Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE PROBLEM OF THE POLITICO.
I love Mike Allen's Playbook. Unabashedly. I wouldn't even deny that it's "the 4chan of political reporting." But it's the best guide to the morning news, and Allen mixes "drive the day" trivia -- and there is a lot of that -- with a good eye for the substance in stories. But even as an admirer, and consumer, of much of the Politico's product, I think Gabe Sherman's take on the outlet sidesteps some fairly unsettling conversations.
As far as I can tell, The Politico is trying to do something fairly radical: Sustain a news-gathering organization off of, well, news. They don't have a local monopoly and there are no real estate ads. Foreign reportage isn't subsidized by home buyers and the investigative team doesn't rely on the Macy's Holiday Sale for support. But in order to do that, they've had to create a leaner machine. They need to maximize the views each story gets and minimize the stories that don't get views. The news has to be entertaining. It has to be dramatic. There have to be winners and losers and scandals and mistakes and new narratives clashing with old decisions that mix with secret revelations to create breaking scoops AND MUCH OF IT HAS TO BE IN CAPS.
There's nothing wrong with that. Well, there's a little bit wrong with that. But overall, the Politico does a fine job at what it's doing. The problem is The Politico is a model with no room for stories on climate change and welfare mothers and daily life in Baghdad. It's public affairs news boiled down to its most popular component: The drama and sport and, occasionally substance, of politics.
And the model makes sense. No one likes stories on climate change and welfare mothers and daily life in Baghdad. They're low performing. They clutter the page. Indeed, a page with too many of them will lose readers to, well, Politico. In a healthy media environment, that's fine. There's no reason that some news can't double as entertainment. There's no reason that some outlets can't cater to horserace junkies. The Politico, in that world, is a positive development: More news!
This is not a healthy media environment. And the game is, to some degree, zero sum. If the newspapers lose readers to the Politico's more concentrated shot of political adrenaline, they'll fold or follow. But the fault doesn't lie with the Politico. The Politico isn't a revolution in news. It's an evolution. It's the direction everything has been going in for a long time. We can all predict it. But no one quite knows how to stop it, or what to do once we get there. Because even the 4chan of political reporting would agree that a world of all Politicos is a world with lots of politics but fairly little news. They'd be able to drive the day, but without the sort of reporting that puts housing on the agenda or climate change before Congress, they wouldn't be going anywhere. Politico's model makes sense -- Mike Allen brags, correctly, that it "is one of a tiny handful of news organizations in the WORLD that is actually GROWING." -- but it's a post-news model. And the fact that it's one of the only new models working only further emphasizes how far we are from solving the news media's problems.
COMMENTS (23)
The Politico is high-fructose corn syrup, is what I hear you saying.
I also take it that you have faith in democracy, and so won't draw the conclusion that the decline in substantive media is partly a function of a polity full of maleducated sensation addicts, but I don't, so I will.
Posted by: Delicious Pundit | February 19, 2009 10:12 AM
No one likes stories on climate change and welfare mothers and daily life in Baghdad. They're low performing.
Don't tell that to Al Gore.
Posted by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle | February 19, 2009 10:35 AM
I think this is confusing and missing some important things.
First, the Politico's model isn't all that "radical." It's an extension of a model that's existed for years -- the Hotline/NationalJournal/CQ model, in which a niche political publication focused heavily on process stories is marketed largely to Beltway people. The rise of the internet means you can now access more news junkies, so Politico is taking advantage of that and also, to a certain extent, hoping to reach a general interest audience. But the outlets I just named also don't have foreign bureaus, don't support themselves with Macy's ads, etc. The "radical" Politico model is itself a sort of spin that Harris and VandeHei have been putting out -- more buzz! -- lots of people are uncritically buying into it, and it's a little unfortunate.
Second, can we all just take a deep breath? The Politico DOES NOT MAKE MONEY. They are anticipating they'll turn a profit for the first time this year. It remains to be seen whether this is actually a sustainable "model," or whether this is just another situation where a rich person bankrolls a media outlet he likes, for prestige reasons or otherwise. I'm guessing they'll turn a profit sometime soon -- or, at least, I don't have much reason to believe their public projections are wrong (lobbying ads that populate their print product are basically recession-proof) -- but it's weird to hear someone say that Politico is "one of the only new models working." I think folks should define their metrics when they write something like that. Is it because they make money? (Can't be.) Because they get lots of page views? (Much less interesting without the money.) Because they get lots of media attention?
Finally, just to be up front, I happen to like a lot of Politico's product. I've been reading Mike Allen's Playbook for a long time, and if you keep things in perspective (he really does write some nonsense on occasion), it's a great little news rundown to start the day. Ben Smith and Michael Calderone do good stuff, too.
