Tent Two
It’s 2014, Obama is in his second term, and Politico is still here and managing to pay our bills—more than a lot of once-great news organizations can say. But I can’t say I’m having a hell of a lot of fun. And the ability to have fun and have an impact at the same time was the reason I got into this business.
In retrospect, we probably were too cocky for our own good. We had such a good run in 2007 and 2008 that we assumed that growth and success would keep flowing. We did not appreciate that the same trend that made Politico possible in the first place—the massive fluidity and fragmentation of the news business—could cut the other way.
But the fragmentation never stopped. Now Politico is seeing its audience and ad market sliced up in the same way that battered the big legacy publications.
I also never would have guessed that the economy would stay in the dumps for five years. And the rates advertisers are paying for Web impressions are still pathetic. I hate to say it, but the Cassandras were right.
And it wasn’t just some amorphous “bad environment” that put us in this position. We lost some of our edge. I well knew the hazards of newsroom culture—complacency and blah, addiction to outdated habits and bureaucratic routines. I had seen how this had dulled creativity during my years at The Washington Post, a newspaper I love. What stunned me was how quickly bad habits could develop at a new enterprise, or how hard they are to root out.
How’s Politico doing in 2014? We are doing fine by most measures. But doing fine is not good enough. Constant innovation and clear thinking are the only salvation for the media in this chaotic new age.
Reality Check
I’d like to depart from CJR’s clever device and speak from the real-life perspective of 2009, not the imagined one of 2014. Politico was founded two years ago with a couple of distinct ideas in mind.
The first was that in this crowded media environment, journalists are not commodities. The best journalists have distinctive strengths, with a disproportionate ability to have impact and drive conversation. In a Web era, these journalists have in many cases built their own franchises. This is different from earlier generations, when the most important factor behind a reporter’s influence was his or her institutional platform. It is an entrepreneurial age, not an institutional one. Politico seeks to take advantage of this trend by assembling a roster of journalists with a demonstrated ability to thrive on the Web, and then helping them build their franchises. This is an expensive model, but it has paid dividends for us in public profile, audience growth, and, yes, advertising dollars.
The second idea on which Politico is based is that today’s niche publications have certain intrinsic advantages in their business models—advantages that are amplified by the Web. Legacy news organizations typically had business models that thrived on inefficiency. Perhaps only 1 percent of The Washington Post readership, for instance, is looking at any moment to buy a car. But car dealers paid handsomely to reach 100 percent of them.
Politico is different. We basically cover four related subjects: Congress, the White House, the Washington lobbying and influence industry, and national politics. No one is coming to our site for Washington Redskins news, or Fairfax County crime news. That means we are able to cover our areas of expertise much more intensively. And it means that advertisers know precisely—with a high degree of efficiency—who they are reaching on our site. If you want to reach sports fans, talk to ESPN.com. If you want to reach an educated and affluent demographic that cares intensely about national and civic affairs, talk to Politico.

Interesting, Mr. Harris. If it weren't for the dishonesty of your inflammatory headlines designed solely to garner a Drudge link, where the story doesn't deliver on the promise, and the bad journalism that is little more than baseless rumor-mongering, I would wish you and your innovative organization well. I realize that, as a news junkie outside of Washington, I'm not your immediate target audience, but I certainly do try to discredit you when I think you deserve it. Persistence, I think, is the key to that.
Sad to say, as successful as you are in garnering links, Politico hasn't made a substantial positive contribution to journalism. You are all about insider gossip, and that's about it. That's fine, nothing wrong with that, but don't try to pretend it's something more than that.
Cheers,
Tom
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 02:28 PM
So there is not a scenario in which Obama is NOT in his second term? Just another instance of the narrow focus and institutional bias that is dooming old media. Sorry to see that new media is falling into the same trap.
#2 Posted by Kit, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 02:42 PM
Uh, Kit.
I don't think Obama's "second term" is the point of that column. He's... uh... guessing. You're searching for media bias in the wrong place. Get on point.
#3 Posted by Jonathan Cribbs, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 02:49 PM
Politico has deliberately sucked up to power brokers on both sides and kept some voices out of the conversation. The strategy sometimes seems to have provocative headlines but no punchlines. I certainly would miss many traditional publications long before I would shed a tear for an absent Politico.
#4 Posted by Thoughtful 1, CJR on Wed 25 Mar 2009 at 09:42 PM
Politico is like the old National Enquirer, except for political junkies. The model is sensationalism and fabricated stories coupled with celebrity gossip, some true, some not. That model isn't new. There are lots of examples of that in the British press. Is it successful? Sure it is. People love sensationalized gossip, and Politico delivers that. Harris and his crew is capitalizing on the Villagers' love of gossip but has amped it up using big money and web technology. He's telling us right here that he wanted to be less constrained by conventional journalism standards, and certainly has achieved that. Is that a model for people who value journalism? That answer is less clear.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 26 Mar 2009 at 07:16 AM
I rely on Politico for intelligent, well-written, information on politics, policy and governance from reporters and editors who are thinking, caring, committed human beings. Passionate and patriotic with a sophisticated understanding of journalistic neutrality.
You have earned my trust. Keep "pulling back the curtain" and providing insights on the major issues confronting our country (and world). Keep asking the important questions. Keep practicing the art of editorship (I've seen some amazing stuff), and you will prosper. I don't have a lot of time. Politico is worth it.
#6 Posted by Roger, CJR on Thu 26 Mar 2009 at 08:10 AM
Are you hiring?
I appreciate Politico and what it does. I like the entrepreneurial spirit approach to journalism and (as a journalist just starting my career) see it as the best opportunity for me to prosper in the industry. The first tent does not seem outside the ream of possibility to me. Maybe a little exuberant but something to be hoped for. To accomplish this you will need the drive that young journalists have to offer, those of us fresh out of graduate school are going to be the ones who help shape and mold the industry in the coming years because, really, we have no other choice. It is either that or I could go back to being a cook, which I really do not want to do.
Politico has a chance to be a leader in this new era. A staff of 80 motivated journalists who all know how to take photographs, video, blog and run websites could run circles around the legacy publications who are resistant to such change.
Nominally, I cover sports and love it. But, if Politico was serious about pursuing the entrepreneurial nature of the first tent, I would sign on in a second just so I could help drive the model that will help save our industry.
Best,
A poor Boston journalist
#7 Posted by Boston, CJR on Thu 26 Mar 2009 at 10:38 PM
I say, Fuck the Drudge Report and Fuck You, too.
Have a lovely day.
#8 Posted by Fugga Luggi Dugg, CJR on Wed 7 Oct 2009 at 01:05 PM