Feeding the Outrage Machine
| Tue Aug. 11, 2009 10:54 AM PDT
In his new book And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture, Bill Wasik talks to John Harris and Jim VandeHei, founders of Politico, about the kinds of stories they want to cover:
VandeHei mentioned the classic pseudo-event: a presidential press conference. At major newspapers like the Post, he said, "you feel this sense of obligation to lead your newspaper the next day
with a story about what Bush said at the press conference, even if he didn't say anything that was all that revelatory, and despite the fact that it's pretty damn stale: most news consumers have not only consumed it, they've digested it and moved on."
He contrasted this with a recent Politico story that, he noted, the Post did not touch, that "ten years ago would have been confined to the inside pages of Roll Call": the revelation that Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D., Calif.) had quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and alleged that its chairman, Rep. Joe Baca (D., Calif.), had called her a "whore."
This story, VandeHei said, was "a perfect example of how media has changed. We put it upfront early on the webpage. Instantly it's linked to by Drudge and all the other blogs; Fox News is doing a story based on it; MSNBC is doing a story based on it; and then the next day, on the Colbert Report, he does twenty minutes on 'whore.' So you have just, from this perch, been able to reach significantly more people than I would have reached even at the Washington Post." The challenge for The Politico, he said, is "figuring out how to put things into that pipeline."
Well, good for Politico. But what happens when everyone decides to quit covering the "boring" stuff and just follow the Politico model instead? Is this really a world any of us want to live in?
But I guess what's most remarkable about this isn't that Politico was the first to popularize political gossip. I suppose someone was bound to do it eventually. It's the fact that VandeHei sees their primary task as "putting things into that pipeline." Not just reporting and winning a reputation, even if it's only for gossip, but feeding the outrage machine. Only if a story has done that do they consider it a success. What a sad career choice for a couple of highly regarded journalists to have made.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
So sad
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:24 AM PDT.
Kevin wrote: "What a sad career choice for a couple of highly regarded journalists to have made."
I'm sure they are crying all the way to the bank.
Highly regarded? By whom?
Submitted by low-tech cyclist on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:30 AM PDT.
Yeah, I know - they were highly regarded within the Village. And were held in such regard because they were hacks in a town of hacks.
Is their career change sad? Nope. They can be hacks more openly now than they could at the WaPo and at other MSM employers. But that's the only change. BFD.
The worst of both worlds.
Submitted by jrw on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:43 AM PDT.
The Politico combines the gossipy, gotcha, gaffe-and-scandal obsession of the declining media class with the tools of the new journalism. It's like watching The Real Housewives of New Jersey in HD. Or, I guess it is; I don't have HD and have never watched that...program. But, I have read the Politico and it's strictly empty calories.
Blogger outraged that Politico feeds outrage machine
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:46 AM PDT.
Yeah, right, whatever.
Let me know when you even bother to pick up a phone to interview someone that outrages you, or email someone the talking points told you in the morning to be outraged over.
Drum, where did Politico get their model?
have you been following healthcare lately?
Submitted by junebug on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:53 AM PDT.
"But what happens when everyone decides to quit covering the "boring" stuff and just follow the Politico model instead?"
Gee, that's tough to imagine. I guess we won't know what that's like until we get there. Because, you know, you're asking us to believe that the media might one day sacrifice the reporting of issues in favor of stories that center on nothing but controversy & name-calling. And that's just plain ridiculous.
"But what happens when
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 12:04 PM PDT.
"But what happens when everyone decides to quit covering the "boring" stuff and just follow the Politico model instead?"
And what exactly do you mean by "the boring stuff" --- manufactured bullshit pumped out by the PR machines? I think we'll all do just fine if we ignore press conferences (and this includes Obama's press conferences --- while the man is extremely articulate, and hearing him answer some questions can be inspiring, it's not like anything we don't know but should is revealed at these conferences.
To quote:
<<
Reporters are not expected to report the facts. They report “the news” – that is, transitory events. Underlying trends and conditions are not “news,” unless some event – the release of a report, a parliamentary hearing – makes them so. In Western countries, the press takes its cues for what is “news” primarily from the government and the opposition, with a few additional sources for specialized reporting—notably large corporations and the entertainment industry. Other than events prompted by these cues, only a large number of deaths—as in a riot, a natural disaster, a plane crash, or a terrorist attack—or a remarkable death—as in a gruesome murder—will qualify an event as “news.”
>>
Note the point " Underlying trends and conditions are not “news,” "
I've no idea what the rest of the world thinks about how boring or otherwise long-term trends and conditions are, they are what I am interested in, and what I consider to be important. Since journalists do a crappy job of covering them, I don't consider it much of a tragedy if people stop reading journalists.
Take an obvious example --- what will affect China more in ten years? The details of how legislation gets written then enforced; or the fact that Hu Jintao met with Vladimir Putin yesterday?
And which is the story that I will learn about in the newspapers, ephemeral, and forgotten in a week; vs which is the story that I would learn from a blogger, or an academic podcast on UChannel?
Boring stuff
Submitted by DevilDog on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 4:05 PM PDT.
Americans have no time for the "boring stuff." That's why it's ignored by MSM and why the public is so woefully ignorant on policy issues, from energy to the economy. Voting decisions are based on opinions formed by the "popular political gossip," not positions on issues.
"Politico was the first to
Submitted by Paul Camp (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 5:42 PM PDT.
"Politico was the first to popularize political gossip."
Sorry.
Wonkette.
When desperate for a diversion,
Submitted by Tilli (Mojave Desert) (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 6:15 PM PDT.
... I might wander over to Politico, but I soon start squirming and turn away. It's not political gossip I can believe in.
The tone is so oily, dorky, needy, cringe-making and obvious. So; now my gut is validated! Huzzah.
Icky.
PS -VandeHei has always been a lickspittle for the right. Really obvious and not a journalist to take seriously no matter what his inside the village cred.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
