Yesterday I took to this site to denounce what I saw as an unfair slam on Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi that came under the guise of a front-page, above-the-fold (.pdf) news article written for The Politico by Daniel W. Reilly and Jim VandeHei. Not getting too much into the details of my complaints with the substance of the piece, I did write that "this highly opinionated piece belongs not in the news section of a paper but rather in the Op-Ed section," a sentiment I still hold today.
But this was not the only recent example of the editors of The Politico making an overly and perhaps overtly political statement on the front page of their new newspaper. The editor-and-chief of the periodical, John Harris, has the details.
With a mixture of pride and remorse, I have a confession: I am the author of the Democratic Party's "slow-bleed strategy" for ending the war in Iraq.I had nothing to do with the details of the plan that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) floated two weeks ago. His plan was crafted to use the appropriations process to limit President Bush's options for mobilizing more forces in Iraq, while trying to protect Democrats from the accusation that they were abandoning troops in the field. As it happens, Murtha's idea is itself bleeding support, hit by a barrage of denunciations from people who say it does indeed amount to abandoning the troops.
In retrospect, it probably has already occurred to Murtha and his supporters that from a public relations perspective, "slow-bleed" was not the most winning description. How could they have been so stupid?
That's where I come in. "Slow bleed" is my phrase. Murtha had nothing to do with it. Neither did John Bresnahan, the reporter whose name was on the Politico story in which the "slow-bleed strategy" made its debut.
Let me first note that Harris deserves at least some kudos for being up front about his role in handing the Republicans about as big a gift as they could have wished for in their effort to keep the Iraq War rolling ahead at full steam. Not all editors would own up to their actions and decisions, particularly not so soon after the story was published.
That all being said, this admission, as well as the lead article in yesterday's issue attacking Speaker Pelosi, raise some serious questions about the intentions of the editors of The Politico. Do they want to be a solid news organization covering Congress in a meaningful and responsible way? Or are they looking to be another tabloid, the primary goal of which is to sell as many papers as possible -- even if that means allowing stories and headlines to get ahead of the reporting upon which they are based?
Regrettably, it seems to me that the latter may be the case, particularly after seeing the paper not only run with Republican talking points but actually hand Republicans talking points, on both the "slow bleed" and the "Pelosi breaks promises" stories. While I wouldn't go so far as to state that I see a political or partisan bias in their reporting at this point, I am concerned with the willingness of the organization's editors to insinuate themselves into the political debate not just through original reporting but also through flashy headlines and ledes that lead to discussions on the talking head programs on the cable news nets.
Washington doesn't need another political rag for the sake of having a political rag. But there is certainly room for more honest, thorough and (yes) at times sober reporting on the inner workings of the Congress. If the editors of The Politico is looking to fill that important role, then they have a chance to move their paper into the must-read category not only for the most hardcore politics junkies but even for those generally interested in the current events up on Capitol Hill. But if they are just looking to hastily raise their profile at any cost then they have little to no chance of upending the paradigm of political journalism for the better, as they seem to want to do.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
