The act of making someone believe something that is not true. Is this definition satisfying? Does putting a title at the top of a page signify there is more to be written after one sentence? What are titles good for if not to set the stage for a countless letters all strung together as a harmonious symphony of intellect and hidden meaning? If you look at a page that says “Drudge Report” at the top of it does your mind instantly think of Matt Drudge the famous journalist that represents the acquisition of real knowledge 'real' fast? Or does it represent any yellow journalist that can't tell truth because the truth will mean he won't eat very well...at least well enough for a millionaire. You see I believed the first interpretation for a while. Every article made me feel as if the world were on the edge of a cliff and the only thing holding it were the valiant Republicans thwarting all attempts by the 'socialists' to chain us under the evil hand of the government. I justified his hard work though and did not think about what he truly did. He spends countless hours of the day looking for the “best” articles to put on his page. But if he's merely transferring what someone else wrote onto his page, where's the skill in that? Adam Smith told the world that what we're worth is what we can do. Any dunce can take articles and paste them as links on an html page after learning very basic tools. So what's the catch? No one can make titles for these links the way he does. He's witty, laconic, and blunt. You see – it's the titles that make the article. I'm answering my title above as much as Drudge wants his readers to believe that an unbiased article was the most fiery thing they've read since the world was created in 7 days. Of course, he's not encouraging new ideas to be formed. That isn't his job. His job is to give information so people can feel safe in retaining their same world view. When he posts an article that details a new gun law nearly every reader will think it an atrocity and the end of civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Funny how the reader will never question if there should be control rather than banning as if absolutes are the only option we're faced with. But is this deception? Here's my definition in relation to human nature: lying that only benefits the liar. He doesn't do this because he thinks it's the right thing, he knows it's wrong, but if he didn't do it then he would be an unimportant journalist caught in the decision of whether to remain unbiased or to pick a side. What if, for every article, he posted about the rescinding of rights he posted an article about gun violence? He gets upwards of 1 billion views a month, would as many people visit the site if he became unbiased? My gut tells me no and yours should too. See that? Your intuition was answering no while neither of us can truly tell the answer. Suggestion or deception? Or both? Question everything because everything could be a lie.