Does anything from Drudge have a place in this forum?

[WilliamPitt]

[jpgray]

1. Sure, as long as you say who it's from

And I would hope DUers are responsible enough NOT to believe a Drudge report until it is reported on INDEPENDENTLY by a reputable source. (i.e. not the Sun)

[Forkboy]

8. Exactly

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. Skinner says yes

[Eric J in MN]

13. Right. I'm glad I knew that millions of people were reading

Right. I'm glad I knew that millions of people were reading rumors from Drudge. I might not have if no one here had posted about it.

As long as the rumor is identified as coming from Drudge, it's fine.

[hlthe2b]

18. While I'm as appalled as anyone at the recent rumour and agree that

Drudge is a transparent shill for REPUG talking points and dirty tricks, perhaps that's exactly why we need to keep an eye on him.

I agree that we should make it apparent that he is one of the highly suspect sources like Newsmax, Faux, and all of Murdock's papers (maybe even come up with a easy way to identify suspect sources in posts) and go to original sources rather than link back to him whenever possible. But I don't think burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what is being disseminated directly or indirectly (via his amplifying sources) to millions of people makes any sense.

[Paulie]

2. I voted No...

because there was no option for HELL NO! :)

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Hell No.

That butthole is a republican shill and his only mission is to help rethuglicans. Fuck him.

[JohnLocke]

6. What she said.

[lovedems]

4. I personally don't want to get my news from a political hack.

If I did I would read Ann Coulter or listen to Limbaugh! ARGHHHH! Drudge should be banned as a source of news.

[arewethereyet]

5. sure, I've seen sillier references than Drudge

[eileen_d]

7. I voted NO

but I suppose it is necessary to know about the kind of manure he's spreading, for opposition research purposes.

[fujiyama]

9. As long as the header/title says...

"Warning: Drudge Rumor"

[MurikanDemocrat]

10. Only for comic relief

[Forkboy]

11. I'm against censoring sources

We should know better than to trust it without verification.If we're too stupid,too eager to trash,or too gullible it's our own fault.

[Maddy McCall]

12. I voted NO.......BUT let me add

that isn't it funny how his top stories often parallel exactly what we are discussing at DU?

[JitterbugPerfume]

14. I am against censorship

in all of its guises

[The Magistrate]

15. No, Mr. Pitt, It Does Not

Although "Newsman Matt Drudge" is welcome anytime!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[HuskerDem]

16. Nevah!

I think people only throw that shit out there when they're trying to "help" their candidate by smearing another one.

[VelmaD]

17. Is this a trick question?

*snort*

Uhhhh...NO.

Am I right? What do I win? :-)

[Zomby Woof]

20. never

Ever.

[PragMantisT]

21. Of course

we must keep an eye on the enemy camp.

[Guaranteed]

22. Only when it helps my candidate. nt

[Renew Deal]

23. Yes

but people need to be able to control themselves. I don't agree with blocking it out completely.

[madrchsod]

24. not really

but ya can`t stop it. maybe the next time something that is posted here,there will be more rational thought process going on in peoples minds. that whole thing the last few days was pathetic.

[necso]

25. Yes...

As long as the reader is discouraged from visting the actual site, raising the hit count and thereby (potentially) the profitability.

We should not help enrich that shitbag.

[Mick Knox]

26. If its a drudge headling...

You can bet your house its posted at DU....

The slightest hint from drudge at a scandal.. and its all thats talked about here...

Come on... Drudge IS LBN.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Amazing how many people support censorship

No wonder how many Democrats voted for PATRIOT Act!