been all over it for certain (please note that Anita Hill had as much evidence as this "lovechild" woman does/did). I trust that if you disapprove of the one, you would likewise disapprove of the other.
So: we're still waiting, as far as I'm concerned, for your "evidence" of a story Drudge got wrong.
By the way, do we really need to throw around "credentials"? The "credentialled" journalists at CNN royally screwed up a story about Viet Nam recently, didn't they? Hmmm, have they ever taken a journalism class?
Or what about...NBC being forced to settle over faked video for a report on GM trucks?
The list goes on. Credentials are positively no guarantee of good journalism. You'll have to do better than this, I'm afraid.
Slashdot Mirror
This, as far as I'm concerned, is balderdash. While it is certainly generous for software authors to give away their work, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with choosing not to do so. Stallman denies this, and his insistence upon it is what makes him such an irritant. Being an advocate for free software is one thing; RMS would condemn all authors of proprietary code to hell if he could, I suspect.
Yes, I am. Exactly. Should I -- should you -- should he -- be satisfied with him just being a Boomer? No. Emphatically, no. If what his generation represents is screwed up, then I will not praise nor endorse a faithful representation of it. What is needed is rising above it. I surely don't think that I can change him (or anyone else -- excepting me, and I'm not all that sure about being able to do that either), but I can surely try to persuade him to change his own self-centered, self-absorbed view of the world.
Good post, by the way. A thoughtful response is not what I was expecting.
The American Revolution was hardly born out of the Enlightenment. This is absurd on its face. The differences between it and the French Revolution were profound. The leaders of the American Revolution were not blind to the realities of human nature. The butchery of the French Revolution doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the American War for Independence.
Perhaps the most consistently annoying thing about a Katz article (including this one) is how self-congratulatory he is about modern society. Perhaps the principal characteristic of 20th Century Western culture is how blind it is to the past. Drunk with his own importance, the 20th century man can't learn a thing from history. "All that came before me were blinded by their own prejudices," he declaims; yet he can't see his own bigotries for what they are. He can't see that in the name of "tolerance" and for the sake of "equality" he imposes tyrannies even worse than those in the past that he condemns as dictatorial, as chains on the human spirit.
Katz needs to lighten up. We're not as important as he thinks. We're just a drop in the bucket of history, and a dirty little drop we are, too.
There was a joke in a movie a while back about Americans failing English classes, and it's our mother tongue.
BTW, "practise" is a British spelling, so that might not have been an error by the translator.
BTW, why is it OK for /. to delete comments but not OK for the FSF to ask programmers to use a particular license?
Okay, I'll admit that "pseudo-ethical" wasn't the best choice of words. Instead, try this: The FSF jihad claims that free software is an ethical issue, and that is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my entire life. GPL-ed code is no more ethical in and of itself than proprietary code.
There, is that any clearer?
I have no problem with the GPL. I have no problem at all with a programmer choosing to use ANY license he wishes for his software -- even if it's proprietary. What I object to is the ridiculous idea (argued for by the FSF jihad literally every time licensing issues come up here on Slashdot) that the GPL is the only moral license one can use for free software. This is bogus. It is laughably, pathetically false.
This is not to say that the GPL is necessarily completely bad (though the "viral" aspects of it might be legitimately disliked by some). My point is that the GPL is ONE free license. It's not the ONLY one, and may not even be the BEST one, and it's CERTAINLY not the only moral one -- despite the ravings of the jihad.
Good post! Unfortunately, the FSF jihad doesn't share your reasonable opinion.
No I didn't. I said he is willing to accept non-GPL free licenses. Read my post again. Clearly the fact that he declares the QPL to be a free license means he can accept it, even if he personally prefers some other license. And Microsoft's EULA is not something that anyone would reasonably construe as a "free" license.
The QPL is a free license unless your definition of "free" is that of the FSF jihad. The fact that you must pay for Qt if you wish to develop commercial software with it has no impact whatever on the nature of the QPL...unless, of course, your interest is free beer rather than this "free speech" I hear so much about?
You don't have to do anything. That's the beauty of it. You don't like it? Don't use it.
This has nothing to do with whether it's free or proprietary, and really all code except public domain code is "proprietary": someone owns it, and they have released (or not released) it under certain terms. Sometimes the terms are more liberal (the BSD license); other times they are stricter (the GPL); and still other times they require patches.
You don't own GPL-ed code. You never have. You never will unless it's code of your own. It's free to use as the author dictates. Same with Qt.
If you don't like it: don't use it. My, that's simple, isn't it? Choice is a beautiful thing. It's a shame the FSF jihad refuses to see that.
My conclusion is that though Bruce is strongly in favor of free software, he's willing to accept non-GPL free licenses. Some folk seem incapable of doing that, and they're really the target of my screed.
