Just clicked on Drudge and found at least two headlines used as subject lines here at DU --

[DeepModem Mom]

These are not the headlines of the articles linked, but Drudge's own headline. I don't object to Drudge as a source of articles -- he has a good eye, and I find articles there I don't see elsewhere. But -- picky, picky, I know -- I think it might be helpful if, when using a headline from Drudge as a subject line, it be identified as such.

An article headlined "Edwards Speaks to Union Crowd in South Carolina," for example, might be linked by Drudge as "Stumping in Carolina, Edwards Foments Class Warfare."

Or Drudge might link "Obama Says Opposed Iraq War From Start" as "Traitor Obama Fails to Support Troops."

Or "Clinton Calls for Health Care Coverage for All" might be headlined by Drudge as "Clinton Touts Hillary Care Plan for Socialized Medicine."

We can use Drudge as a resource, but do we want to do his Right Winger work for him? How about the headline of the article as a subject line, or your very own headline, or...

"Drudge headline: Democratic Candidates in Pact with Devil."

(In fairness, Drudge's banner headline at the moment is: CNN POLL: CLINTON OR OBAMA WOULD BEAT ANY REPUBLICAN :woohoo:)

[hayu_lol]

1. We seem to have a number of posters who use...

Dredge, Hannity, Matthews, freeperville and others as legitimate sources and without linking or refering to any of them.

The same with 'news' sources such as Washington Times(Mooney)and the rest.

Up to this election period, none of these people or sources would have been accepted as having any credence at all.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. A good point, hayu_lol, if readers aren't given a heads-up to "consider the source." nt

[Eurobabe]

5. I term it Invasion of the Body Snatchers

lots of trolls these days... :eyes:

[sandnsea]

3. The headlines I see are the same as linked articles

Maybe you should click and check to see why a couple of them were the same as they are here.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. There are prominent headlines, upper left, which are the same --

but elsewhere I think there are two posted early today that aren't the same. One, I'm certain of because I posted the same article in a different forum. That wasn't an outrageous example like the ones I made up, but a slight twist just the same.

If my memory is faulty, I apologize. My intent wasn't to call out individual posts or posters (and, God knows, not to point a finger at supporters of any candidate or candidates), but to address a posting and attribution issue. I have myself posted from Drudge, and used the subject line form, "Drudge headline: xxxxx." (And probably, at that time, still got dissed by some for posting, for even clicking on, Drudge.)

And again, as I said, "picky." But I'm a little bit of a stickler in the area of sourcing.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Good idea! Good practice! To ALWAYS identify sources and avoid easy

acceptance of rightwing or corporate news monopoly headline writing.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. Right, who would go to Drudge for gosh sake? nt

[Berry Cool]

8. Excellent recommendation.

Of course, I would think going to Drudge to read news and then posting it here would be like going to a public toilet looking for something to eat, then dredging what I found out of the toilet and attempting to share it with my friends.

On edit: Oh, OK, maybe that's a bit severe. I'm glad someone else reads him so I don't have to, and it's good to know what "crap" is out there without having to go looking for it oneself. Thanks. :-)