website statistics

Archive for the 'The Politico' Category

When Not to Blog About the White House

Published by William Beutler on August 10, 2008 in Barack Obama, Beltway media, Blogs vs. MSM, George W. Bush, Journalism, Journalist Bloggers, MSM, MSM vs. Blogs, Metapost, National Politics, Newspaper Columnists, Newspapers, Startups, The Politico, Tough Crowd, Twitter, Washington Post, Website Design, White House '08 and William Beutler. 2 Comments

Politico sign in DC Metro from David Boyle in DC via Flickr.

Last week I traded a series of Twitter “@ messages” with Jay Rosen, the NYU journalism professor, blogger and media critic. The first one asked:

Maybe you know. Q: why doesn’t Politico have a Ben Smith for the White House? Bets on whether they’ll get one if Obama wins?
He’s got a point. The Politico lists the organization’s designated blogs on its front-page in this order: Ben Smith on Dems, Jonathan Martin on GOP, Shenanigans on Gossip, The Scorecard on Campaigns, The Crypt on Congress, Michael Calderone on Media, James Kotecki on whatever. The Politico is literally blogging about “whatever” but not about “the White House.” So I guessed, in fewer than 140 characters:
Smith-Martin are a package deal, covering both primaries. Politico: more campaign, less governing? But that’s a great idea.
Prof. Rosen suggested in turn:
How about a PI post? Politico columnists for the Dems, Reps, Congress, Media, Gossip, Campaign trail, but no White House?
To which I replied:
Mike Allen certainly covers the WH. But not in blog form, true. Have friends down there, so I can ask. Possible PI post indeed.

And so I did, getting in touch with a half-dozen or so current and former Politico writers, asking for their thoughts on background. I also made an effort to get VandeHarris on the record, but they did not return e-mails by my less-than-rigorously self-enforced deadline.

So here’s what I could piece together:

  • When the Politico launched a little under two years ago, the presidential campaign offered the biggest opportunity first. Politico was first conceived as a newspaper to be called Capitol Leader — “Yet Another Newspaper Aimed at Capitol Hill” as the Washington Post had it. The Executive branch wasn’t even in the picture until John Harris and Jim VandeHei were.

  • As noted above, the newspaper that did emerge hired the much-acclaimed, much-accosted former White House reporter for Time and WaPo, Mike Allen. He writes big stories, is in good with Drudge, and produces content on a daily basis like everyone else. The format of his output is a secondary matter.

  • Most everyone I talked to seemed to assume that no matter who won the presidential election, Politico would increase their White House coverage after the election. After all, it’s the logical continuation of the campaign stories they are covering now. Some said they thought a blog would be involved, and no one volunteered the opposite.

One thing that occurs to me is that other major newspapers have blogs covering the White House as a beat, as do regional newspapers with Washington correspondents, but none of them command major audiences (even when they resort to Olympics T&A).

People care about the big stories that emanate from the White House, and they’ll get that from every newspaper and every political blog inside the Beltway, but few are looking for the day-to-day minutiae. Bush is a lame duck, interest has waned even in some of the bigger stories, and other national newspapers have moved their White House correspondents to the campaign trail.

The answer given reminds me a bit of the response I got in the summer of 2006 when I first wrote about the opening for a “Republican ActBlue”, viz., just wait. It may be worth noting, the person who did finally create one was not yet working on it at that time.

So, yes, the Politico will probably have a White House blog next year. Whether Politico writes the one that Jay Rosen is hoping for remains to be seen.

Photograph by David Boyle in DC via Flickr.

The Gestalt of The Politico

Published by William Beutler on August 4, 2008 in Blogs vs. MSM, Hotline, Journalism, The Politico and William Beutler. 0 Comments

The Gestalt of the Politico

The Politico is produced just a couple floors below the office whence I type these words, and its staff has counted more than a few of my fellow former Hotline colleagues. Heck, I’ve got two of their promotional coffee mugs in my kitchen cupboard at home. So I take great interest in this American Journalism Review article on its first two years in existence. Here’s how it begins:

When veteran Washington Post political reporters John Harris and Jim VandeHei urged their bosses to create a Web site strictly dedicated to politics, management didn’t jump at the idea.

Less than two years later, Politico, the venture they envisioned – and left the Post to take on – is a success, and a politics-only site is “under study” at the Post, according to Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr.

