I am in no way debating its ability to exist, it is obviously Drudge's constitutional right. I simply want to know people's opinions on whether he provides useful information. He has made his empire on stealing from mainstream media agencies and trying to get every story posted first. Is this fair, or does it make anything he posts illegitimate?

It makes everything he posts subject to scrutinization. The problem with trying to be first all the time is that you are sometimes wrong. You act before you verify the information. Of course, the major media did that in November of 2000.

I didn't vote because I only visit Drudge when someone links to it. I did hear a journalist say that most journalists have a dirty little secret. One of the first sites they check out every morning is the Drudge report.

I voted other- the Drudge report is nothing more than a propagandic tool of the republican party- a strictly partisan site that rarely has anything of substance or truth- and, typical with propaganda- may have a Kernal of truth in the article, with the everything else a lie. Take the recent thread with Jordan claiming Al-quaida ops had chemical weapons for a large scale terrorist attack- all the major news carried it- but Drudge had the chemicals coming from Iraq- with no substance to back it up.

Look at the Kerry/Intern deal- straight out lie in this case- strictly to smear Kerry- nothing else.

The majority of links on Drudge are to outside media sources; I think calling it propoganda for the Republican Party is a bit extreme. It is driven to scandals, but it gives it to Republicans just as well. Scandal-prone maybe, but not entirely for Republicans (even if Drudge is conservative).

I voted: No, he has had too many inaccuracies.

That may change if Kerry's mysterious mistress materializes.

Drudge was the first one to report about the Lewinsky scandal, and that turned out to be true.

However, he was also the first to report about the supposed Kerry-intern scandal, and obviously that one was false.

Either way, you just have to be careful about what you believe as with all news sources.

I do believe that he is the fastest in breaking news. I have him as my homepage even though he's a conservative and I'm a liberal. Last summer during the blackout, I was in an affected area. Five minutes after the lights went out, we got on my mom's Blackberry (cell phone/ 'net explorer) and Drudge already had a whole article on one of the biggest blackouts in history. FIVE MINUTES after it happened. I don't care what side of the political spectrum he's on, that was fast.

I haven't voted yet but I believe I will choose the one about the grain of salt.

I think it is mostly the online version of the tabloids always trying to be the best to be the first one to report a scandal. He has to get one right once in a while but it is mostly just luck. I wouldn't waste my time reading anytime on his site. Using a dart board or a roll of the dice would be just as accurate.

Drudge is always the first news site I check. He isn't the most accurate, but he is often the first, and for me that's a fair trade-off. I like getting an early heads-up even if the stories don't always pan out. I also love his collection of links.

He does have a conservative bias, but it isn't any worse than say, the liberal bias of the NY Times, and any informed person capable of critical thinking can easily allow for it. I prefer an open bias to a false pretense of objectivity.

I too check Drudge frequently to pick up on interesting news stories. He has a particularly handy list of links to other news sources. I also know firsthand that many in the news media also check his website frequently, even though a lot of them won't admit to it.

I would not however, use Drudge is a sole source for any kind of "proof" of some claim the way I would the LA Times for example. I don't think he does the necessary fact-checking that a serious journalist does.

I voted that he was mainly a link factory to other stories.

Drudge rarely has the "exclusive firsts" that have gotten him a bad reputation. I use his site as a spring board to other media outlets (he has a nice list of links to just about every major news site on the Net as well as most major opinion and news writers).

I’ve never read the Drudge Report, though I have heard it talked about. So, I decided to cross over into “enemy territory” and see what all the fuss is about. What I discovered is a poorly designed website in a really annoying typewriter style font, with a bunch of links to other news sources, and headlines like “Gallery To Display 'Video Portrait' Of Beckham Sleeping” or “Super Road Rage: Passengers Injured After At Least 22 Shots Fired”. OK, no big, earth-shattering controversy there. About the only incendiary subject I saw was “New Homes Block Is For 'Asians Only'”, and that was in the UK. Yawn. I’m not sure what all the hoopla is about????

But, I did find something way more fun (at least for me); the Drudge ReTort, at The Drudge Retort. Here you can find juicy headlines like “Israel outs Hamas leader” or “Cheney aide becomes energy lobbyist” or “Aides call Cheney ‘the Man’ behind Bush’s back”. Same lousy format, but the stories and columnist links are the other side of the Drudge coin.

So, I voted "Other", because anybody can cherry-pick the sources and stories they feel are relevant to their own opinions. No big whoop, imho.

Drudgeretort.com is a funny take on the drudge report. Its got the same biased headlines and spin from a liberal perspective. Its good for a laugh and to point out drudges unvarnished slant.

Surprisngly (despite his reputation), Drudge never writes commentary. He merely links to news stories that are probably sensantional. After the Lewinsky story that made him famous he has been linking to stories that attract conservatives. Most conservative talk shows just look to his site to determine their whole 3 hours debate. They owe him much.

However, he has a cheeky sense of humor and often places a link to an opposing view just beneath the conservative links. In San Francisco Bay Area we have a gay talk show host (Correll) who most would call Liberal. I find him independant. He is a friend of Drudge and had him on his show recently. I was surprised. Drudge came across as a news hack who just wanted to make a living at breaking stories. He seemed apolitical and was for gay marraige. I got the feeling that (for a buck) he has accepted the conservative following, and even hosted a talk-show for them. But in his buddy on-air chat with Correll he came over as not conservative in the least.