The Appropriate Discipline

Around halloween time we had another guest, William Jacobson. Clinical Professor of law at the Cornell Law School, and creator of the famous right winged independent media outlet Legal Insurrection. Having Mr. Jacobson visit was actually very refreshing. He is someone who knows his opinion, and not only isn't afraid to voice it, but articulates it beautifully. He made you genuinely want to hear his point of view on an issue, just because it generally was one opposing of the view point the majority of the class had. 

However there was one opposing view point that although, yes was interesting to hear, definitely struck a cord with both I and a few of my fellow classmates. 

Considering it was around halloween, there was an article published regarding the disciplinary action taken when it comes to culturally appropriated halloween costumes. 

If i remember correctly, Mr. Jacobson viewed the issue as something that should be corrected rather than punished. Maybe used as a way to educate those who did something wrong and tel them why, instead, of reprimanding them because of a wrongdoing. 

I could see how this perspective is necessary, however when reading deeper into the article I was able to, come up with an opinion of my own. The article features a blog post from Jake Goldberg, a student who posted a letter from Tuft's multicultural Greek council which advises fraternities and sororities to be aware of their costume choices and also the repercussions of someone who is not.

Now, the blog post highlights one specific section, which of course discipline. And of course what the article focused on. However, yes the discipline does seem to be a bit extreme. The post states, "“The range of response for students whose actions make others in our community feel threatened or unsafe, or who direct conduct towards others that is offensive or discriminatory, includes OEO and/or TUPD investigation and then disciplinary sanctions from our office that could run a wide gamut depending on what is brought to our attention and the impact of these actions on others." 

This bold section is straight out of the post as well. He decided to bold the portion which talks about the absolute most disciplinary action one could receive. Where in my opinion, I think everyone, including the author of the article, glossed over a very important word in that paragraph, one which I would have decided to put in bold; "range". or maybe even "includes"

I feel as though not everyone should get such harsh consequences, however not only should they get a slap on the wrist and be told not to do it again. There are some people who have fun with costumes which may portray a different ethnicity. Like dressing up as a rapper, princess jasmine, or in a sumo suit. However, there are ways to take it too far, and for those people who do, I'm sorry, but i do not believe it was an accident. Wearing turbans or  painting your entire body in black face,  is an intentional act no matter how "innocent" someone thinks it is. Maybe they dont deserve a mark on their judicial record, but they definitely deserve a legitimate punishment. Which hopefully in doing so, they simultaneously learn that lesson, that people like Mr. Jacobson believe is necessary. 

To end this post, I would like to reference my favorite part of the article, which points out an "obvious horror" of the letter Goldberg decided to share: 

A student who wears an outfit that offends somebody, yet had zero intention to do so, is just as much in violation of this policy as a student who purposefully seeks to insult others with their costume. 

*gasp* the horror. to believe someone who appropriated someone unintentionally receives the same punishment. wild right? 

WRONG. 

See, if someone notices the appropriation, they just wouldn't wear that costume. I dont think there is anything unintentional about offending someone. Because if you didn't want to do it, why even take the risk? clearly it just must not make as much sense to everyone who may not have a personal connection to the issue, as a some who does aka me. But i do believe just because they give an accident as a justification in the long run, doesn't mean that was the initial intention. They did it, they made a decision. It's over, now seek punishment as necessary. 

What Ever Happened to Public-Access Television?

My rant on public broadcasting got me thinking a little. Thinking about another public service which I would say is on the decline, however, I think it may just be complete out of the picture.  The device I'm referring to is public-access TV. 

A few weeks earlier in the semester, we had a special guest speaker join our class to talk about involvement with independent media film making. Our guest, Tia Lessin, is an indy filmmaker herself and assisted in production of a number of monumental independent films. Two of them being, "Where to Invade Next" and "Citizen Koch" 

In my opinion, the most fascinating part about speaking to such successful people in a particular field, is finding out where they started, and in what direction did they first go, that propelled them into such amazing careers today.  And it's especially interesting when such fields are one I and many journalism students alike could find ourselves a part of. 

The best part about Ms. Lessin's journey? — She didn't even study film or television. 
She had an interest in it, and in that time, the accessibility to equipment was there. She utilized the resources through public access television and now she's using those skills to do what she loves today. 

Public-access television, which is distinctly different from  PBS, is a traditional form of non commercial mass media where the general public can create it's content. Some people may know how to use the equipment, some may not, but that's apart of the beauty. It gives anyone a chance to learn. 

