My views lie somewhere in the middle, but I lean slightly towards conservatism. I like aspects of libertarianism, but I think capitalist fanaticism is immoral. I like the concept of individual responsibility, but at the same time I feel that helping our fellow citizens is part of being a responsible individual.
I used to read the Drudge report, but I grew weary of the links to sites that seem to be populated entirely by white supremacists and lunatics.
The worst thing about the drudge report, is that the author picks a candidate early on, and then uses his popularity to assassinate the characters of all the other republican candidates in an effort to ensure that his favourite gets the nomination. That's not journalism by any stretch of the imagination.
To be fair though, the republicans have had some pretty shitty candidates in the last decade or so. Its just disingenuous for him to act like his favourite isn't a POS like the others.
EDIT: Looks like someone reads the drudge report. Honestly, have you ever read any of the comments on the articles they link to? Haven't you noticed how he alters headlines to be as inflammatory as possible?
Another word that will descend into ambiguity and quickly lose it's meaning ala "socialist". This happens rapidly these days as mainstream news adopts phrases.
I don't really think I fall entirely into a particular category. Anyone who can subscribe 100% to a political affiliation is likely not giving it enough thought.
Almost all of the republicans I know are of the tea party variety, but then again I live in West Virginia. I'd likely be considered a socialist liberal by their standards. I do know a few Libertarians, but most of them have held those views for a long time.
The word socialist hasn't lost the meaning it has held since the cold war. Ultraconservatives use it as an insult for liberals, because they know they'd be ridiculed if they said what they really wanted and called them communists.
Holy false equivalence Batman. Drudge is a hardcore propaganda rumormill and linksite. Mother Jones does serious original reporting and opinion.
To your point, MJ is pretty often engaging in "advocacy journalism," in which they're very definitely advocating a specific point of view and presenting the work they do as supporting evidence. Their view is that Elon Musk is hypocritical for arguing against private-public partnerships when many Silicon Valley companies, including his, took advantage of such partnerships. You may think they're playing dirty pool, and I'd certainly agree they're being deliberately provocative -- but I also think they see it as their duty to ask uncomfortable questions. The tone of their article certainly isn't respectful, but virtually every paragraph is implicitly (or explicitly) sourced.
The reason why I was picking those two is that from my perspective both have been covering the Snowden/Greenwald revelations from a positive angle - even so they are politically from quite opposite ends. Greenwald seems to be keen on arguing that he is not trying to affiliate himself with the left/right spectrum. That is why I can see him getting decent exposure (and traffic) with this strategic positioning.
Do you think that Greenwald is any different? He's been a polarizing figure for years, even before becoming a focal point of the Snowden/NSA story.
Which makes the question of whether he is "polarizing" or not almost irrelevant. He now has the perfect reputation as the man to go to if you have an important story involving powerful people you want to be told in the most impactful way.
Drudge broke a big story (Monica Lewinsky) to launch his career, but I don't think he has broken many big stories since then.
Mother Jones does serious reporting all the time, so I agree with another poster the equivalence with Drudge is not fair.
In any case, I would put Greenwald in a different category from anyone with a reputation based mainly on being a "polarizing figure".
Do you not see that as implicitly representing a certain agenda? As a long-time reader of Greenwald's, I recognize a heavy anti-status quo bias inherent in his writing and his editorial choices. Just because you agree with him, doesn't mean he isn't biased.
That's it's function, at least in the context where you use terms like the "fourth estate". That's the bias you want in journalism in order to attempt to inform the public.
Not that I don't think Greenwald doesn't have biases, he does, but this particular one isn't a bias to complain about, it's what makes an investigative journalist. I'm also a long-time reader of his.
I appreciate Greenwald's journalism because he doesn't play favorites when it comes to calling people out. People seem to think he's a liberal but over the past decade he's been just as likely to call out Obama, Krugman, et al., as Bush/Cheney & Co.
Simply being 'non-partisan' does not mean one isn't also highly ideological.
http://jacobinmag.com/2011/10/the-partisan-and-the-political...
Libertarians are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Since the republican party co-opted the Tea Party via Glen Beck, there is no longer a viable voice for the political belief.
This nitpick aside, you're totally correct about the polarization of the news figures.