Brent Budowsky, a columnist for "The Hill," says the Drudge Report "determines the content of debate in our national discourse on an hourly basis." I agree. I read the Drudge Report several times a day, as do millions of others. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, it seems to me he gets a substantial percentage of his topics from the Drudge Report. But so do liberal outlets. Budowsky writes:
While as a liberal, I do not suggest the following with a great deal of pleasure, but Matt Drudge is by far the single most influential person in the American media, and it is fair to ask: Is he the second most influential man in America?
For more than any individual in the media, Drudge dominates his competitors to the degree that he has no competitors, and determines what you watch on television, what you read in newspapers, what you hear and radio, and even what you read on the Internet about politics more than any single person in American history.
MSNBC may claim it is liberal and Fox News may be the house organ for conservatives, but if you turn on either in the morning, you will often see the guiding hand of Drudge. The New York Times may consider itself the finest newspaper in the world, but while one of the Times' political reporters is reduced to writing ditties complaining that Hillary Clinton does not answer her questions, one entry on the Drudge Report can trigger 100 questions to any politician in America. Network anchors come and go, but Drudge remains, the omnipresent force who is required reading for political editors, television producers and campaign managers from all parties.
Somewhere in the hereafter, the likes of William Randolph Hearst are looking toward Drudge on Earth with envy and asking: Why didn't I ever get that big?
If anyone believes there is any individual more powerful in media than Drudge, be my guest and name your choice.
One of the great mysteries of modern life is that the highest Democrats in the land complain about Drudge, read Drudge like talmudic scholars poring over biblical texts — as Republicans do — but have never even tried to compete with Drudge in the marketplace of media and ideas.
Is Drudge the second most influential man in America, behind the president? It is a debatable proposition that might well be true. More than any single person in American politics besides the president, he determines the content of debate in our national discourse on an hourly basis.
In many ways, I deplore the influence of Matt Drudge, but in the meantime, would someone send this piece to Drudge and maybe he will post it (wink, wink)?
- Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at[email protected].
**
Jim Hoft over at The Gateway Pundit noted that Rush Limbaugh discussed this article at length today and Rush ended by saying: [Jim Hoft emphases]
RUSH: Now, just one thing about this piece from TheHill.com. It may not be coincidental. Because our old buddy from the FCC, Ajit Pai, said over the weekend that he foresees a future in which the federal election committee, federal regulators may go after Drudge as part of net neutrality. Which, by the way, we have previously referenced on this program as part of net neutrality that never gets talked about, and the story by Mr. Pai specifically mentioned that federal regulators will want to go get Drudge because of content, because Drudge’s content is viewed to be political donations in kind.
And net neutrality, make no mistake, I don’t care what you think you know about it, I don’t care if you’ve bought into this mirage that net neutrality is making sure that everybody’s got equal access to websites at the same speed and bandwidth and all that, let me tell you what it really is. Net neutrality ultimately is empowering the federal government to go after websites based on content.
And if, for example, Drudge would be judged to be a conservative site and by admission there’s nobody even close, he has no competitors, then on that basis alone the FEC could limit Drudge’s accessibility, could limit how many people could log in to Drudge or just eliminate Drudge altogether because liberal, comparable websites aren’t getting near the traffic. And that isn’t equal, and that isn’t fair, and make no mistake, that is the dream of people who believe and start touting net neutrality.
All these tech people are clueless. They think it’s all about making sure they can get to Netflix whenever they want to without having to pay an arm and a leg. Or Roku or Huku or Hulu or whatever it is, Apple TV, you name it, they think it’s all about accessible speeds equally and fairly distributed with no bandwidth bottlenecks. And that’s a smoke screen. Ultimately net neutrality is aimed at determining fair and equal political content with some master arbitrator behind the curtain that is linked to a federal agency somewhere and will always be a leftist, make no mistake.
So this piece at TheHill.com wringing their hands and worried about the unfair advantage that Drudge has, he’s the second most influential, maybe isn’t a coincidence. Maybe it’s timed to be perceived as appearing right on the heels of that story about the FEC limiting Drudge because of content and fairness and all this. Do not forget this, and do not discount it.