Ethan Porter at the Columbia Journalism Review thinks so.
I disagree. A link to Drudge is cause for bragging rights. When McClatchy's The State broke info about Gov. Sanford's affair, they were pretty happy about getting linked by Drudge -- one Drudge link gave them over 400,000 hits, but a New York Times link brought only 19,000 hits.
What do you expect. Columbia's claim to fame is the fact that it is left of Castro.
If Columbia Journalism Review linked, would it make any difference?
Bragging rights that you have a story worth national attention is perhaps the only benefit to Drudge linking. Hopefully, you've got some remnant advertising deal to monetize it somehow. The extra traffic does nothing for the local advertisers (if you have some) and can cost you money if you're not prepared for it. Most are unprepared, deliver tons of x's and o's at a cost and then brags about it.
Hiss, hiss, bray, bray, whine, whine!
Liberals wish they had The Drudge Report numbers.
VISITS TO DRUDGE 9/10/09
025,904,576 IN PAST 24 HOURS
668,623,559 IN PAST 31 DAYS
8,169,049,554 IN PAST YEAR
Yawn, Columbia Journalism Review, and what they think means what?
Why liberals hate Drudge-
DRUDGE: CNN SPIN SPEECH 'POLL' SAMPLED DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF DEMS...
Not to mention that Drudge is a completely different type of service than Politico or Huff Po.
Maybe they don't know yet at Columbia that an news aggregator is different than a blog that does aggregating and a online political journal.
Looking at Drudge you get a snapshot of key national and world events in a screen or two.
Looking at Huff Po is a bit like looking at the National Enquirer. You've got to work to get beyond bizarre personality stories to real news. The graphics there really work against serious impact.
Post a Comment