A shape with lion body and the head of a man
Gabriel Sherman has a great article in TNR about the rise of the Politico. The main point of the article, besides the fact that most of their editorial staff will probably die ten years earlier than expected due to over work, is that Politico – and outlets that adopt their approach — will survive, and might even thrive.
The Politico‘s model is almost a hyper-distillation of the models that are thought to “work” today.
For one, it’s primarily online. Sure, it has a print edition (which brings in 60% of its revenue), but its reputation and nearly all of its readership comes from their website and web content. So, unlike basically every other poltical news organization, it’s as-close-to-ideally suited for the day when no one can count on print revenue. And, even if it needs print revenue to survive, its print readership is constrained to influential people in DC who are likely to get something out of Politico’s ads that they can’t get on craigslist.
The other way it almost perfectly embodies current trends in political reporting and journalism is that, unlike more august institutions, they have no illusions about providing a public service, keeping government accountable or anything like that. Instead, as their founder Roger Allbritton puts it when describing investigative or explanatory work, “I think we have to acknowledge that the money is spent for reputational benefits and a public service play” and since the investors in the Politico are there to make money (as opposed to anyone investing in a news magazine or just about any newspaper), we can expect them to stay with their revenue-maximizing model.
And what does that model entail? A whole lot of one-day inside-beltway stories whose main purpose is to get play on Morning Joe that morning or on Anderson Cooper that afternoon. It also means emphasizing speed over just about anything else, which can mean the occasional scoop that’s based on nothing (which Sherman details).
Basically, what the editors and Allbritton have figured out is that if you want to make money and be influential as a news organization, you have to do the type of reporting that, say, infuriates the left-wing blogosphere or just about anyone who thinks that the day-t0-day politics of Washington is orders of magnitude less important than the real policy outcomes.
Now, political journalism of this kind — the type of journalism that treats politics just like any other news story — has generally existed side by side with journalism that actually deals with why politics is important. So, the Times or the Post might report similar types of scoops as the Politico and have parts of their reporting teams do similar type of work, but they’ll also have people who will explain the policies and generally get into why any of these newslets actually matter. But it’s precisely that latter type of journalism — explanatory, analytical and investigative — which isn’t cutting it in today’s much leaner and competitive atmosphere.
So, while many may not like Politico’s approach to political reporting, everyone should recognize that it’s likely here to stay, and soon enough, their approach might be the only one left.
