During Today interview, Coulter falsely claimed "the Drudge Report has never had to retract a report"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: During her January 7 interview on NBC's Today, Ann Coulter falsely claimed that "the Drudge Report has never had to retract a report." In fact, the Drudge Report has a track record of posting items that were false on their face or were subsequently exposed as false, and in 1997, issued a retraction regarding a false allegation he posted on his website.
During her January 7 appearance on NBC's Today, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter falsely claimed that "the Drudge Report has never had to retract a report." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the Drudge Report has a track record of posting items that were false on their face or were subsequently exposed as false. Moreover, on August 12, 1997, Matt Drudge did indeed issue a retraction regarding a false allegation he posted about former Clinton senior adviser Sidney Blumenthal's personal life.
Recent examples of false Drudge claims include:
- Pittsburgh "attack"
During the afternoon of October 23, 2008, Drudge seized on McCain campaign volunteer Ashley Todd's allegations that a black man mugged her and, after seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car, carved a "B" into her cheek. At 2:54 p.m. ET, Drudge reported Todd's allegations as fact, posting on his website: "Shock: McCain Campaign Volunteer Attacked and Mutilated in Pittsburgh," along with another headline reading: " 'B' Carved Into 20-Year Old Woman's Face... Developing..."
Drudge did not initially link to a news report for this claim. From the Drudge Report at 2:54 p.m. ET on October 23, 2008:
Drudge eventually added a link to an online article (since updated to include Todd's retraction) by WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh about the alleged attack. From the Drudge Report on October 23 at 3:28 p.m. ET:
He later posted a picture of Todd with her purported injuries. From the Drudge Report on October 23 at 6:40 p.m. ET:
As Media Matters noted, Todd's claims were proven to be false on October 24, when Todd reportedly told police she made up her story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on October 25 that "[a]lmost from the start, Pittsburgh police were skeptical about a young woman's claim that she had been mugged and a 'B' carved into her cheek by an attacker who was provoked by the sight of a John McCain bumper sticker on her car."
On October 24, under a photo of Todd, Drudge posted the headline: "She Made It Up!":
- Supreme Court "tragedy"
On October 27, 2008, Drudge featured the following false headline: "2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution of Wealth' Not Pursued by Supreme Court":
In fact, as the YouTube audio Drudge linked to demonstrates, during a 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ, Obama did not say it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not pursued wealth redistribution. The "tragedy" Obama identified was that the civil rights movement "became so court-focused" in trying to effect political and economic justice. Obama stated: "And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
In addition, on August 12, 1997, Drudge issued a retraction regarding a false allegation posted about Blumenthal's personal life. A Washington Post article (retrieved from Nexis) reported that Drudge "based his report Sunday on anonymous sources" and "claimed that Blumenthal, who began work yesterday as an assistant to President Clinton, 'has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively covered up.' " The article continued:
Drudge said last night that he is retracting the story. "I apologize if any harm has been done," he said. "The story was issued in good faith. It was based on two sources who clearly were operating from a political motivation."
William McDaniel, Blumenthal's attorney, called the report "a despicable and cowardly attempt at political assassination. The Blumenthals are not going to stand for this. ... We don't want a retraction. This is drivel. This is garbage. We intend to prove there isn't a shred of truth in that report. ... He made this up. If he's got sources, they made it up."
Blumenthal and his wife, Jacqueline, director of the White House fellows program, have been married for 21 years and have two children. They declined to comment.
The publication and retraction in just 24 hours -- and a resulting spate of media inquiries -- underscored the dangers of unverified gossip when harnessed to the lightning speed of the Internet. Drudge, a conservative who does not claim to be a journalist, has admitted publishing wrong information in the past, such as his prediction that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be indicted last year.
In a decision in the subsequent litigation between Blumenthal and Drudge, D.C. Federal District Judge Paul Friedman wrote: "After receiving a letter from plaintiffs' counsel on Monday, August 11, 1997, Complaint, Ex. 6, defendant Drudge retracted the story through a special edition of the Drudge Report posted on his web site and e-mailed to his subscribers."
From the January 7 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Conservative commentator Ann Coulter is a best-selling author and syndicated columnist. Her latest book is Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America. Ann, good morning, nice to have you here.
COULTER: Good morning. It's great to be here.
LAUER: I want to talk about [Roland] Burris in a second, but let me just get to this little controversy. You've been all over the blogs in the last day or so. We canceled your appearance here on Tuesday, and from what I have been reading, you thought you were banned for life from the show. What did -- were you behind that report?
