Politico has emerged as one of the most cited outlets this cycle, and has a few really good bloggers and lots of good topics for articles. Very Slate-like. Yet whereas Slate is fairly open about being liberal, Politico is constantly cited in the MSM and on Drudge as some sort of objective paper. They must have a lot of good connections and a good set-up going, as they break a lot of stories and have accrued great cred.
But they're not exactly the New York Times. Take the articles on their front page right now. Check this article ("Would Palin Stick Out in Georgetown?") or this ("Presidential Ad Picks-and-Pans") or this ("Cover This! Inside the Nastiest '08 Rumors"). These are articles that would not appear in a paper of record, as they involve judgment calls (on pushing the Palin-as-anti-intellectual theme; on deciding how to rank campaign ads; on choosing how to measure what counts as a "rumor" and what qualifies as "nasty") that "fact-reporting" outlets usually decline to engage in. (Not to mention that all of these stories are very pro-Obama in nature.)
I think this is actually a good development. Journalists shouldn't just be robots. Many of them have been called out for asserting false equivalencies throughout this election (e.g., when they say "The campaigns have been going hard. McCain has been saying Obama hates America, and Obama has been accusing McCain of wanting to continue the Bush policies."). The news cycle is so fast now that it's up to the blogs, ironically, to convey the untainted, bare-bones facts of what's going on, since it's easier to shovel out a campaign press release, a piece of leaked insider information, or a youtube clip on a blog than elsewhere. The Caucus, Ben Smith, Marc Ambinder all provide a constant barrage of (mostly) straight reporting. Then, the in-depth articles that The Atlantic, Politico, National Review or The New Republic publish are more opinion-centered and involve more judgment calls.
But they're not exactly the New York Times. Take the articles on their front page right now. Check this article ("Would Palin Stick Out in Georgetown?") or this ("Presidential Ad Picks-and-Pans") or this ("Cover This! Inside the Nastiest '08 Rumors"). These are articles that would not appear in a paper of record, as they involve judgment calls (on pushing the Palin-as-anti-intellectual theme; on deciding how to rank campaign ads; on choosing how to measure what counts as a "rumor" and what qualifies as "nasty") that "fact-reporting" outlets usually decline to engage in. (Not to mention that all of these stories are very pro-Obama in nature.)
I think this is actually a good development. Journalists shouldn't just be robots. Many of them have been called out for asserting false equivalencies throughout this election (e.g., when they say "The campaigns have been going hard. McCain has been saying Obama hates America, and Obama has been accusing McCain of wanting to continue the Bush policies."). The news cycle is so fast now that it's up to the blogs, ironically, to convey the untainted, bare-bones facts of what's going on, since it's easier to shovel out a campaign press release, a piece of leaked insider information, or a youtube clip on a blog than elsewhere. The Caucus, Ben Smith, Marc Ambinder all provide a constant barrage of (mostly) straight reporting. Then, the in-depth articles that The Atlantic, Politico, National Review or The New Republic publish are more opinion-centered and involve more judgment calls.
