Talk:Drudge Report

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drudge Report article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2018.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Florida Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Why was "conservative" removed from the first sentence? Has the source suddenly become mainstream or centrist? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't we all agree that now it is more than just a little bit absurd that this is in the lede: " . . . run by Matt Drudge . . . generally regarded as a conservative publication . . . though its . . . political leanings have recently been placed in question"

Talk about, understatement, hyperbole, and obfuscation!

It may used to have been conservative (even up to 2017), but now it is obviously the opposite.

Considering, for example: the beacon flashing "Drudge" red-bolder-headline today [2020-6-6] is: "ROMNEY WILL NOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!" [Really?!? What a shocking surprise! Romney! Of ALL people!], I'd say that Drudgereport at this point is in the same category as Huffington Post. 96.239.90.181 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, the article does not mention the name of Drudge's company or his successful "Drudge Report" trademark filing, so here it is, all public domain information:

• State of Florida Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC
• Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC

As an individual (not Digital, LLC), Matthew Drudge was granted U.S. Trademark protection for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018. He did not get protection for the word "Report" or for the use of any particular font stylings or color, just the basic letters forming the words. The filing included a screenshot of his website. He used a Trump photo and headline "TRUMP GOES BIG" from 2018. The Miami, Florida address given for the trademark registration is the same address for his Digital, LLC business name. Why he sought trademark protection as an individual and not under his company name is unclear. However, such an action would allow him to sell the website specifically in the future and still use his business name for other commercial projects. I don't intend to edit the article, so I am providing this information for anyone who is interested. 5Q5|^✉ 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may add a line or two to the article eventually if no one else does. 5Q5|^✉ 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page massively supported Trump in 2016 and mocked him throughout the entire 2020 re-election campaign. The decline of the website confirmed by the Alexa ranking is massive, the page has lost nearly half of its readers compared with only one year ago indicating that many Conservatives and patriots are leaving this place as a source of information. Any further information why Drudge Report changed so drastically? 80.131.51.178 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If evidence ever comes forward citable to a reliable or notable source making the claim that Drudge was paid to make the site switch to anti-Trump in 2020 and/or a bonus in the millions offered if Biden won and became President then it might be suitable for inclusion in the article. As of this date I haven't seen any business record evidence that the website has been sold; however, it might be possible to furtively structure a deal in the millions so that editorial control was sold while Drudge remains technically the backseat owner on record. Without Drudge, it's not easy to continue calling it the Drudge Report. 5Q5|^✉ 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some preliminary changes here [[1]], while leaving the current structure/organization intact—but believe it's well worth adding and/or expanding some related parts of the article. A couple brief examples:

• The "business model" needs to explain how unique the Drudge Report is, how much it's worth (recent estimates of $100-200+ million), etc.
• A "traffic" section should be separate. And the most recent and ongoing decline attributed to a change in Trump coverage means little without an understanding of the enormous traffic Drudge has historically attracted (as well as a huge prior decrease widely attributed to the explosion of Twitter and other social media).

Those are just a start—the Drudge Report was and continues to be an amazing phenomenon, one that nobody has been able to replicate, and IMHO the current article fails to convey how unusual it's history has been, in so many different ways. Any thoughts? And anyone want to collaborate on adding and organizing some of the above? Thanks so much! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge Report is just a three-column newspaper, a masthead with three columns beneath it containing textual news, some imagery, separated by vertical lines. The three-column format has been around in newspapers since the 1700s. Drudge can't copyright the format and would lose any infringement or trademark lawsuit if someone did their own "Report." He couldn't get trademark protection in 2019 for the word "Report" because of the commonly used terms "news report," "special report," etc. It would require a lot of start-up money for tech support and be willing to find links 24/7 to create a competitor website. Unique? Only in name recognition and influence I guess. The Connecticut-based Capitol Report and New York-based Empire Report have used an identical format to the Drudge Report for years. See this 2018 news story on both. I've never edited the Drudge Report article before, and don't intent to become a regular, but I'm working on a line or two to mention his business name and trademark filing, probably for next week. 5Q5|^✉ 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge Report uses a javascript code to auto refresh the page (Google search) at regular intervals; thus, massively inflating its page views. In addition, since it's a link site, the same people return multiple times to go to the next link. I would trust only the number of unique visitors in a site like Drudge. Page views have less meaning if you know the system is being gamed. 5Q5|^✉ 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From 5Q5 - PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE ARTICLE as the opening paragraph in the Business model section:

The references will of course appear in the article's lower reference section. If there is agreement I will publish it. 5Q5|^✉ 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FROM 5Q5 - PROPOSED REVISION, SIMPLIFIED:

I omitted the last sentence about addresses matching, as it seems unnecessary, though it is true. If there is no objection after a week sitting here on the talk page, I will go ahead and publish it in the article, sometime next week. 5Q5|^✉ 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. 5Q5|^✉ 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC), Drudge has a second leading headline directly linked to Sputnik (news agency), a Russian propaganda outlet devoted to state-sponsored disinformation. Drudge has done this quite a bit over the years, and is not alone, with most right-leaning, conservative news aggregators making use of Russian disinformation sources to criticize liberals and Democrats in the US. I would like to see a sourced section in this article describing this phenomenon of the right wing in the US depending on Russian disinformation for their news. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge report is no longer conservative, nor is it no longer owned by Matt Drudge: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/matt-drudge-logs-off 172.79.199.4 (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly, but it seems very speculative, and they never say definitively he sold it. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]