COULTER: No. I didn't say that. That was from a reliable news report that, by the way, had never -- has never had to retract a report on exploding GM trucks. But I do know that -- like NBC --
LAUER: So, we're either dead, or you weren't banned?
COULTER: It apparently took -- it apparently took eight hours for the Today show to remember that there was a Wednesday show that I could be invited back to. It took the Drudge Report posting that for the Wednesday invitation --
LAUER: You see, but --
COULTER: -- but I'm very happy to be here, Matt Lauer.
[...]
COULTER: No. I don't think I'd be sitting here now if it hadn't been a headline on Drudge. But let's get to the book --
LAUER: Really?
COULTER: -- because I do want to talk about the book.
LAUER: But we've had you on so many times in the past. After every book, you've always been invited back. Why would you, all of a sudden --
COULTER: Why would --
LAUER: -- be banned?
COULTER: Why -- I don't know.
LAUER: We made it --
COULTER: I mean, that's not for me to answer what your motives are.
LAUER: We traded you out for [former Britain prime minister] Tony Blair yesterday, and I think that's a pretty good switch.
COULTER: Well, you had more than Tony Blair on for four hours.
LAUER: Yeah. Right. But you were --
COULTER: It's a four-hour show.
LAUER: In your slot, where you were supposed to be yesterday morning, was Tony Blair.
COULTER: And [MSNBC host] Rachel Maddow, and various gossip columnists, and a bear --
LAUER: Afterward. Afterward.
COULTER: The point is, I was canceled twice. And it wasn't until the Drudge Report ran a headline on its own reporting -- and the Drudge Report has never had to retract a report the way --
LAUER: You know -- you know what -- you know what that expression is --
COULTER: -- NBC News has.
LAUER: -- just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you don't have enemies. But anyway, let's get to the --
COULTER: Let's get to the reason --
LAUER: Let me get to Roland Burris first.
COULTER: -- I wanted to be here.
Why would she even mention this TWICE in a minute, knowing it's false? Is she crushing on druge? or drugs...?
Drudge probably hasn't had to issue as many retractions as a responsible source would feel compelled to out of decency if that source was wrong as often as Drudge is. That's only because Drudge carefully notes that many of his items are "reported by others", or "a source says...". He gets the propaganda out there second-hand, to his less than detail-oriented audience, then distances himself when his source turns out to be full o' s**t.
Exactly.
It's much more accurate to say that Drudge rarely issues retractions, even though he has made dozens if not hundreds of false reports.
It's much more accurate to say that Drudge rarely issues retractions, even though he has made dozens if not hundreds of false reports.
Right. Coulter's comment is like claiming that a psychopath has "never" had to admit that he was lying. It's meaningless.
Exactly. From her first substantial sentence, Coulter came to the Today Show prepared to deliver nothing but deflections. And this is why Coulter is so successful. Her interviews are remarkable objects of study for sociolinguists and rhetoricians. It's not so much that she lies, but that she says things that are totally irrelevant. Yes, the Drudge Report has never had to retract anything. That's because no newsmedium is ever required by the laws of physics to issue a retraction. Very occasionally by state law, perhaps, though these are rare cases indeed. But strictly speaking, no news outlet ever has to retract anything. Even if she had (falsely) argued that the Drudge Report had never reported anything that later turned out to be unfounded or untrue... what does this have to do with anything?
I'll give credit where credit is due: Coulter is truly gifted in the art of misdirection. But Lauer is equally clumsy in what should be the tools of his trade: sticking to the issue at hand, which in this case, is Coulter's preference for media-buzz and publicity over real intellectual labor.
Well said. If Coulter is asked what 2+2 is, her answer is liberals think it's 5. She says what she wants, never mind what she is asked. Which is why I am indifferent to her.
"Well said. If Coulter is asked what 2+2 is, her answer is liberals think it's 5."
I think you may have just identified her secret recipe precisely.
It's not so much that she lies, but that she says things that are totally irrelevant.
Right-- classic example-- on Hannity and Colmes, in response to Colmes' citation of her "stripper" line, Coulter immediately engaged in a blatant example of goalpost shifting, trying to make it appear as if she were talking about illegitmate children, rather than anyone else-- like divorced mothers.
It's a classic argument-shifting tactic of hers, that's never, ever challenged when it happens. She constantly gets away with it.
Why make such absolutist claims?
