Like, for example, this one by the appropriately named A. E. Brain.

When I see that the blogfather has linked to someone, I assume that it needs no further linking, unless I (rarely) have some unique words of wisdom to append to it.

Is that right? Are there really readers of this website who don't also read Instapundit? If so, then perhaps I should reconsider my position, but my preference is to point out things that people won't read elsewhere, for parsimony of my efforts, if for no other reason.

I'm the same way, most of the time. I'll link to something the BlogFather already linked only if I have something to say about it (and particularly if I disagree with him, which happens now and then).

I do like Pixy -- and if I do link an Instapundit post I generally call Glenn "He Who Doesn't Need the Linkage."

No one has ever needed to ask who I meant.

The Instapundit is huge, but I believe he still has a small percentage of the blogging market, His readers are likely those of a conservative political interest. Transterrestial's are likely to be the Space or tech interested reader. Whats intresing to me is that I discovered the Brains site through a blog much smaller than the Instapundit

I often don't go to stuff Glenn links to *unless* I see another link on my other regular reading (here, Tim Blair, AE Brain, etc.), so a second link is actually a good thing for my money.

Rand,

I try to look at Glenn's stuff when I can.

Here's my take on things.

Glenn does a great deal of linking these days -- and only some very brief commenting. He also (unless things have changed) doesn't allow commenting. That's his call. It's also one I can understand fully. Who knows what garbage could be put up (I'm thinking of Slashdot porn stories now) that would give him no end of grief.

You, on the other hand, put up some cogent commentary yourself. You also allow comments by others. Others' comments are usually thoughtful and informative. You also write on topics of central interest to me.

Anyway, these days I actually look at your blog for more time and with somewhat more interest than Glenn's. (Sorry, Glenn.)

Please do put up links to interesting things. Yes, I might see it on Glenn's blog first. But I'm more likely to see it on yours first if the link is here.

No offense taken, Chuck. The blogosphere is a big place, and no blog is best for everyone -- or even for a very large share of blog-readers.

But this makes me wonder whether I should revisit my presumption against blogging things that are on Drudge.

Speaking for myself, whether you link to an article of mine or not, the fact that you think it's worth reading is very gratifying.

Glenn,

I'm glad you understand. I do visit your blog when time allows. I also think your blog quite worthwhile.

You finally got me to look at Drudge for the first time. Yes, I really should look at Drudge if I'm going to be politically active (which I am becoming).

What's the attraction of Drudge? Seriously. The site I just looked at didn't seem all that interesting. I gather he broke a few stories of some note. But his site doesn't show me anything I can't get elsewhere. At least today it didn't. There are a lot of links to publications and columnists. So? Links to stories about the earthquake and tsunami. So? It's been a front page story on the dead tree WaPo the last three days. Yes, it's a tragedy of great proportions. But what more do I need to know that isn't already in the Post?

I know I have a definite bias in favor of clear, thoughtful reporting, writing and thinking. I respect people like Rand and Glenn because they engage in that kind of activity. Even when I disagree, I learn something of value.

What's Drudge's appeal?

Glenn, Rand, do post links to things on the Drudge Report. I'm willing to bet that there are others who are somewhat like me -- busy with lots of things and unwilling to spend time looking at every web site people have identified as important.

> What's Drudge's appeal?

First, he's a free read, just like the rest of you.

Second, he's a link to the popular mind, just like supermarket tabloids. Everyone should know what's going on through these channels, which is not the same as ascribing any particular faith to any particular report.

These days Drudge seems more valuable on radio than through his webpage.

Drudge's initial appeal was as an internet retailer of "news worth your time," with a sprinkling of exclusive stories; nobody else was doing this, and so the Report was a hit. The blogosphere's editorial acumen (and appetite) has, however, made media bias more painfully transparent than ever before. With journalists regularly abusing their assumed objective status, context and perspective is everything. Because Drudge's primary source for "news worth your time" is still the mainstream, and his method is to more or less link headlines verbatim, his website often acts as as bullhorn for the MSM's various narratives — which is not, I think, what he ever intended. Today, several weblogs collectively serve the Report's purpose, and, unlike the Report, immediately tip off readers to incorrect information.

"Rathergate" was the first time Drudge repeatedly linked to weblogs, if for nothing else because available or reliable information from the mainstream was scant. But I wouldn't be surprised if he did more of that in the future.

I don't read Instapundit unless someone directs me there. What makes it such a popular site anyway?