Today, it's sad to see that it is not as prominent. It is said that public-access started to decline during the rise of other technologies like the cell phone, video camera, and other new forms of media distribution accessible to almost everyone. 

Although other countries(of course in typical US fashion, they like to start things, and then leave them as successes for the rest of the world)  like Canada, Australia,  and a few more, still utilize public access, however all channels are now for profit. 

It's honestly not surprising that they are now for profit, because just like we see with PBS funding, and big companies, and cable providers are taking over. In fact this type of corporate takeover is exactly what an Los Angeles Times article expresses as why Public-access got taken over. It was due to a "new law is designed to make it easier for phone companies to enter into the lucrative cable market by relieving them of certain money-draining contractual obligations" Obligations such as public access. 

It also "allows cable television providers the option of dropping their long-standing obligation of providing free studios, equipment and training to the public."

So of course it's not surprising that our old friend Time Warner chose to shut it down back in 2009. 
Wow it's honestly crazy looking at what big conglomerates can do. public access got shut down, public broadcasting is barley public anymore, and now net neutrality is trying to hold its ground. 
I truly hope for the sake of the public, only new things will only get better. 

Put The Public Back In Public Broadcasting

Jeff Cohen, (who unsurprisingly happens to be everywhere!!) stated the following during an interview with Common Dreams, in order to put in perspective on how our country treats public broadcasting:  "What is it in our country? $3.75, per person, tax money, goes to public broadcasting." 
Severely less than a wide range of other countries in the world. And at this point the question is why. 

When simply googling the term "Public Broadcasting", naturally the first result is PBS, but about 4 results under that is what the technical definition of a Public Broadcasting Network is supposed to be. 

"Public broadcasting includes radio, television and other electronic media outlets whose primary mission is public service." It then goes on and on about the funding and what organizations contribute, and how "The great majority are operated as private not-for-profit corporations" 

Oh? soooo... since when do private and non-profit correlate with corporate? I'd probably say rarely, but maybe more than I though? 

By Public broadcasting relying more and more on corporate funds, isn't that taking the public out of it? The fact that other countries are so heavily involved with their tax payer dollars being devoted to public broadcasting, they are the ones truly utilizing the pubic to see what they want. If there's less pubic and more corporate there will be less of what the public needs to see for the benefit of the pubic watching, and more of what corporate wants the public to see for the benefit of corporate control. 

It's quite like the fight for maintaining net neutrality, but in terms of broadcasting. I do still believe they want to inform the pubic, but I'm sure that before August 2016 when the PBS funding standards were last edited, there were a lot less grey areas where corporate could some how slip through the cracks. 

They say, "While funding and fundraising are necessary to support the development and production of content, producers must be free from the influence of funders. This firewall is essential to maintaining the public’s trust." 

Free from the influence of funders? but when big corporate funders are helping make someones dreams come true, is this firewall still apparent? I honestly do not know if billionaires with a set agenda on how they want to shape a film, are going to get opposing views about structuring content from  a producer who is just trying to get their story out there. Not everyone is willing to back out from huge backers, if they think the information is still important, even with the "little" bit of tweaking the funders may ask for. Which in that case, is pure influence. 

There are a number of methods to fund projects and its important to utilize them. We learned about places that will help find funding only through a pitch for media projects. As well as people who just asked for $50 from all of their supporters. Funders back out, and producers still manage to make amazing work. Ask family members is all else fails! I firmly believe there are still ways to make amazing journalism with out the influence of "the billionaire ideal". People, we just have to realize that it's possible before all the hard work goes down the drain. 

Let's Talk about the FCC...

I feel like I talk about this issue a lot, so I considered leaving this post as a draft... but what the heck, there can never be too much coverage of an issue that can crucially impact our entire nations quality of information sources, right? At least thats what i'm going to tell myself. 

So.. the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, is basically like the internets babysitter. If the internet is our precious little child, naturally the adults — in this circumstance being the government — should want the best protection for it no?
I guess not? 

John Oliver gave his opinion on the matters of net neutrality, governmental tactics and Obama's attempts to "maintain" the internet as a fair an balanced flow of information. Basically, the Obama administration may have good intentions, but the tactics carried out definitely ... not the best? No... thats not it... they were definitely the absolute WORST. I'm not even going to elaborate on the fact that Obama hired Tom Wheeler, a huge broadband provider to companies like Comcast and Verizon, as chairman of the FCC. Oxymoron much? Honestly Oliver honestly put it best when he said "It's like needing a babysitter, and hiring a dingo"
I've thought about this matter a a lot have solidified about two strong points of view on the matter. 

