The Politico launched Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007

It is my belief that we should exercise extreme caution with this type of "newly sprung up website", especially if it is owned and operated by the same corporate media interests that we are attempting to become independent of.

Politico is ran and managed by a Republican who served in the Reagan administration.


background on Politico:




What we don't want to do is to set ourselves up. Part of the media's current frustration in their struggle to remain relevant, as we Internet activists and ravenous news consumers are no longer chained to Corp. media sources without recourse as we once were. Due to the Internet and a bit of history behind us, we are not who we were in 2000 and 2004. As progressives, we have been able to build our own News web sources that we know to be if not reliable, then at least journalistically independent of big corporate media. Whether it is TPM (Talking Point Memo) or KOS, or the Prospect, or http://www.brooklynron.com, http://www.oliverwillis.com, http://www.americablog.com , salon.com, the Nation, etc........

Most of us don't go to Drudge as a newsource, and we should be treating Politico with the same sort of sKepticisms, IMO. I am not suggesting that we should not include it on our menu, but we should not allow it to become our main entre on a daily basis.

Just checking the last two days, here is some of what I have found posted with Politico as the source here at DU-
The Bad news is that most of these are actual thread headers......and Have "Politico" as part of the headline,
as though including the name makes the headline more bonafide. Note; it doesn't.

Politico admits pushing the RFK quote too soon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6140263

The Politico writes this morning that "many top GOP strategists believe (McCain) can defeat Barack Obama -- and by a margin exceeding President Bush's Electoral College victory in 2004."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6095939&mesg_id=6107619

Earlier, the Republican National Committee pounced on Obama's improbable statement that an uncle had served in the unit that liberated Auschwitz.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6148806

Politico: Obama is Fidel Castro's preferred candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6136270

A Guide To Undisciplined Messaging - Politico
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6138131

CBS News and CBSNews.com partners with Politico.com for campaign 2008 coverage.
As does The Washington Post, aka General Electric/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, and also ABC News owned by Disney (Disney partners with Time-Warners who owns CNN)

***WARNING****

Just sayin'........

Your caution is well deserved.

and will have those of us not quite aware eating out of their hand by the time the General Election comes round.

I can't help you find them right now but they are extensive.

I'm including some of what he has written about Politico in my op.

Thanks for reminding me!

...."lulling us"?
...."eating out of their hand"?

What brings you to these conclusions?

eight stories about John Edwards' hair and my own scrutiny of our Corporate media for the last seven years. If you want to tell me that the Corporate Media (which is all that the Politico is) doesn't have an agenda, I've got a couple of bridges and a Cabbage Patch doll to sell you. :)

And if you truly do believe that Politico, why not articulate it other than alluding to "corporate media"?

in case you didn't know.

Et tu Ben?

This is like the rightwing calling liberals "elitists", they can throw out the term but when pressed to define that term all they can do is parrot it.

Rightwing: Leftwing:

"Elitist" "Corporate media"
"Elitist" "Corporate media"
"Elitist" "Corporate media"
"Elitist" "Corporate media"

ANYONE who writes for a newspaper, television station, radio station, etc. can be termed part of the "corporate media". The only reporter or writer who is NOT is a free-lancer who never gets published.

Do you consider Bill Moyers part of the "corporate media"? Do you consider Michael Moore part of the "corporate media"? BOTH are associated with corporations that are in the media. THAT is the danger of non-specific terms like "corporate media" that are used to condemn anyone that one does not agree with philosophically.

and you crying throughout this thread will not change that fact.

The fact that the person who runs the Reagan Library and foundation is the CEO of Politico has perhaps escaped you. Nancy Reagan has endorsed McCain.

You don't need to respond, cause you'll only be repeating yourself.....Ben.

:nopity:

:boring:

They are a favorite source for info at CNN. Need I say more?

I'm always suspicious of the agendas of relatively new news sources - especially when they use tabloid-like headlines.

The MSM has finally learned that the internet is to be reckoned with.

Life on the net is instantaneous. News and interests spread like a wildfire.

How simple would it be for those who promote a specific agenda to disguise themselves as a seemingly fair news source shaping key talking points, discussions and outcomes?

From that wild-fire, other news sources start quoting from this source that lacks a track record - and other sources are!

