Midterms are over, the prez is in Asia, and Olbermann’s back at his desk—what’s a niche political site to do?
Lean forward, of course (with apologies to MSNBC).
A quick glance at Politico’s website today reveals that the site is keeping an eye on 2012 as it rummages through the debris left by the 2010 wave. It’s a reasonable enough focus for the political site and has offered up some interesting reporting, such as this Jeanne Cummings piece on the White House’s new openness to outside donors.
But it’s offered up a lot of pat “maybes” and “mights,” as well. And while speculation on the fortunes of political players is the bread-and-butter of an election-watcher like Politico, at least in two instances this past twenty-four hours, they are clearly stretching too far.
Take this short story on the 2012 potential of failed South Carolina Democratic Senate Alvin Greene—he of the misdemeanor and felony charges and the numerous late-night punch lines. Kasie Hunt’s report, “Alvin Greene mulls presidential bid” opens with this titillating HuffPo-ready lede:
Alvin Greene might run for president.
What’s this? Greene, the candidate whom Jim DeMint pummeled last week, has begun raising money through a PAC? No? Okay, has he established an exploratory committee to divine his presidential chances? Not that either? Hmmm. Has he started airing attack ads against incumbent President Obama?
It’s much less exciting than that.
Greene, the unlikely Democratic Senate nominee in South Carolina who lost overwhelmingly to Republican Sen. Jim DeMint last week, called the state Democratic Party on Tuesday to ask how much it would cost to run for president.
Lest you should think there was no reporting done here, read this:
“Maybe. I’ll have to see,” Greene told POLITICO when asked whether he was considering filing to run for president. He confirmed that he called the state party Tuesday to ask about the fee. The state party’s spokeswoman, Keiana Page, confirmed that someone called the party Tuesday asking about the presidential filing fee but said that the caller did not identify himself.
“Maybe” it’s a little unfair to poke fun at a piece like this and wonder why Politico bothered running it—if you make a call and realize there’s no story, in the old days, when column inches were precious, you didn’t run it. Alas, today there is always space on the web, talk show hosts always need more fodder (Conan’s back), and as ever, there’s always a legitimate interest in a candidate from some corner of the room. Greene did manage to get 359,069 votes on Election Day.
The bigger worry is another “maybe” story on Politico’s main page today, Alexander Burns’s “Grim omens for Scott Brown’s future.” As with the Greene piece, it begins with a big “might” on 2012.
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who launched the GOP’s midterm insurgency with his special election win last January, just might be a dead man walking.
His polling numbers are still solid. There’s no Democratic war-horse candidate primed to take him on. Brown’s campaign coffers are full, and his celebrity lets him command a national following.
But virtually every result from last week’s elections in Massachusetts offered up grim omens for Brown’s future. His party failed to capture a single high-profile office in the state. Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, despite early signs of vulnerability, won reelection by a convincing 6-point margin over Charlie Baker, a health insurance executive viewed as a star by state and national Republicans.
We like Burns—and you can see him hard at work in this CJR-produced video about political reporters covering the midterms—but this is another example of Politico generating a story that probably isn’t there. Note the key words in those three grafs: “might” and “still” and “but.” It’s as if Burns is saying there might be a story here; still, don’t forget these facts show there might not be a story; but I am going to give you a story anyway.

i'd vote for alvin greene over sarah palin
#1 Posted by steev, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 02:32 PM
Oh good. Alvin Greene might run for president.
Please tell David Cay Johnston and Ryan Chittum to start covering his Facebook right away! After all, his potential run for president is every bit as preposterous as Sarah Palin's run, and they tell me (with a very serious face) that it is a good journo's job to cover and fact-check EVERY candidate who may be running for president.
Get busy, guys. Start your fact-checking engines now!
...cf "Sarah Palin, Media Critic "
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 02:40 PM
Palin IS running already -- she just has not formally declared.
Since she was on the ticket in the 2008 elections it would be foolish to ignore her and it is worthwhile to cover the degree to which what she says are her own thoughts and their relationship to empirical facts.
Better would be to examine who built her house and how she came up with the money for it, based on her disclosure forms; see Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice in 2008 shortly after her nomination.
#3 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 08:12 PM
Palin IS running already -- she just has not formally declared.
Since she was on the ticket in the 2008 elections it would be foolish to ignore her.
Further, it is worthwhile to cover the degree to which what she says are her own thoughts as well as how her own words comport with empirical facts.
Better, though, would be to examine who built her house and how she came up with the money for it, which based on her disclosure forms was beyond her means; see Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice in 2008 shortly after her nomination.
#4 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 08:13 PM
@Mr. Johnston,
Yes, all of those things have been covered, and covered extensively. And for any other politician, any one of those lies, distortions, breaches of ethics, would be career-ending. But it isn't for her, because mainstream journalism is enthralled with her Facebook and they can't let it go. Instead of following their news instincts and their professional judgment and ethics, they follow Politico, and Politico finds it profitable to cover, and hype, the Sara Palin Facebook.
