Bill Clinton's "love child"

When I read Drudge's coverage of President Bill Clinton's "love child," I had trouble understanding how he got away with such bad journalism.

My favorite part is:

"Could Bobbie Ann Williams and her sister be blackmailing the President of the United States with outrageous and false claims of sex for money and the pregnancy that resulted?

What becomes immediately obvious to the viewer watching the videotaped confession is that this is clearly not gossip, rumor or anonymous charges being maliciously directed at a politician.

Bobbie Ann Williams does not hide her face in shadow when she names Bill Clinton as the father of her son.

And there is something sad and lonely about the woman's story the way she tells it."

So basically, he's analyzing video footage that he doesn't provide his reader with. Perpetuating untruths isn't a great way to get your name out there in a positive way.

For example, USC's Annenberg School of Communication (fun fact: it was my top choice for college. I got in but they're really bad at giving out financial aid), posted a time line of this whole fabricated story. Since when do tabloids inspire actual legitimate news outlets to run with a story? My roommates and I are addicted to supermarket tabloids (they're our guilty pleasure). I just read a story about how reality "star" Kourtney Kardashian is leaving her boyfriend/ baby's father. Does that make it newsworthy, important or true? No. This was clearly a larger scale issue when a tabloid had way too much influence on "real" journalism to the point that some mainstream media outlets lowered themselves to tabloidism.