The first being the view from a public standpoint — the baby.
Having the FCC ran by someone who completely opposes the back bone of net neutrality by supporting broadband companies it is attempting to relieve of sole power, is obviously ridiculous. And sadly for some, it's not going to affect them.
Just sheerly speaking off of the experiences I have with friends, most people get their news off of Facebook, or the first result on a google search. Each which equally to have the front position for optimum viewing pleasure, regardless of whether the information is correct or not. 

Sadly if net neutrality does somehow manage to be gotten rid of, for the majority of millennials, It may not have pressing effects. Because their sources of information are already being paid for and selected by big conglomerates.
But on the other hand, for those who know where to get accurate information from transparent, honest reporters, will still know what URL's to type and which google search results to click on. 

As journalists me may sometimes may feel more information privileged considering we know how to dissect information, and differentiate the good from the bad. And not everyone may know how to do that.  The current state of net neutrality may afford them more opportunities to get it right, but just because one outlet has a certain position over or under another on a google search, doesn't mean the URL won't still be available and thriving. 

Recent Threats to Net-Neutrality: is there any chance for survival?

"Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media." - Donald Trump
"Obamacare for the internet," - Ted Cruz

Both quotes from an article published by The Verge on November 9th, right after the results of the election. It's become increasingly clear that the one information outlet which truly helps give way to the first amendment, now has the increasing potential to stifle it. 

Stating in frankly, eliminating net neutrality will preserve conservative media, and simultaneously the images of public figures — especially the new U.S president. 

However it is not just the new presidential threat to net neutrality, but just weeks prior another was surfacing surrounding the merger between AT&T and Time Warner. In a Democracy Now! article, they quoted the national media policy and activism group, Free Press' Candace Clement saying, "AT&T would control mobile and wired internet access, cable channels, movie franchises, a film studio and more... That means AT&T would control internet access for hundreds of millions of people and the content they view, enabling it to prioritize its own offerings and use sneaky tricks to undermine net neutrality."

The article was published on October 27th by both Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan. I can't even begin to imagine their thoughts on the future now with conservative government protecting conservative media. 

In class we watched a videos on how Breitbart's video distortions were able not only destroy a career and and an entire organization but corporate media picked up the distortions as fact!! It's crazy to me what other media outlets on the same side of the spectrum — the left — will promote to the public as truth. I wonder if they even checked. If they even considered for a moment it would be false. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. This is why The stirring conversation about Net-Neutrality slowly diminishing is scary to the knowledge of the public. 

There are already so many truly uneducated people about so many issues. And so many main stream media outlets who may get it wrong, but aren't willing to be accountable for it. This is the job of independents, and hopefully even if some how they do get harder to find in a google search, they still do prevail in the long run. 

During the course of the election so many people got their "facts" from Fox News. The same company who believed the distorted videos, yes. Now imagine what crap they could boast if their story was the first one we saw. And how many people and organizations would fall because of their gullibility then delivered to the public. 

Whether It's AT&T, Time Warner, or the government that ultimately tries to take a way our freedoms, its our job to still spread the word of the truth. Rachel Maddow did it with her video evidence from ACORN, and although sights like Salon may be harder to find in the long run, the good part is they will still exist. 

I truly am curious to see what a government can do to a constitutional right. I suppose only time will tell. 

The Internet is My Silver Lining

In light of the recent election,  It's almost impossible to be silent. I tried it, but naturally it didn't last for long. I'm not going to be objective in this post by any means, but in raising my own opinion and listening to those of others all day, I now only have one though in my mind — It's going to be ok.

And I have to believe that.

Today I received one of our campus emails, except this on was about how racial slurs are now being used on campus just hours after the election. Hours.

With the whirlwind of emotions that surfaced provided these election results, I realized that only one was most personally pressing for me— fear.

I had never really ever been scared for myself or people like me. People who may not have personally experienced oppression but know it's real and exists. I'm scared of what is going to happen.
The country just got in this really cool place where people were making an impact. Every day, average americans were changing lives, getting justice and holding groups of power accountable for unimaginable crimes. But what's going to happen now?