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so maybe some insights have already been drawn; but for me, at the moment, I remain suspicious. I have not used Politico as a source for the same suspicious reasons as the OP, and when I heard Keith use this source I wondered if he knew something about them the rest of us didn't.

Anyway, just reading their affiliation of ABC (even a minor one) makes my skin crawl. I am still boycotting them for the "Path to Lies" movie. (gave up 30-plus years of watching "All My Children" on principle)

When you read comments on Poltico, they give you an option to report abuse. Well, they don't really give you that option. If you try to report an abuse by a right-wing liar and propagandist, their system won't allow you to do it. TRY IT and see what happens. I think they are a wolf in lambs clothing, not what they want people to think they are.

and at this point, some might be asking why? You have not presented any facts to counter those I presented. That makes you a single source without backup. Not good.

I have not presented any facts to counter those you presented - all you have presented in the name of "facts" are disconeccted events, conjecture, and opinion. If you present any linked "facts" worthy of response I'd be glad to either counter them or perhaps even agree!

Likewise with your "source" remark.

gave up to 'honor' the country's dead military: golf.

an ounce of prevention .. :hi:

and I'm not saying that they don't print good stuff sometimes. But I believe them to be too quick on the draw, use too few sources, and are liable to put us back where we were in 2000. I certainly do not want to end up supporting a news source that is the same news source as all of the other news sources......i.e., the US media conglamorate.

turned out not to be, like Factcheck.com (Annenberg) and Snopes (I forget, but neutral they weren't).

They should be no more trusted than main stream media in general, at best. It might even be worse.

that distracts us on a daily basis at getting at the real issues.

That's what makes them dangerous.

I suggest that we write them letters asking them about this "marketing" of non-news.

Here's more info on them:

Glenn Greenwald Is So Right It Hurts
Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald has nearly every quality I like in a man: he's pretty, smarter than me, righteous, and he hates both that Washington Post ass Richard Cohen and Gawker. Glenn's crusade against The Politico—they're in bed with Matt Drudge (Mmm! Tasty!) and their barrier-to-print is too low and therefore error-full—has become a war against the shallow right-wing internets newspaper-destroying conspiracy of which we are a part!
http://gawker.com/news/glenn-greenwald/glenn-greenwald-is-so-right-it-hurts-248108.php

that any single source of information is highly suspect. Thanks for reminding us of that point.

Dooley noted

...articles and op-eds from both sides of the aisle.

so I wouldn't consider them to be a credible source at all times either.
Just saying...use discretion.

From Wiki about Realclearpolitics (also refer to the "Discussion" section of the entry for more about McIntyre's conservative bent):

The website was founded in 2000 by McIntyre, a former trader at the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and Bevan, a former advertising agency account executive.<1> McIntyre explained "t really wasn't any more complicated than there should be a place online that pulled together all this quality information."<7> They call what they do, "intelligent aggregation."<8>

In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."<9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

I never visited the site after that. Seemed like a pretty hard gig to get that soon after startup.

The Politico Roundtable
New Political News Site Will Partner With CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/21/ftn/main2381362.shtml

If anything, that would be a PERFECT reason to visit their site!!

Think that MSNBC is anything different from the rest? Maybe one show, and maybe for right now. It's easy to be a bit biased for Democrats during Democratic primaries. Let's see what happens during the GE. I remember clearly prior to the primaries, and MSNBC is Corporate media thru and thru.

You really should watch it sometime before you criticize it. Offhand I can count FOUR nightly broadcasts that are liberal-leaning:

Chris Matthews
David Gregory
Keith Olbermann (presumably the "one show" you're talking about?)
Dan Abrams

I've been watching at least two of these (and another incarnation of a third) for several years, NOT just during the democratic primaries (oh, by the way, in the beginning of the year there also were some mighty contentious REPUBLICAN primaries, too!)

I suggest that you "give it up".....cause you ain't resonating. :shrug:

An objective observer of those you lump in one big group, the "corporate media"?? You are great at your one-liner responses, but repeatedly fail to explain yourself beyond those one-liners. "Give it up" because I'm not resonating with you? That is a supreme compliment, thank you.

Chris Matthews did more than anyone other than Tim Russert on television to enable Bush to power in the very beginning.