“The proof is in the figures,” says Harris, Politico’s editor in chief. In May, it had 3.5 million unique visitors and 25.1 million page views, according to Nielsen/Net Ratings. Editor & Publisher ranked Politico the 10th-most-visited newspaper site that month.

Although Harris would not reveal revenue or advertising numbers, he says Politico’s operations are already self-sustaining and the Allbritton Communications-owned publication should be profitable next year. Print advertising provides about 60 percent of its revenue, VandeHei says.

Under normal circumstances, nobody expects print ventures to be profitable in a short period of time. The last few years have been anything but normal, with newspapers in particular hemorrhaging readers and surgically removing staff writers.

Yet the Politico seems more relevant than ever. Though it is not without its flaws, perhaps this is what makes it so timely. And if it really is just a year from profitability, that’s a good sign for the news industry, right?

Not so fast, says Ezra Klein, in a post at The American Prospect:

Here you have this forward-thinking, primarily virtual venture to create a political news organization that marries old-school reporting values to the speed and the immediacy of the web and it actually works. A year-and-a-half after launch, it’s getting 3.5 million unique visitors per month and 25 million page views. And yet not only is it unprofitable, but 60 percent of its revenues come from advertising in the 27,000 circulation print version. In other words: Politico got the online readership it dreamed of, but it hasn’t come even close to figuring out how to monetize it.

This makes sense. After all, massively popular websites like Facebook, Digg and MySpace can’t figure out how to make money off their audiences — why should a news site? Especially why a news site that’s entirely about politics? Everyone knows that politics isn’t where the money is. Consider, for example, how James Joyner subsidizes his high-minded Outside the Beltway blog with the lower-brow Gone Hollywood.

But not so fast again, says Kevin Drum, at The Washington Monthly:

But there’s another way of looking at it: without a website, The Politico would be dead in the water. If, instead of being almost profitable, it were still hemorrhaging a few million bucks a year with break-even years away, there’s a pretty good chance Allbritton would just shut it down. …

Bottom line: Print gets you respect and big dollar advertisers. The web gets you buzz and a nice chunk of additional revenue. The future — part of it, anyway — belongs to those who can successfully combine multiple media platforms into a single profitable whole. So far, it looks like The Politico has done that.

The premise is more complicated, but fair: the whole point of The Politico was to create an online-offline (and even televised) news hybrid. The Albrittons wouldn’t have bankrolled it in the first place without a website. And I do like the takeaway: the print and web editions can be mutually reinforcing.

This works in a glorified company town like Washington, where lobbying firms and trade associations are always there to buy an ad in the hope of influencing lawmakers and their staff. If this model is replicable in Chicago or Cincinnati or Corvallis, I’m not sure how.

Plus, it’s more than a little discouraging for anyone thinking about trying to create an online-only news organization. Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo do more newsgathering than any twenty of the top political blogs on the right, but they’re still a far cry from being a true professional news organization like The Politico.

All that said, we need more Politicos. I wonder what David Simon would have to say about it.

The Swift Boating of John McCain

Published by William Beutler on June 30, 2008 in 527s, Comment Sections, John Kerry, John McCain, The Politico, White House '08 and William Beutler. 1 Comment

It’s an article of faith among among Democrats that John Kerry, a war hero, was unduly smeared by a group of fellow veterans who did not know him or his accomplishments. I took more a mixed view of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, finding some of their claims worthy of discussion (Kerry’s involvement with the Winter Soldier Investigation) and others unworthy (Kerry’s supposed “war crimes”). So I hesitate to use the phrase in the title, but I think it’s warranted.

Four years later, some on the left are doing the exact same thing to John McCain. The Politico has already taken note of two in particular. One is Gen. Wesley Clark, who is likely to get some major press coverage. Less likely to generate interest offline, but still likely to be influential, is this John Aravosis post:

Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?

It’s not “nice” to ask the question, but it’s actually a pretty good question. … A lot of people don’t know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain’s military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It’s not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He’s a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn’t really tell you much about someone’s qualifications for being commander in chief.

One might think that Aravosis would think twice about taking this line of attack, considering his support for John Kerry in 2004. On the other hand, AMERICAblog spent most of that year trying to make President Bush sound like a deserter. And in fact, Aravosis has been pushing this McCain-is-not-a-war-hero line for awhile.

