Twitter and Drudge

A post at the Miami Herald Twitter poses risks for papers begins with Drudge:

The end began in January 1998, when Matt Drudge broke the story on his blog that linked President Clinton amorously to a young White House intern. At least that's how his scoop is remembered, as a signature moment in the growing dominance of online news. Except that's not what happened. Drudge didn't break the intern story because he didn't have it. What he reported was that Newsweek magazine had the story but wouldn't publish it.

In the beginning, there was a great deal of denial, especially by George S. Then there was the blue dress, which story WAS broken by Drudge (yes?).

See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/plagiarism-in-vermont-congressional.html -->

And the blogs that pick apart every article that the [Washington]Post produces are a good thing, said Len Downie, because they "keep the paper honest" and, even if their commentary isn't positive, bring people to the site.

"Blogs are not competitors and not problems," he said. "Instead we have a very interesting symbiotic relationship. Our largest driver of traffic is Matt Drudge."

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/10/delaware-supreme-court-aids-bloggers.html

The Herald post ended with -->

Today's networking technologies are a huge leap forward in connectedness, but they can seduce journalists into swapping one bubble for another kind of enclosure. The real danger of Twitter isn't its power to undermine newsroom authority. Let it.

The danger is that Twitter will keep reporters off the streets and in front of their screens, that it will further skew journalism toward seeking out, listening to and serving the young, the hip, the technically sophisticated, the well-off -- in short, the better-connected. The people who aren't being heard now aren't sending out tweets.