In class we previously watched three specific videos, all which I believe, when looked at together show a progression. The first being the video captured by George Holiday of Rodney King being brutally beaten by multiple police officers. This was essentially the birth of citizen journalism. An every day man, being at the right place, at the right time with the right equipment visually demonstrating injustices that would've just otherwise stayed in secret. Unfortunatly then no justice was served, but eventually there would be about 14 years later. When the footage from a police dash cam proved an officers previous claims to be false regarding the shooting of 17 year old Laquan McDonald. An article from The Huffington Post revealed how the efforts of two independent journalists and a lawyer were able to hold the Chicago Police accountable, resulting in a murder charge. What Strides, what amazing strides! But are they going to continue?

Back to what I said about it's going to be ok. I had to find a silver lining. Something for myself that would suck up all the fear and turn it into promise.

That's when I remembered the third video.

Jim Gilliam of Brave New Films spoke about how the internet saved his life, and how the internet was his religion. Now, I grew up Christian myself, and I doubt the web will replace my faith. However I do believe the internet, and more specifically, people on the internet mean something just as impactful to me. They're my hope.

The internet is my silver lining. The bloggers, citizen journalists,  and independent news outlets. Whether through text, images, or video; I have hope. And ironically after a crappy outcome, I can say I'm excited for what the future has to hold.

I'm grateful for a course like this that has completely opened my eyes to both the effects and importance of independents in the news. Although yes. Im sure they will definitely try and stop us, this is going to be some amazing years for not only journalism, but for change.

One of the most impactful quotes I have heard to date derived from this course. It was from Izzy stone, and he states,  “The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you’re going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins.”

Rodney King lost. There was no justice, but the people fought anyone. Journalists and a Lawyer fought and justice was served. It's out turn to fight because may people have already lost, and lost, and lost. I truly believe we are the someday, and the somebodies who believe in the same things.

We can do this, and we can win.

Mayhill Fowler's Recordings: The Ethics Behind It

The Los Angeles Times published an article about citizen journalist Mayhill Fowler, and how she got the inside scoop on Bill Clinton and Obama in 2008. The article highlight what exactly she recorded, and how she interpreted the information based on her oven personal bias. however it's clear the main point of focus in the discussion is surrounding her methods of obtaining such information — and the ethics behind it. 

The article quoted Fowler herself saying, "He just thought we were all average, ordinary Americans who had come out to see him. And, of course, in one sense, that is what I am."

She's right, That is what she is — an average ordinary American. She just also happens to be a citizen journalist, which in my opinion is a journalist nonetheless. 

The role of a journalist, especially independent ones, are to uncover truths that mainstream media may have covered up or just ignored all together. I believe this issue would have been one of those ignored it if weren't for people like Fowler. 

In terms of ethics, from an official journalistic stand point, the SPJ code of ethics preamble states the following: 

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity."

When you dissect that paragraph and look at the essentials, Fowlers reports were ethically sound. The key terms being: public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice, free exchange of information, accurate, fair, thorough, and integrity. From these few points I agree to the justification that what she did was ethical. 

Another LA Times article collections states, " Fowler was not sure she would report the statements because, she said, she was not sure she could capture their proper context" However, "Huffington Post editors said they confirmed that Fowler had reported Obama's statements precisely and that their citizen reporter had conducted herself properly." 

I can understand how maybe in 2008, although the boom had already happened, people could potentially see Fowlers actions as unethical, yet at the end of the day, she acted with integrity and used her free speech to enlighten and inform the public.  Honestly I think it would be unethical to keep the ideas to herself. Because then, that tis what should be considered unfair. 

Without her reports — which she did manage to objectively state her opinion against her own choice candidate — information that the public was deserving of, may have gone without comment. 

He may have thought they "were all average, ordinary Americans ", but it's the average and the ordinary that have the ability to make the upmost impact in today's society. 

The Price Of "Selling-out"

In today's class there was a heated discussion over an article published by the guardian regarding the deal Arianna Huffington made with the big fish of AOL, to sell the Huffington Post back in 2011. 

The articles central focus seemed to be about The Post's business model. By selling the company — were unpaid bloggers then exploited — not reaping benefits? There was a healthy amount of backlash from bloggers, scholars, and equally my classmates — but I personally reside in a land of neutrality. 

I wouldn't say Huffington "Sold-out. I wholeheartedly think she did what was necessary to save her company. However I do see where she could be seen as reaping such benefits. Points in class came up regarding: the possibility that if bloggers were so upset, why didn't more of them leave?, or she's the reason journalists today have such small salaries, if any. However one point we touched on, but didn't spend much time exploring, is Huffington's personal advocacy when it comes to net neutrality. 

