Critic thinks; Drudge links
Perplexed, perhaps, by the one influential voice that was not heralding "the Messiah-is-come-amongst-us", the very perceptive Clive Davis posted "The end of the Drudge era?" on 30 October. Sure, he hedged his position with that pusillanimous question mark, but he did admit that "It's a long time since I paid much attention to the Drudge Report". In support of his indifference, Davis quoted an appeal for "fresh voices" by the FT's teen heartthrob John Gapper, who confirmed the decline of Drudge and observed that this is due to "a broader shift in the US media, both old and new, towards the Democratic party."
As we've seen, that is certainly true, but the partisan shift is not confined to US media. Gapper's own paper endorsed Obama and the last man standing, The Economist, sheepishly followed suit, although the letters to the Editor this week suggest that many readers, including Rainy Day, were displeased with this posturing.
But back to "The end of the Drudge era?" Don't bet on it says the astute Jack Shafer in "Don't Count Drudge Out". He notes: "If you could access only one home page for breaking news and chose Washingtonpost.com or CNN.com over the Drudge Report, you'd be a blockhead." Exactly. And it's only going to get better for Drudge because of the "broader shift in the US media, both old and new, towards the Democratic party," as John Gapper put it. Anti-establishment voices will be in great demand from 20 January on and Drudge has the cred that the others have shred. By the way, someone somewhere calculated that if the numbers in the Drudge media kit are accurate (500 million page views monthly, 1.95 billion ad impressions monthly), Matt and his mate, assuming a 60 percent sell-through at $4 CPM, are clocking up $56 million in annual revenue. Just by linking!
If this is "The end of the Drudge era?", Matt can smile. But if this is not "The end of the Drudge era?", Matt can laugh. And link. To the likes of this.