Who do you believe pays these guys? I thought post 98 was clear.

just go to the Daily Howler website and google "War Against Gore" or 2000 debates with Matthews or Russert's names.

I will say up front there are two points I disagree on with the Daily Howlwer, Matthews and his ilk aren't "liberal elites", they're corporate toadies and with the Howler's last paragraph of Matthews being stupid, I would only add the caveat that Matthews is paid to be stupid.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052206.shtml

Special report—Corps on Gore!

"PART 1—STILL CRAZY: Al Gore was right about global warming—way back in the 1980s. He was also right on internal combustion. And oh yes, he was right on Iraq, in a prophetic speech in September 02—a speech Joe Klein praised at the time. In a rational world, this would make Gore a reigning star—but we live in the world of a millionaire press corps, and we suffer, every day, from its judgments. On Friday morning, Michael Kinsley heaped torrents of praise on McCain, who was wrong. But how does the pundit corps treat Gore, the man was actually right on Iraq? On this weekend’s Chris Matthews Show, one empty scribe turned to another (Joe Klein), who then said what they’ve said all along:

KLEIN (5/21/06): You know, there’s a big question here. If you read Al Gore’s speech just before the war in Iraq where he came out against it, it’s a brilliant speech. If you saw Al Gore delivering it, he looked like a madman.

Al Gore can be right as much as he likes—but in these strange regions, he’s always a madman. Moments earlier, Matthews had started the hunt. He teed up the vacuous Kathleen Parker by quoting one of her columns:

MATTHEWS: Kathleen, you wrote a column recently—I like the phraseology—you said Al Gore is “one slice short of a loaf.” (Group laughter) I mean, that’s like they say up in Massachusetts, they say things like, “He’s got a few shingles missing from the roof.” What’s your point? Is he a little nutty, are you saying?

Gore can be right as much as he wants. But it will always be thus with these life-forms, the ones who run our public discourse—and prefer to watch King Kong. And Parker, of course, knew her role rather well. Coyly, the harlot responded:

PARKER (continuing directly): Well, I think he’s got—There are those who say he’s lost it. I’m not going to go that far. I think he’s actually feeling quite liberated from himself, I think he’s having a great time. He’s now the alpha wonk. And suddenly he has all these admirers and Hollywood types loving him with this movie.

For herself, Parker won’t say that Gore has “lost it.” Other people are saying it, though, the vacuous scribe coolly purred. Of course, she refers to Gore’s film about global warming—the topic where the nutty man who has “lost it” was actually right all along.

Yes, Parker and Matthews are deeply stupid. In fact, they’re stupid to the point of national calamity, since these are the people in charge of our discourse. And all this week, we’ll note the ways our liberal elites accept this weird state of affairs. But please understand what we’ve shown you for years: This is the way the “press corps” treats you—if you’re the guy who was actually right! Throughout this segment on Gore-as-a-candidate, the Standard Themes were dragged out and promoted. Was Gore too “bitter?” Did he have too much “venom?” Could be possibly get over his “anger?” And, of course, what about his “authenticity?” Robots couldn’t stick to a script the way these bizarre magpies can."

<snip>

Matthews is sticking up for Gore - you highlight a short phrase in the transcript, not even the complete sentence, to justify your elusive point????!!!!

sticking up for Gore, I would hate to be in a Foxhole with Matthews.

"MATTHEWS: Kathleen, you wrote a column recently—I like the phraseology—you said Al Gore is “one slice short of a loaf.” (Group laughter) I mean, that’s like they say up in Massachusetts, they say things like, “He’s got a few shingles missing from the roof.” What’s your point? Is he a little nutty, are you saying?"

He SARCASTICALLY said "I like the phraeology"! He goes on to ask for clarification of her comments, specifically if SHE thinks Gore is a little nutty, Matthews never said Gore was nutty and he never said anything negative about Gore. Unfortunately, you zero in on the words Matthews used and AVOIDED the question after that sentence!

Besides, you got off the subject by dragging in Matthews and Russert, even though they were NOT under discussion whatsover. They are irrelevant to the post I responded to, but robot-like you had to go on about Matthews and Russert (and, I might say, not even explain WHY you dragged them into the discussion)

If you think Matthews was putting Gore down, I'd hate to be your attending psychiatrist. Next thing we'll hear from you is "just because they're all against me doesn't mean I'm paranoid"

For people that can't read sarcasm, I like it means I like it. That was just a small example of Matthew's work.