But let’s answer the points Aravosis avoids: McCain spent more than a half-decade as a prisoner of war. Significantly, he refused an offer of early release in 1968, remaining behind with his fellow POWs and denying the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory (McCain’s father was a four-star admiral leading the U.S. Pacific Command).

Meanwhile, Aravosis portrays John McCain as participating in a propaganda video as if McCain did so of his own volition, rather than being held captive. To the contrary, McCain often made trouble for his captors — cheering the bombing of the North with his fellow soldiers — and spent significant time in solitary confinement. I don’t refer people to Wikipedia as a matter of course, but these sections are very well-supported, and the bibliography is a credible one.

Meanwhile, based on the comments to Aravosis’ post, it sounds like McCain’s critics are likely to try pinning the 1967 USS Forrestal disaster on him as well. Oh, and there’s this lovely comment:

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE WATERBOARDING FOR THIS CLOWN

Meanwhile, Aravosis’ 2004 candidate was “merely a vet” who spent just four months in combat, gave time to slanders against his fellow soldiers and whose convictions on the Iraq war developed late, at best. But I don’t want to argue about John Kerry; that may be the point. In fact, Barack Obama’s lack of a military record is an unlikely plus: he grew up at a time when military service was neither obligated nor obligatory.

Aravosis’ post by itself is deliberately inflammatory and poorly reasoned. Alone, it wouldn’t demand a response. But with liberal 527s outspending their conservative counterparts, it will be very interesting to see how far Obama supporters pursue this line of attack in the coming weeks and months.

Soren Dayton, John Sasso and the Twitter Election

Published by William Beutler on March 20, 2008 in John McCain, The Politico, Tough Crowd, Twitter, White House '08, William Beutler and YouTube. 5 Comments

Once, this new thing called blogosphere reshaped the 2004 presidential campaign. And then, this new thing called YouTube influenced several contests in the 2006 midterms. So what’s next? Could Twitter change the outcome of the 2008 White House race?

Probably not just yet, but one thing is clear: What’s said on Twitter does not stay on Twitter. My former Hotline colleague Jonathan Martin reports:

An aide to John McCain was suspended from the campaign today for blasting out an inflammatory video that raises questions about Barack Obama’s patriotism.

Soren Dayton, who works in McCain’s political department, sent out the YouTube link of “Is Obama Wright?” on twitter at 12:31 today with the tag, “Good video on Obama and Wright.” It has since been taken down.

Twitter is an online device that allows users to send out short messages and links en masse through computers or PDAs.

An aside: The explanation of Twitter is cute; I remember not so long ago when they did that for blogs.

It should be clarified: the video is still on YouTube but Soren’s Twitter account — which I’ve followed since I first signed up — is gone. I like Soren and would like to think that he could post to his personal account whatever he’d like. The video highlights some Obama statements I think are objectionable and some where I think the outrage is overwrought; none of it strikes me as patently beyond the pale.

Then again, I remember well the controversy over John Edwards’ brief employment of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, bloggers like Soren, who embarrassed the campaign with their outlandish rhetoric. The issue is not whether the video Soren linked was less inflammatory than what they had written; that can be debated. The issue is that their public commentary (even if 140 characters or fewer) ran contrary to the standards of the campaign. In Edwards’ case, they were likely implied, not explicit standards. But as Martin notes,

McCain and his campaign have repeatedly said that they would stay away from personal attacks on Obama, but the temptation has increased as Wright’s words have dominated the race in recent days.

Last week, they included an op-ed that hammered Wright and Obama in their morning clip package emailed to reporters. The same day, a campaign aide they regretted doing so.

Informed that Dayton was circulating the video, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said he had been suspended and “reprimanded by campaign leadership.”

“We have been very clear on the type of campaign we intend to run and this staffer acted in violation of our policy,” she said.

One difference may be that Marcotte/McEwan had already proved controversial, with conservative bloggers making considerable noise about their independent blogging. Dayton had not yet caused that sort of embarrassment, and I frankly find it unlikely that it would have.

So did the McCain campaign overreact? Probably. Was this unfair to Soren? Maybe. But I’ve spent the last couple days saying that the Obama campaign has been too slow to cover its bases on Jeremiah Wright and Black Theology, so I must note that here the McCain campaign was quick to get in front of a potentially damaging story. Perhaps Republicans should see this as a blessing in disguise.