Coulter may not be a real genius, but she knows her business. I think she's bright enough to realize that the public is made up of two pretty distinct groups; those who figured out that she's a fraud within 10 seconds of first seeing or hearing her, and her base, who will believe anything she tells them.
Neither group is affected or surprised by anything she says. Those who can think for themselves know she's lying, those who prefer Ann to think for them don't want to know that she's lying.
She's a freak show to those of us wanting a laugh, and a respected social commentator to a select group of Ignorant-Americans.
Exactly, it's only when that attention-getting siren is spinning up a doozy that I sit up and take notice.
Precisely, but are you replying to some voice in your head or bruce1ace?
Hey, when that cool siren is up and flashing like a state trooper it's time to take a deep breath and dive in for some good old fashioned scoop reporting. It's why I keep my Drudge hat right next to my keyboard, never know when I might need it.
Uh oh, I think there's a new item up, Tommy! Activate Fedora!
You're pullin' my leg Col, drats, and I had my hat (activate fedora, I love that, very good!) in hand, now it's tossed aside to wait, and hope......
That's so good!
It shows how far on the fringe she is. I think even Republicans realize that Drudge is no longer a reliable source of actual news. Some one nudge Annie and clue her in.
Thing is, YOU guys might think Drudge is entertainmet, but there are plenty of folks who I personally know who RELY on him for their news and think that he's the best thing since sliced bread.
There are also plenty of folks who rely on exclusively left wing websites for their news as well, people have the right to pick and choose news sites, or misinform themselves if they wish.
You and Bruce think Drudge is for entertainment purposes only. What, if any, exclusively left wing website are you comparing to Drudg?
I never said there was a left wing comparison to Drudge, Governor. What I said was people get their news from all sorts of places, left wing and right wing, and that is their choice, it's a free country. People can be as clueless as they want to be, you're living proof of that. Try to keep up.
Do they say that Michael Moore has never ever been wrong about anything?
President Elect Obamas potential new Surgeon General was attacked by Michael Moore.
Nope, it was the other way around. Gupta attacked Moore for his movie Sicko. It turns out that on almost every point, Moore was correct and Gupta was wrong. Paul Krugman wrote in his blog about it.
So is the Gupta pick as bad as Robert Gates? Should Michael Moore be the Surgeon General? He may be qualified he made the movie Sicko
I have no idea what relevance your question has?
That the right is more likely to claim their pundits are always right or attacked for telling the truth.
I found through Google that machine-sliced bread was first offered in 1928. The year before that, Babe Ruth had his 60 home run year. So if anyone out there wonders what the best thing was before sliced bread, it was Babe Ruth.
This has been a public service.
I think you give Ann Coulter too much power.
If you mean negative power, I think I'm pretty close to home here. Don't you find it interesting that the coursest ones all went silent weeks before the election? Coulter, Maulkin, Morgan, and a few others?
I don't think they went silent as much as the media did not give them a forum. Even this morning Witch Coulter could not understand the reason she was bumped was because Tony Blair was on. That is more important than this book.
Your first comment was very perceptive.
When McCain pulled ahead in the primary she said she wouldn't support him. She actually stuck by her word which is almost unheard of for her ilk. I suspect she wanted Obama to win though. Not for the good of the country of course but for the good of her bank balance. Don't forget she became a star ragging on Bill Clinton. If the Dems have no power she has nothing to write about.
She was quiet during the election because she had no candidate to support. On January 31, 2008 she said that she would campaign for Hillary if McCain was the nominee.
McCain was the nominee and Hillary lost.
see:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
OOPS. Second attempt to post a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
hoksu! did it
Usually, I am wondering how much longer Drudge will be around, I was hoping the public would have caught is act and dropkicked him.
Oh, I get it, Fraulein Coulter--if you never apologize for lying, that means you've never lied?
Two words for the whole lot of you:
WHO CARES????
100 flippin' posts on whether someone used to be someone else. Sheesh!!!!
Since Drudge is not quite CBS News, why should it? This site itself, in a way, did the same thing by posting threads of Rush, OReilly, et all when they were calling the Duke lacrosse stripper a lying "ho" and then she actually turned out to be one. I didn't expect an apology to Rush, or even signs of an acknowlegment that MMFA blew it. Its simply not a news source.
Wasn't it Coulter, show said during the 2006 elections, that if the Dems didn't make huge landslide gains in 2006 that we would "go away as a party"? Hmmm, very very credible and insightful she is. Unless she thinks that Democrats are now Republicans and Republicans are the ones with 59 votes in the Senate.