The big fish of AOL was swallowed by the whale Verizon in 2015. A company that not only essentially endorses the exact opposite net neutrality, but is known for being the main contributor. For Huffington it's like her arch nemesis who stands for everything she's against just took away her baby and went to raise it under their wing. Excuse me, its not like that happened. That's exactly what happened. 

When looking deeper into Huffington's involvement with net neutrality, it's amazing to see how dedicated she is to the concept. The Post has an entire section dedicated to articles surrounding net neutrality. Which is appropriately titled HuffPost Net Neutrality, With articles like, "12 Top Religious Leaders On Why We Need An Open Internet" and "Think The Net Neutrality Fight Is Over? Think Again." it's abundantly clear which side of the net neutrality fight The Post is on. I'm simply surprised that through test last couple months Verizon hasn't gotten rid of the page as a whole, but naturally instead they have their own page in opposition.   

It's also interesting to note that the only outlets to shed light on their opposing ideals were independents. When the news broke of Verizon taking over AOL the only perspective really shown was about how great this is for the progression of mobile video services. There was an awesome article in The Nation summing up exactly what I was thinking. They ask, "what this means for the content—you know, the journalism." Following that statment are a number of points, scholarly quotes, and embedded tweets, however the final statment is most striking. 

"Employees is a key word. When AOL bought the Huffington Post for $315 million, Arianna Huffington didn’t pass a cent onto the thousands of freelance writers who blog for the site for free—as in unpaid, gratis, pro bono. Getting “exposure” was its own paycheck. And regardless of how any Verizon windfall is spent, it’s as unlikely that she’ll start paying bloggers as it is that the politically committed telecom will start giving its journalists 100 percent, total, no-holds-barred editorial freedom. That’s a word for nothing left to lose." 

It's almost like they're saying Huffington is now getting a taste of her own medicine. Did she deserve it? Maybe that's the price she had to pay. 

Rodger Streitmatter Teaches We Should Learn From The Past

Rodger Streitmatter may have completely changed the way I view media as an impactful tool in society. His book, Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America, not only served as glimpse into the past, but also in highlighting what has previously been done only shows how much more we should be doing today. It's amazing to see how voices have managed to be heard through the toughest of times, and consequently changes made because people decided to do something about the injustices they were subjected to. Living in todays society, which is so frequently riddled with the social movements and injustices it's crazy to think of how much change could be done it we only put our minds to it.

Part 1: Speaking up for the Disenfranchised features three chapters that each speak to the concept of "sticking it to the man".

The first chapter, Fighting for the Rights of American Labor, makes a huge point in just the first few pages. That "many of the groups recognized the important role that communication plays in the stability and growth of a social moment, so they committed the energy and resources necessary to establish their own papers." The chapter as a whole summarizes the union, and fight of American Labor Workers to speak up for their injustices and transform the system. As shown in the quote, they knew what had to be done and dedicated everything to making sure they at least were heard. The factory workers were being exploited and the mainstream basically didn't care. Then the factory workers decided they weren't just going to let his happen, and advocated for the wrong doings. And what do you know? Something went right.

The second chapter, Awakening The Nation to the Sins of Slavery, highlighted the birth of abolitionist news paper The Liberator and how its impact alone was a driving force in the establishment of the thirteenth amendment. William Lloyd Garrison, one dedicated man, with a quality following debated a huge topic mainstream media ignored and eventually his voice was heard.

Finally chapter three, Setting a Revolutionary Agenda for Womens Rights, highlighted how women were seen in society, and which women decided to raise their voices. Like the chapters that preceded it, a battle was fought, there was change, and a legacy was made.

It's said that the role of journalism is to report on brutality in society. Something only a few people are willing to do today. Independent media has to refight old battles. Even when it comes to things like Black Lives Matter, we're essentially fighting the same battles they did in that past. Whether it have to do with race, brutality, or even the rights of citizens compared to law enforcement, in essence, all of this was already solved. Yet we continue to get sucked back into these injustices and main stream media continues to ignore the bigger picture. Justice. We say If you don't see the injustice you will never do journalism about the injustice. This will continue to pose an immense amount of truth, unfortunatly even for today. We can't shy away from fighting the big battles because there can't be a winner, if there was never a fight to begin with.

What It Means To Bear Witness

Ariana Huffington ended her article Bearing Witness 2.0: You Can’t Spin 10,000 Tweets and Camera Phone Uploads on the Huffington Post's "The Blog" section with this sentence, "New media is not replacing the need to “bear witness,” it is spreading it beyond the elite few, and therefore making it harder for those elite few to get it as wrong as they’ve gotten it again and again". 