What do we do about that?
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 10:54 PM
@ James
How Palin paid for her house has gotten very little attention (if I am wrong please send me links to davidcay@me.com).
On your Facebook point -- some history.
About 1974, when I was the Detroit Free Press investigative reporter in Lansing, the governor started issuing "radio" press releases -- recorded versions of his print releases. There was some buzz about whether using these prepared at taxpayer expense actualities was a form of faking the news since the stations did not speak to the governor, he spoke to them. The governor and his chief of staff said it was no different than giving written statements to reporters who also did not speak directly to the governor.
Technology and modes change. I'm not troubled by paying attention to Facebook or Twitter, ephemeral as they are.
What's troubling is the failure to dig deeper into the positions of politicians, their finances and their relationships and to probe the written record with an understanding of the theory underlying each agency’s function and government generally. Instead we get cheap news. Why did I have to watch a television ad here in Western NY to find out a local state legislator's law firm gets millions in state-related business?
Cheap news, like the poor, has always been with us and always will be. As with whiskey, stick to the expensive stuff.
#6 Posted by David Cay Johnston, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 06:15 PM
How Palin paid for her house has gotten very little attention (if I am wrong please send me links to davidcay@me.com).
Interesting. I read the article and it looked like your typical LSM guilt by association hit piece. For example, is Todd Palin not capable of building a home? I know it might come a quite a shock to the effeminate liberal talking heads, but a guy like Todd is probable more than a little bit familiar with saws, nail guns, and bobcats. Some of us Lumpen are actually quite capable of manual labor and skilled craft work and make significant improvements to our homes with little if any subcontracting.
Were the contractor “buddies” of Todd’s really friends? How much work did they actually do? Was it a Saturday afternoon here and there, or did they have their own crews working on the house? I have a friend who owns an excavating company lend me a hand digging out a foundation for an outbuilding I put up on my property a few years back, does that mean there was a sweetheart political payoff in the works or is he just a nice guy who has know me since the 9th grade?
What about the sportsplex? Were there other bid considered and rejected for the work, as bids for all governmental work is subjected to this? Where these other bids lower than Howdie Inc and if so was there a legitimate justification for going with Howdie?
Who had control and selection over Howdie’s subs, was it the city of Wasilla or, much more likely, Howdie? As to these subcontractors and their “ties” I cannot imagine a metropolitan region like Wasilla have a deep and diverse base of construction subcontractors. This aint the greater Boston metropolitan region you know.
Did Palin stalker Wayne Barrett actually try and answer any of the questions I raised above or was he just putting all the dots there and letting the reader make the most logical conclusion? I thought a good “journalist” was supposed to ask questions and … get ready for it … find answers! I know, imagine it!
And Mr Johnston, since you are so interested in the detailed minutia of how a prominent politician gets a home have a got a story for you: it involves a VERY prominent politican whose had a real estate dealing with a recently convicted felon which benefited both of them.
#7 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 09:17 PM
@Mr. Johnston,
You make some very good and convincing points. The issue about how Palin's house was built was covered by the Village Voice and various sites in the blogosphere, back during the presidential campaign. I would not claim that this issue was covered "extensively"; you are entirely correct about that, in my opinion. In fact, none of the ethical issues around her rise to power in Alaska have been covered; all of those questions were not covered by mainstream media. The campaign effectively shut those questions down in no short order and the major news venues were very compliant with the McCain organization in that respect. You had to be following Mudflats, Anchorage Daily News, Andrew Sullivan, the liberal blogosphere, at the time to know about this stuff.
And you make excellent points, which I do not disagree with, about covering a candidate's Facebook and Twitter manners of communication. I suspect that we are on the same page here.
My embarrassingly snarky comment above, and my complaint on the other thread, goes to covering and hyping the *content* of her Facebook and Twitter at the expense of real coverage, as you have outlined. And it is very much like journos repeating someone's radio and television press releases without any analysis, or doing any digging independent of the press releases.
It's a very effective modus operandi by the right, that mainstream media falls for at every opportunity: arguing and nitpicking the minutiae (like the relative price of bacon) in order to deflect from the real, career-destroying issues like how the house was built and by whom. They get away with it every time. No journo at mainstream media venues, I predict, will be covering any of those questions with respect to Sarah Palin this time around -- they will claim it is "old news." It would be journalistic death for any beltway reporter to do any real reporting on Ms. Sarah Palin.
“We are going to flush the toilet,” said Tucker Eskew, who is a senior adviser to Ms. Palin, describing the campaign’s plans for Labor Day [2008], when much of the nation was busy with family and social activities. And that was the end of that.
#8 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 13 Nov 2010 at 11:19 PM