Bruce, you should save your breath. The FSF jihad will never stop, because their viewpoint is essentially theological, and they have made conformity to the GPL into a pseudo-ethical issue.
It is a crusade for them, like the Crusades of old: "Use the GPL, or we'll verbally destroy you!!!" They're not worth the time or energy. You can't argue with zealots.
BTW: If my first reply to this was censored: Yes, Slashdot has the right to do so. I admit that, and have no problem with it. But as far as I'm concerned it also shows the lengths to which the FSF jihad is willing to go to "win" in its holy war against all those who have the temerity to question the jihad.
Which is a lot more than we can say for RMS and the FSF jihad, sadly.
Sorry, it's afternoon. I just ate lunch, and I guess I'm a little sluggish. What does this have to do with what I said?
(BTW, I like that "Fettered Software Foundation" thing! I'll have to remember that...)
I stand by what I said: he's trying to force people to use his terms. There are different levels and degrees of force. Obviously a gun to the head is one degree. Another is being such an obnoxious boor that you refuse to let another person use in your presence whatever words they want to describe an operating system without hurling insults or pitching a fit or interrupting them to "correct" them (as though they had misused the English language).
So please tell me who's throwing the tantrum here: Me, when I insist on the right to call Linux what I want, or RMS, who can't even engage in a conversation about it unless it's called "[insert his useless, ugly phrase here]"?
People can call it what they want. They don't need RMS or anyone else berating them because they use common terms to refer to Linux.
What you have demonstrated is the absurdity of the jihad's position. Linus is way down there at 726, yet we all call it what he says. And where is the moaning and complaining of the other authors who play such a big role in the success of Linux? Why doesn't Don Becker demand that it be called "Don/Linux" or "NASA/Linux"? Why doesn't Alan Cox or Ted T'so cry for recognition?
Because they are grownups. Because they don't have this jihad mentality of the FSF.
No, we don't want to call it "Unrecognized/Linux". As others have said, we want to call it Linux. It's the FSF jihad that wants to add to the name. By their own argument, it's time for them to start calling it "Unrecognized/Linux", right? After all, credit where credit is due, right? We wouldn't have a system without that contribution, right?
See, this is all nonsense. People can call it what they want. If Stallman wants to call it "GNU/Linux" or "MyLinux" or even "RMS/Linux", go ahead. But he now ought to stop trying to force his ludicrous viewpoint on others.
I recall this, and as it turned out later reports confirmed that there was actually no evidence to establish that he had a mistress. This, of course, has nothing whatever to do with whether he actually did: but it was never proven. The same cannot be said about Boy Clinton.
But they are gossip-column items And like I said: Drudge wouldn't really deny that. Whether they're tabloid fare from time to time has nothing to do with whether they're true (note: I am not here approving of everything I read on Drudge's site).
I still don't think his motives are pure. I won't presume to judge, and I don't think that matters all that much so long as he a) prints the truth; and b) acknowledges when he makes a mistake. Isn't that all we expect from any journalist? I assure you, I can easily think of some mainstream reporters who have demonstrated less than pristine motivations from time to time. But what's the point?
Concerning his revising of headlines: Either he is correcting a mistake or the first one is a "hook". If it's a hook, then I condemn it. I think he's done this more than once, and I don't think it's a good idea. If he's correcting a mistake, fine. As to the video you mention: The video existed; I saw clips of it somewhere on the Net (following links from Drudge's site, if I recall; but it's been awhile). Drudge possibly insinuated too much about it. But given the salacious behavior of Clinton, there's certainly room for wondering just exactly who the girl was and what they were doing. Still, there's something to be said for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and Drudge may have been showing those "evil motives" you suggest.
Were his reports on Willey, if there were any, right or wrong?
I don't know if she was a liar or not. But even 60 Minutes considered her worth a story, so if we condemn Drudge over her, we have to condemn them as well.
Every time I visit his site, it's Clinton stuff.
Well, considering that Clinton coverage made him the celebrity he is, I think that's understandable. He doesn't cover GOP scandals as much; I suppose he generally leaves that to the mainstream media -- a la the Bob Packwood mess.
The best they've done is the old canard about the "liberal media".
Oh, I can do better than that! Like: The Riadys, who control one of the only major sources of clean-burning coal in the world, give beaucoup $$ to Clinton's campaign. Then, Billy-boy declares the United States' largest reserve of such coal to be a national monument or preserve, effectively preventing anyone from developing that coal. Coincidence? Or: how about all that Chinese money being funnelled into his campaign? And what about all these allegations of the Chinese stealing our technology? And these allegations that the Clinton Administration did nothing for over two years upon learning of it???? Coincidence???? I don't think so. And don't get me started about Mena, Arkansas during Clinton's days as governor.
