11 thoughts on “Drudge

  1. Define “normal,” please.

    I do not read him — had almost forgotten about him.

  2. Well, there was this one time when some foolish blogger linked to Drudge. Aside from that, never been there.

  3. I will check him out from time to time just to see how the news is being skewed on the right. Plus once in a while there is a fun link to some fun stories in the English papers. But for someone who is not aware of the severe bias of the site it would be a very dangerous site to count on for information.

  4. I used to browse him about a dozen years ago, but that ended way back in the 20th century. Now I go to HuffPo for my fix of sensationalized headlines.

    Please note, however, that I am not claiming to be a normal person in any sense of the word.

  5. Never read him. Always seemed a scandal sheet approach to ‘news.’ Since I gave up watching the corporate news, I don’t even hear him mentioned. But, normal???? Me?

  6. I’ve never read him, either. I’ve always (since time began, it seems) thought of that name as a bad word and a blog-place to be avoided.

    But maybe I should head on over there just so I know what I’m talking about. I just can’t bring myself to do so right this moment, though. It would be a bell that cannot ever be unrung—sort of like Glenn Beck (shudder). Talk about your brain/eye bleach!

    Besides, the fewer people who click on his blog, the faster he’ll just drift away.

    Fair? Maybe not, but who cares?

  7. I’ve had the occasion, lately, to look up the acronym DFH. At first, I Googled it (I’m so sorry, Eudora Welty!), but what I really wanted was the urban dictionary definition, which, in this case, is especially poignant:


    The comments, unfortunately, are a cause to look up the term cognitive dissonance which led me to the term cognitive disequilibrium which I’d never heard of before but seems good.

    Just for balance and info.

Comments are closed.