Posted by: Ankush | February 19, 2009 11:28 AM
"Sustain a news-gathering organization off of, well, news. They don't have a local monopoly and there are no real estate ads. Foreign reportage isn't subsidized by home buyers and the investigative team doesn't rely on the Macy's Holiday Sale for support. But in order to do that, they've had to create a leaner machine. "
Sounds like TPM to me. Which has its faults, but it's orders of magnitude more serious and beneficial to the political discourse than Politico. Nor is its primary audience other journalists, which is not a healthy situation unless you're CJR or Poynter.
"The problem is The Politico is a model with no room for stories on climate change and welfare mothers and daily life in Baghdad. It's public affairs news boiled down to its most popular component: The drama and sport and, occasionally substance, of politics."
Most popular among the media, yes. I see very little evidence that horserace is more popular than substance among ordinary people. I'm not suggesting that a 4,000 word feature on the intricacies of single-payer healthcare versus universal mandates is going to get more pageviews than a short story on Nancy Pelosi's haircut, but reporting that relates policy to people's lives consistently attracts readers/viewers.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | February 19, 2009 12:04 PM
"The 4chan of political reporting?" Wow, talk about damning with faint praise!
Posted by: Bruce | February 19, 2009 1:12 PM
ditto most all the above.
an analogy:
food : news :: making the sausage : politics
politics is process, not news, no one but insiders care about. similarly, for example, posting patents that Apple has filed like many mac rumor websites do... that's not news. it's web insider stuff for junkies. and patents and political scuttlebutt isn't news, products and results are.
the difference between politico and mac rumors is that mac rumors knows it can't affect what apple does. but politics and politico specifically is a media ouroboros. it's self perpetuating because it feeds off itself. so politico only exacerbates the issue.
Posted by: sarah | February 19, 2009 1:31 PM
It's Crackberry "gotcha" news. Reflects the attitude of Washington (soundbite) and Wall Street (ticker). Problem is not Politico, but how it's abused by spinmeisters (Rush, Hannity, Drudge).
Posted by: benintn | February 19, 2009 2:12 PM
Thing is, if you replace "politics" with "gossip" in this piece, it would not be far off.
Posted by: jayackroyd | February 19, 2009 2:13 PM
Politico ----> Drudge ----> Rush.
Posted by: HoneyBearKelly | February 19, 2009 2:42 PM
It's like USA Today...but for policy wonks...who don't like reading about policy.
Posted by: ibc | February 19, 2009 4:25 PM
Politico is growing now and the MSM takes it seriously. But in essence Mike Allen and Politico are largely right wing and do not give a balanced view. Which is fine. Just don't claim to do so.
Posted by: Jymn | February 19, 2009 4:32 PM
Would be nice if Politico expanded from Washington and actually looked at issues facing the District. It's a bit embarressing when the quality of the Examiner's local coverage exceeds that of a supposed insider rag.
But it's fun to follow Obama hour by hour at the Politico 44 website- I'll give them that....
www.mideastbymidwest.com
Posted by: JG | February 19, 2009 5:44 PM
The Politico doens't hire black people, which is sad. If they don't soon, they might make a mistake like the NY Post did with their cartoon.
Posted by: Fox News Light | February 19, 2009 6:53 PM
I can never read Allen's Playbook past the part where he reports the birthdays of Hill press flacks
Posted by: Josh Orton | February 19, 2009 7:57 PM
I think ibc puts it very in his/her Feb 19 4:25 PM post, but I would add that Politico also seems to be increasingly following the formula of Drudge and the New York Post (especially in the headlines) and that is very troubling, in my view.
Posted by: Jason Platt | February 19, 2009 9:00 PM
I meant to say, in my last post, that I think ibc puts it very WELL in his post--sorry for the missing word!
Posted by: Jason Platt | February 19, 2009 9:02 PM
I think when you start by saying you like Mike Allen, the rest of the post isn't going to be very good. Congrats, you lived up to the stupid standard you set at the beginning.
Posted by: Greg in LA | February 19, 2009 10:04 PM
Ankush has an angle, as does IBC. But, Politico has "popularized" the CQ/National Journal angle just in time for new interest in politics, new blogging, etc. It's done that, and done the online equivalent of a USA Today on the more serious political commentary. But, I don't think it's for policy wonks who don't want to read policy.
Rather, it's for would-be policy wonks who don't want to read policy.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | February 20, 2009 12:18 AM
http://www.watchrolexshop.com
Posted by: wow power leveling | August 4, 2009 8:46 PM
[url=http://www.game2guide.com/]wow gold for sale[/url]
[url=http://www.cheap-wow-accounts.com/]wow gold for sale[/url]
Posted by: ad | September 4, 2009 4:22 AM
god
Posted by: shanghai massage | September 27, 2009 1:43 AM
Obama got the Nobel Peace Prise, because Mr.president unabashed or those referees unabashed?
By the way, if you are interested in high qualities but low price replica watch Please contact us.
Posted by: progiftstore | October 12, 2009 5:28 AM
If they don't soon, they might make a mistake like the NY Post did with their cartoon.
Posted by: pressure gauge | November 18, 2009 12:30 AM