We have countlessly reiterated that it's the job of independent media outlets to hold mainstream media accountable, and it's funny that as soon as they do, the tactics and methods indy's use to acquire such truths somehow just don't have enough credibility. 

The article was published in 2009 and it's interesting to note that today, essentially everything Huffington's last sentence highlighted is very very true. New media has given the opportunity for more and more independents to get things right, that the "elite few" either got wrong, didn't bother to explore, or even tired to cover up.  

The article seems to be centered around the concept, to "bear-witness", and what that truly means. According to New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, "bear witness means being there — and that’s not free." Naturally Huffington slammed this idea, and boy does Cohen probably feel a little dumb right about now. 

Not only did efforts of those who may not have "payed" to witness bring countless videos and photos and accounts from Iran and China,  but more recently in Syria as well. In 2014 TIME published an article explaining how "the proliferation of social media reports cancels out the risks of relying on individual posts" Especially considering the risks of ground reporting were made too clear through the brutal killings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.  Based on events like this, it's understandable that outlet have become more hesitant to send correspondents to war zones. According to a more recent article published in 2016, now it's almost entirely up to Syrians to fill this void through bearing whatever kind of witness they can. Considering news outlets may refrain from using their costly means of "being there".

Aside from the fact that this may seem more relevant now, to bear-witness without the means of a mainstream media outlets is actually some what of a timeless concept.
In reviewing the rise of independent media though history it became abundantly clear. Lets just take Ida B. Wells as an example. After the lack of attention her train incident received, she decided to be her own witness. Not only did she being her own free witness start an entire publication, but was influential in abolishing discriminative laws. Even though this may not have been video, in those times it was essentially an equivalent. Even though she was technically an eyewitness, Wells experienced this herself, remembered in grave detail and was essentially her own livestream through memories another everyday passenger on the train may not have been able to provide in such detail. 

Essentially, Huffungton's comments regarding the effect of new technologies redefining what we know as to "bear-witness" were spot on then, and only continue to prove their validity.  

Independent media has to get around obstacles mainstream media creates, and through the use of the internet have officially charged through one of the biggest. The days of the elite few hiding behind  "The Man" are officially over.  

The Drudge Report and Politics: Relevant Information or Pure Insinuation?

Since its launch in 1996, The Drudge Report has been a cornucopia for anyone and everyone that's on a hunt for a juicy news story. Through irresistible sensational headlines, and a knack for the right wording, Matt Drudge has the ability to hook a New York Times reporter just as easily as homebody in Minnesota. 

It's somewhat hard to believe that a website written in basic HTML with a revenue completely based on advertisements has, according to a New York Times article, the ability to maintain a consistent flow of traffic that totals 12 - 14 million viewers a month.  According to Amy S. Mitchell, the deputy director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, it's all about longevity. "He was an early and powerful force in setting the news agenda and has somehow maintained that even as there has been a great deal of change in the way people get their news.” 

Aside from the Times, other publications also agree that Drudge has a sort of timeless quality when it comes to his methods of delivering the news. A Salon article written by Heather Digby Parton pulls from many other articles and reports that continue to praise Drudge. Publications like Politico reported that Drudge is doing better than ever considering his new high traffic levels. On the other hand The New York Time continue to find his headlines front-page material.

Drudge is known for being the first to break major political news scandals like that of Monica Lewinsky, thus proving his credibility. However he equally has a history of fabrications and misrepresentations through headlines. According to Parton, his involvement in the most recent election may not be so beneficial, "Drudge doesn’t even try to find political relevance to his lewd, juvenile innuendo." 

It's no secret that Drude is a driving force in the media. The only question is whether or not he is driving the it the right way.  According to the Salon article he may not be,  but a few mainstream media outlets are eating it up. 

Andrew Breitbart said. “ he just has the best nose for news there is. He gives people everything, every single thing, they want to know in a single stop." The wording there is crucial, because yes, honestly some people do want to hear that Hilary Clinton has a lesbian lover, or a terminal illness, or both. He really can decide who he wants to attract and then suck them in. 

Parton believes, "As long as Matt Drudge is driving the news cycle, it will only get worse." I can honestly say I'm indifferent. We can leave it to Drudges harsh insinuations or mainstream media conglomerates feeding a one sides agenda. At this point it's really just about picking your poison until independent outlets can slay this beast once and for all.