See? I told you I could do better than just the liberal media (though they *are* liberal).! :-)
Again, the Murdoch connection.
Again, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" nonsense. You're not helping your case with this. Let's make an agreement: I won't babble insanely about vast left-wing conspiracies, and you don't babble about vast right-wing ones.
Yes, the whole love child thing proved to be bogus, as Drudge acknowledged when it was all over. Big Whoop. And he reported the results in the exact same space where he reported the allegations in the first place, which is far more than you'd typically get from the New York Times, that bastion of "responsible journalism" where corrections are relegated to a corner on an inside page if they get reported at all.
Whether it was ethical to publish or not as the matter unfolded is another question. I suppose I'd probably agree with you that it's better not to report it at first. Nevertheless, your "responsible journalists" are frequently no better. I have been involved in cases where TV reporters broadcast a lie. When presented with documentary evidence that they were wrong, they responded with "Well, I couldn't be expected to read that!" And no retraction ever broadcast either. So much for ethics. And how many times do "responsible journalists" publish stories of some woman or other claiming that she was raped by an athlete? Later, if anyone's listening, the charges are discredited. Sometimes the woman gets thrown in jail for perjury (imagine! Jail for a lie about SEX!!!). But does that fact get published with the same reckless abandon that the allegations did? No it does not.
Spare me the condemnations of Drudge over this. He's no worse than his mainstream counterparts. I'd feel better if you condemned them for the same thing.
Here's the juicy "facts" about Drudge's "50% error rate":
Brill's Content reviewed the 51 stories Drudge labeled "Exclusive" between January and September 1998, it found that of the 31 stories that actually were exclusive, ten (32 percent) were untrue and/or never happened, 11 (36 percent) were true, and the accuracy of the remaining ten (32 percent) is debatable or still unknown.
That's it, folks. No actual data: just "statistics" without any reference to actual data substantiating the claims the numbers represent.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the rather lengthy article we are presented case after case after case where Drudge actually got it right. There were, I think, one or two cases where Drudge corrected headlines that were erroneous; but again, he corrected himself.
Get over it folks. You have yet to prove Drudge a liar; you have yet to substantiate your claim that he presents errors that he leaves uncorrected. You don't have to like him. But you're so far doing a poor job of discrediting him, it seems to me.
I doubt that you'll accept this, but Monica Lewinsky sure comes to my mind real easily. Another: King Hussein of Jordan's ill health (Drudge reported that the king was nearing death a full two weeks before the story crept into any other outlet that I know of).
I don't accept your definition of terms anyway, if by "second-hand reports" you are attempting to omit stories that Drudge learns others are about to publish (or spike, as in the Lewinsky matter and the Juanita Broaddrick rape case).
Secondly, what makes you think that I believe everything Drudge writes? I certainly don't believe everything I see on TV, hear on the radio or read in the NYTimes or Washington Post. I accord Drudge the same respect.
I'm grasping at straws
I'll help you: Drudge was wrong about Sidney Blumenthal's marital problems. He went to press with a story he had not checked at all, and was wrong. He published a retraction upon learning of the error (of course, this wasn't good enough for Sidney the Hatchet Man).
Personally, I could not care less about your preposterous "list". As if conservatives couldn't fabricate something exactly similar for Bill & Co. And it really has nothing whatever to do with the issue. You were asked to present a single case where Drudge was wrong on a story. The instance you presented -- the love child -- was inadequate, because Drudge acknowledged the truth on his site. You are still in the position of having failed in the one challenge you were given. A "rumor" that is not substantiated enough to suit you is not necessarily false (and yes, it's not necessarily true either).
Drudge acknowledges that he is something of a gossip columnist. I don't think that anyone would question that. Nevertheless, he actually has broken some stories that others refused to cover. Whether you like it or not is another matter.
Note, too, that Drudge also covered the news that Hyde and other Republicans had a less-than-pristine background themselves.
I'm done with this thread; it really has nothing to do with customizing Slashdot! :-)
How exactly is this "wrong", aside from opinions as to whether he should have reported it? I submit that if this had been a "Henry Hyde lovechild", the Big Four plus the major newspapers would have been all over it. I assure you that had it been Clarence Thomas, they would have been all over it for certain (please note that Anita Hill had as much evidence as this "lovechild" woman does/did). I trust that if you disapprove of the one, you would likewise disapprove of the other.
So: we're still waiting, as far as I'm concerned, for your "evidence" of a story Drudge got wrong.
By the way, do we really need to throw around "credentials"? The "credentialled" journalists at CNN royally screwed up a story about Viet Nam recently, didn't they? Hmmm, have they ever taken a journalism class?
Or what about...NBC being forced to settle over faked video for a report on GM trucks?
The list goes on. Credentials are positively no guarantee of good journalism. You'll have to do better than this, I'm afraid.