Battle for a friend's mind and heart: vett this post pls?

Friend of mine has started reading Drudge at the behest of her new boyfriend. He's been reading Drudge for as long as I've known him (since the Lewinsky scandal), so I need to appeal to this girl's reasoning and her latent liberalism (big on LGBT, wanted to be a diplomat, feminist, etc). So, the background:

I started off by giving a general argument (shill for the right wing, big business, big war, anti-women, andi-gay, etc...)

He countered:

I mean don't get me wrong you are entitled to say something is a "mouthpiece for a spin machine" I would just prefer you describe it accurately. Like "MSNBC, is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. Matt Drudge is a mouthpiece for no one...except Matt Druge. If you prefer your new to be bought and paid for by corporate pop-up advertisers, then you can always go to Huffpo.

I responded:

There's opinion, and then there's the truth. Matt Drudge is a Republican who posts stories that reflect his own views and opinions (like black people being scary... seriously: http://tinyurl.com/bt2kayh) to the exclusion of everything else. You might think you're getting a full view of the news because it passes itself off as a "news portal" but you will, in fact, be getting an extremely narrow and biased perspective. He even links to sites like the World Nut Daily, which just last week ran an article advocating succession and civil war. Stick with NPR and BBC.

He replied:

Brilliant [XXX], a Salon article calling something racist. How very broad and unbiased of you. At least Salon isn't narrow like Matt Drudge.

Yes, conservatives own news sources, people can go to those sources and evaluate their offerings. That is what normal, reasonable people do everyday. Only someone totally beholden to ideology has to read only news sources that always agree with their perspective.

Now I've written this response, not submitted as of yet--thoughts appreciated:

So you infer that posting about isolated incidents of black-on-white violence of only local significance and disproportionately reporting them on a supposedly "national news site" isn't irresponsible at best and race-baiting at worst?

Also, in the interest of research, I've been observing the Drudge Report for the last few hours: every headline (three of them) have been sensationalist and anti-Obama ((even calling Obama's comment about how "I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy," a GAFF--no, that's not a gaff it's expedient and pragmatic seeing as how Egypt has a brand-spanking new and unvetted government. Oh, and also an incendiary little piece claiming Obama knew the attacks were coming, first printed in a British Tabloid owned by an ex-KGB guy (you know, the secret police of "our number one geopolitical foe ::eyerole::... and beyond that, flimsy unnamed sources and contradictory accounts within the article itself. I.E., bad journalism)

Among the smaller links, we have a collection of relatively innocuous from traditional news sources... and then the vast majority of their political coverage from Right Wing sites ranging from the slightly leaning, to over. The. Edge. Crazy. And any criticism of Romney? Hell, they even posted a link to an article defending his irresponsible and distasteful reaction to Cairo's ass-saving statement, and repeating Romney's either failure to fact-check, or outright lie, that the statement came out after protesters had breached the walls (they even had the balls to say "there was some confusion regarding the timeline"--there's not).

A portal is, clearly, like a window. You look out, you see a limited perspective... you can do all the research you want on what you can see, but that will never ever give you a complete picture. And if so (is so), why waste your time sifting the dross from the gold? For instance, [BF], we had a rather severe disagreement about whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Final CIA verdict: no. Meaning that I was right and you were wrong. I'd start looking for some new news sources, if I were you.

And, to the heart of the ulcer, [THE GIRL I would certainly encourage and warn someone new to Drudge and its reputation: letting Drudge in any way influence your news-reading habits is dangerous to retrograde to your quest to stay up and informed on what's really happening in the world in general and in our nation in particular. In polls, Fox viewers are routinely the least informed (while claiming to consume the most news); you are only as informed as your information, and a lot of times, this is the second voice that cries and begins the echo chamber that culminates with coverage on Fox News.