RUSH: The White House's Dan Pfeiffer, spokesman for the White House, is complaining again about the Drudge Report and chastising reporters for using it and then asking him about things on the Drudge Report. It's been a horrible thing to happen to news, the White House says, in America. Yep.
RUSH: The White House goes after Fox News by name, and the White House goes after me by name, because what the White House wants is to eliminate any opposition -- political, media, wherever it is. That is the modus operandi of the president, rather than debate people and win in a contest of hearts and minds. They don't want to do that, no, no, just eliminate the opposition. It's been the way Obama has approached politics since his first days in it.
Well, now they're back to calling out Drudge. This is from the Washington Examiner. "During a Playbook Breakfast event with Politico’s Mike Allen, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer lamented the effect of the Drudge Report on the news cycle." He said, "This is less true now than it was, but there's a Pavlovian response from some media outlets." You mean like the Pavlovian response we got when Bush named Cheney to be his VP, gravitas? If I've ever seen a Pavlovian response, it was that. About a hundred thousand media people all used the same word to describe the choice of Cheney: gravitas. We've played that sound bite for you over and over again. And there have been other examples.
"'This is less true now than it was, but there is a Pavlovian response from some media outlets,' Pfeiffer explained, noting that reporters often ask questions about a topic just because its on the Drudge Report. Pfeiffer added that when he is asked about something on the Drudge Report he usually ridicules the reporter asking the question until they sheepishly back down. Pfeiffer said that the Drudge effect can be damaging to the White House effort to communicate their message."
So it's a profound admission. They value control more than they do truths, accuracy, or any of that. And, as leftists, this does not come as a surprise. But the Drudge Report is an aggregator. Very little of what is on Drudge, does Drudge write. When Drudge gets fired up about something, you'll see a siren, and he might take a stab at it, but all Drudge does is find what's in the news and put it up there. The genius or the brilliance of Drudge is that he happens to pick stuff that millions of people around the world are interested in that wouldn't see if he didn't post it for them because it's being excluded by other people.
The New York Times is said to be top dog in the news business by reputation, size, and all that. I've often said the news business is trying to figure out what to do on the Internet. What do we do there? How do we monetize it? How do we make any money? Most of them just reprint their newspapers. They've added some blogs; try to sell some banner ads. The New York Times should be doing what Drudge is doing if they're really interested in the news, and if they're really interested in people being informed with all the news fit to print. But they don't do it. It's a niche that Matt came along and filled, quite ably.
Now, the New York Times provides the same role for the rest of the media. The New York Times, whatever is in the New York Times every morning is what gives newsrooms all across this country their marching orders for the day. That's why it is called the Newspaper of Record. I'll never forget, I learn things, as we all do, incrementally. I'm in Sacramento, 1984, first real opportunity I'd had to do a radio show the way I always wanted to do. I'd been in the business 18 years, minus five years with the baseball team. So 15, 18 years, that's the first chance I'd ever had, and I show up at the radio stations, all news station with some talk shows thrown in.
And one day when I walked in, the operations director was in a fit, was having a tizzy because nobody had thought to pick up the New York Times. He said, "A newsroom without the New York Times is not a newsroom." This was a Sacramento radio station, but the New York Times was supposed to provide the guidelines or the blueprint for what the news that day is, and it still does. The CNN morning show, MSNBC, they look at the New York Times and that's how they decide what they're gonna talk about, what guests they're gonna get. Well, that role has been taken over by Drudge for a lot of people. Now Drudge is the blueprint for the news that day.
So when the White House is approached by people asking what's on Drudge, it's no different than if they would be asked about something that's in the New York Times, except they don't approve of Drudge. All Drudge does is find news that's out there that other news agencies universally ignore and don't report, and then he cleverly attaches headlines, links photos and what have you. You've got a White House spokesman, senior adviser, trying to browbeat a reporter or any reporter into not bothering to ask them about something that's on Drudge.
It's all part of the effort to delegitimize what is on Drudge. In fact, the New York Times does the opposite of what Drudge does. The New York Times buries the news that they don't want anybody to know about. And Drudge does not do that.