With 20 years distance, it seems ridiculous that the Dukakis campaign dismissed campaign manager John Sasso for distributing oppo research on then-rival (and onetime 2008 hopeful) Joe Biden. If it’s any consolation to Soren, he shouldn’t forget that Sasso was eventually hired back.

Update: All that said, I’m still joining Trevino’s Support Soren Dayton group on Facebook, and recommend that you do so, if you’re so inclined. Soren is very smart and a good guy for McCain to have. I especially hope they reinstate him so he can post for the campaign on RedState. Their stand is clear; it would be a mistake to turn this suspension into a sacking.

It’s 3 A.M. Do You Know Where Your Rhetoric Came From?

Published by William Beutler on February 29, 2008 in Advertising, Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Rhetoric, Television, The Politico, White House '08 and William Beutler. 4 Comments

This morning First Read covered Hillary Clinton’s last-ditch negative campaign spot, questioning Barack Obama’s readiness for the job of commander-in-chief. Here’s their write-up:

*** Goin’ negative: We were about to write this morning about our surprise that Clinton hasn’t run a negative ad against Obama in either Ohio or Texas. But then we saw the new Clinton ad in Texas that appeared on TODAY. It goes: “It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders…knows the military…someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” Does it remind anyone of that LBJ Daisy ad? Ok, that’s a little extreme… But it sure does raise the specter of fear.

It’s also being compared to the “red phone” ad Mondale put up against the insurgent Gary Hart in 1984.

But it actually reminded me of something else entirely, and much more recent: a campaign mailer put out by AFSCME in support of Clinton in New Hampshire not two months ago. Politico’s Ben Smith was the first to post it; here it is, cropped for clarity/focus:

Hillary Clinton “warhead” mailer by AFSCME

You could say AFSCME tested the message in a small market before the campaign took it wider. Nothing wrong with that unless it was actually an AFSCME-backed 527, which the campaign would be forbidden from coordinating with. Then again, lifting an argument two months later is hardly a smoking gun.

As to its potency, the AFSCME mailer received a bit of negative coverage in the blogsosphere, but not enough to backfire. This time the stakes are even higher, and the campaign itself is making the risky argument.

If it works, it will no doubt join the ranks of those controversial-but-effective spots (add Reagan’s “Bear in the woods” and 43’s “Wolves” ads in there, too). If it doesn’t, as I expect, it will be quickly forgotten and everyone can get on with blaming Mark Penn for everything.

Breaking Once, Breaking Twice… Broken!

Published by William Beutler on September 4, 2007 in Breaking News, Cable News, E-mail, Scandal and The Politico. 0 Comments

Here is a rare peek inside my Gmail inbox, only minutes ago:

Politico's identical Breaking News alerts

And how are these two stories different?

Simple, really. You see, the first one they grabbed off the AP wire. The second one was written by a Politico staffer, Carrie Budoff Brown.

The first version contains this canned response from Larry Craig spokesman Sidney Smith:

“We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight - and stay in the Senate.”

Whereas the Politico’s version contains this canned response from Larry Craig communications director Dan Whiting:

“As he stated on Saturday, Senator Craig intends to resign on September 30. However, he is fighting these charges, and should he be cleared before then, he may, and I emphasize may, not resign.”

Was this worth alerting me twice? I can’t see how. I generally appreciate the alerts they send out. But right now, the only thing separating Politico from Fox News or MSNBC is a sound effect.

Update: Okay, at this point, I kind of just give up.

Bring the Noises Off

Published by William Beutler on June 25, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Blogs vs. MSM, Democrats, Harry Reid, Iraq, Leftosphere vs. Rightosphere, Netroots and The Politico. 0 Comments

Headline at Center for American Progress’ Think Progress blog, June 21:

The ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Myth: Right Wing Falsely Claims Progressives Want To Resurrect Mandatory Balance

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday, June 24:

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine? FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Zing!

When I saw that TP headline last week, I was more than a little dubious. After all, Dennis Kucinich is an outspoken fan of the dead regulation, as are certain quarters of the leftosphere. But little did I expect that this absurd claim would be proved “false” (a favorite word of TP and Media Matters) by such a prominent Democrat, not to mention one known primarily as a moderate.