But if you wish forget, Matthews and Russert.

Regarding the corporate media reread my post 98, I'm speaking of the entire six corporations which own approximately 90% of the media controlling everything you see on television, hear on the radio or read in the paper, that includes G.E. owned MSNBC, they're corporate first, last and in the middle. It doesn't take that many owners or CEOs to form a conspiracy to manipulate the American people.

I can't believe you sincerely believe they've been doing a swell job of informing and enlightening the American People over the past decade or so as to the critical issues of the day.

"Forum" to air her stupidity? Are we now censoring opinion that is different than yours?

"He never refutes it"? Did YOU see the entire show, or do you just rely on the interpretation and selective quotes of someone else, who just may be part of that "corporate media" him/herself?

Ohhh, now that you've seen the folly of dragging Matthews and Russert into the discussion, you just dismiss them?

Ok, so - back to the corporate media again - if what you say is true (doubtful, but there is some truth to it), what is the alternative? Blogs by crackpots who ALSO have their own agenda? You put things into neat little (or big) compartments, and go through life thinking that either all is good or all is evil. EVERYONE has an agenda, even Jesus Christ had "an agenda". Everyone (except him, of course) has faults, shortcomings, biases. If you as suspicious of everything and condemn everything that isn't perfect or doesn't conform with your view of things, no wonder you're as unhappy as you seem here.

Life is not a conspiracy!

than a handful of corporations with their paid professional wrestlers posing as journalists, force feeding the American People their one way propaganda.

I never said Matthews should censor anyone, but he made no attempt to set the record straight. I see no folly on dragging Matthews or Russert in to a discussion regarding the corporate media as they're inherently part of it. You said in an earlier post they weren't part of the discussion so I was trying to please your sensibilities.

I agree everyone has an agenda but not everyone owns a television network controlling the one way information beamed in to the magical T.V. box of hundreds of millions of Americans.

The Internet, citizen journalism and two way television such as Current T.V. is the alternative and that's why the powers that be slandered, libeled and trashed our best and brightest while enabling a corrupt incompetent to power.

P.S. I find it rather ironic you mention one of, if not the prime victims of millions of conspiracies throughout human history and then claim life is not a conspiracy. Actually I agree life is not a conspiracy but it doesn't take all of life to conspire just a handful of very powerful and corrupt people. I believe considering the historical track record, to believe otherwise is folly.

on MSNBC within a couple months. You missed the point Georgie.

My husband has spent over thirty years in radio and television.
Trust me, a Keith Olbermann here, or an Aaron Brown there, does
not a liberal media make.

Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams and many others shift with the political
winds. How soon we forget.

"Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams and many others shift with the political winds."

It's known as OBJECTIVITY, "girlie".

The point was that MSNBC is generally a central/liberal media outlet. The fact that someone from Politico was on MSNBC was used to justify the claim that they're right-leaning.

They will do anything and everything to maintain power. They will buy Democrats, start their own sudo-liberal sites, try to shut down the internet or control it, and IMO a lot worse. Maintaining power is everything to them, worth trillions of dollars.

they best be warned.

Politico hasn't been so terrible so much as they deal with the mundane which ends up making us take our eyes off the prize.

very informative. k&R!

Jim Van De Hei is a money grubbing hack who got his journalism degree at UW Oshkosh, he is an asshat of the first order and he puked on me at a party once......

While the Politico has managed to recruit some first rate talent, they are basically a clearinghouse of talking points....

I think that we should all be considered warned.

The next time I see a Politico sourced piece of information, I'm gonna say what I've been saying for sometime; Fuck Politico! Who are they, and why do I care what they say?

I had some amorphous notions about why I don't automatically trust any info from that site, but they were mostly based on personal feelings interactions with Van De Hei and knowledge of his educational background. You, dear frenchie cat, have given support to what I already knew but wasn't sure how to explain.