It reminds me of a brief controversy from earlier this month, where The Politico’s John Bresnahan reported that Harry Reid had called outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace “incompetent.” Bloggers from the call didn’t remember it, accused Bresnahan of making the whole thing up, and when it turned out he hadn’t, they weren’t especially contrite about it.

What’s interesting about all this is that in both cases, prominent representatives of the liberal netroots strenuously denied something that was not only true but arguably even helpful to their side, simply because a political adversary had stated it. In both cases they went overboard, creating more negative press for themselves than if they’d just left it alone.

Think Progress would certainly be right if they merely argued that conservative bloggers talk about the fairness doctrine coming back more than progressive bloggers, but arguing that “progressives” have no interest in using the doctrine as a weapon against right-wing talk radio just won’t fly. And as James Joyner asked at the time, what part of the Democrats’ Senate leader calling a Bush appointee “incompetent” did they not like?

The key difference is that Think Progress tried to maintain a position that most observers knew was not true, then dropped the subject. Bresnahan’s critics, on the other hand, defended a point most probably didn’t know for sure and then, unwilling to end on a retraction, changed the terms of debate instead.

I don’t have a full case to make about what it all means, but it is interesting that here in the span of two weeks we have two examples of the left’s own noise machine being unsure of exactly what sound to make.

At Least it Pays the Bills

Published by William Beutler on May 24, 2007 in Mike Bloomberg, National Politics, Rhetoric, The Politico and White House '08. 0 Comments

In today’s Politico, analyst Roger Simon throws water on the media-invented boomlet for potential presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg. He makes a few smart observations, the best of which explains why self-funding his campaign may actually be an impediment to building a base of support:

[W]hen voters give you money, they often protect their investment by voting for you. When you finance your own campaign, you don’t build that base of support.

And while I tend to agree with the overall point of his column — Bloomberg is too smart to blow a billion dollars on a hopeless candidacy — it does contain this bit of unmitigated silliness:

We have elected people from all kinds of professions to the presidency. George Washington was a surveyor, Abraham Lincoln was a rail-splitter, Andrew Johnson was a tailor, Harry Truman was a haberdasher, Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and Ronald Reagan was an actor. But we have never elected a mayor.

Say what? Simon deliberately cites early, pre-political vocations by these former presidents and, tongue presumably in cheek, compares them favorably to Bloomberg’s current place of employment, Manhattan’s City Hall. Except Washington also was a wartime general, Lincoln was a lawyer and member of the House, Johnson was a member of the House, Senate and a governor before becoming Vice President, Truman was a farmer, judge and senator, and both Carter and Reagan were both governors.

Simon is correct that a mayor has never been elected president, though that is the highest public office attained by Giuliani as well. Citing Bloomberg’s pre-political career, as a businessman, would keep the symmetry, although it surely doesn’t sound as goofy as “rail-splitter” or “haberdasher.”

On the other hand, it would put Bloomberg in the company of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. Not exactly exalted company — which might have been a slightly better argument, without the contrived goofiness of reducing presidential employment histories to caricatures.

Negative Liberty and Anna Nicole

Published by William Beutler on February 23, 2007 in Cable News, Entertainment, Seriously and The Politico. 4 Comments

Philosophers and political scientists like to speak of rights in terms of positive liberty and negative liberty. Liberals generally support the former — freedom to have opportunities, such as access to health care. Conservatives and libertarians tend to support the latter — freedom from government coercion, such as the capital gains tax.

Today, the banner across the top of The Politico’s front page provides an example of negative freedom all right-thinking — and left-thinking — people can support:

An Anna Nicole-Free News Zone

Now, it’s been pointed out to me that The Politico already eschews celebrity “news” as a founding principle, but that doesn’t make it any less of a respite. Cable news is always the worst offender in these situations, but they’ve really outdone themselves this week. MSNBC even pre-empted their mighty “doc block” to cover the Broward county child custody hearings. News may be obsolete in prime time, but damned if they don’t do their share of “news.”

P.S. I am aware that including phrases like “Anna Nicole Smith” and “Britney Spears” can only help Blog P.I.’s search engine referrals, and I’m cool with that. That said, if you found this post by searching for either of these terms, you should be ashamed of yourself.

P.P.S. 69.250.94.154 from Huntingtown, Maryland, that means you.