:toast:

Who funds and runs the Politico?
(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

In the middle of an article by The Politico's Mike Allen regarding last night's GOP presidential debate, one finds this paragraph:

She was escorted out of the hall by Frederick J. Ryan Jr., chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, and president and CEO of The Politico.
So the President and CEO of The Politico, Frederick Ryan, is also the Board Chairman for the Reagan Library. And that makes sense, because Ryan is a long-time, hard-core Reaganite. From a November 1987 Press Release:
Appointment of Frederick J. Ryan, Jr., as Assistant to the President

So the President and CEO of The Politico worked in multiple positions in the Reagan White House, and was continuously promoted until he rose to the level of Assistant to the President. And his close connection to the Reagan family and the Reagan presidency continues through today.

Are we supposed to treat this fact as irrelevant or something when assessing what The Politico is and what type of political coverage it churns out? There is nothing wrong per se with hard-core political operatives running a news organization. Long-time Republican strategist Roger Ailes oversees Fox News, of course. But it seems rather self-evident that a news organization run by someone with such clear-cut political biases ought to have a hard time holding itself out as some sort of politically unbiased source of news.

The Politico's biggest boosters are Matt Drudge and George W. Bush, and it is run by a Reagan loyalist. At the very least, those facts are worth considering. Given that Editor-in-Chief John Harris has repeatedly vowed to be more "transparent" in how they conduct themselves, shouldn't we have some understanding of the role played by Ryan, and what his connection is to "Allbritton Communications," whose "deep pockets" are (partially? fully?) financing The Politico?

This is the first I've heard about what seems rather clearly to be the obviously significant relationship between Ryan and The Politico. Anyone with more information on these matters, please email me or leave such information in comments. The Politico is rapidly becoming one of the most prominent and influential national media organizations, and its odiousness has seemed for some time to be generated by more than just the standard dysfunction in our national press corps.

UPDATE: The Politico's primary (perhaps sole) funding source is the Allbritton Company, of which Frederick Ryan is an employee. The Allbritton family's leader, Joe, was CEO of Riggs Bank when Riggs pleaded guilty to a series of illegal financial transactions with right-wing Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and his brutal military that took place throughout the 1990s and into 2001.

Although Allbritton himself was never charged with knowledge of those illegal transactions, he maintained what appears to be a close personal and business relationship with the right-wing dictator (h/t Jonathan Schwarz):

When Joe L. Allbritton was chief executive of Riggs Bank, he received personal gifts from Augusto Pinochet and wanted the former Chilean dictator to visit the Allbritton horse farm in Virginia, according to drafts of letters from 1996 and 1997.

The drafts were found in the bank's investigation of the relationship between Allbritton and Pinochet, whose government murdered or tortured an estimated 3,000 political opponents over 17 years. . . .

The two draft letters and memos do not show that Allbritton was aware of any illegal actions by the bank or its officers, but they indicate that Allbritton had a personal relationship with Pinochet and knew details of his business dealings at Riggs, according to sources who have read the documents. . . .

Since July, Riggs's internal investigators have discovered that Pinochet's relationship to Riggs was both deeper and longer than previously known, according to sources familiar with their findings. Since the July Senate hearing, Riggs has found photographs of Allbritton and Pinochet together and internal correspondence and letters to Pinochet and senior Chilean military officials that indicate Allbritton was personally involved in courting the former dictator as a Riggs client. . . .

"I am also grateful for our thriving personal friendship which you have demonstrated through your gracious hospitality and stalwart support of the Riggs," Allbritton wrote in a draft dated November 1997, a year when Riggs was expanding its relationship with both Pinochet and the Chilean military. "I thank you for the marvelous gifts to both Barbie and myself, including the history books which I found fascinating."

"Barbie" is Allbritton's wife, Barbara, who was a director of Riggs Bank until early 2004,when she and her husband resigned as directors.

In the 1996 draft, Allbritton expressed his "profound thanks" for a reception Pinochet threw for Allbritton at a Chilean military academy where the men watched an equestrian demonstration by cadets. In his draft, Allbritton invited Pinochet and his wife, Lucia, to the Allbritton horse farm in Middleburg, Va. Allbritton also thanked Pinochet for "the superb cuff links you presented to me."

According to this account, it is Joseph Allbritton's 37-year-old son, Robert, who is financing The Politico. And the presence of his father obviously looms large:
http://j2k.naver.com/j2k.php/japanese/www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/index.html

Getting our news from the likes of those strings attached is kind of off-putting, I would hope.

someone quotes the Politico, again I will ask, Who is Politico, and why should I believe them.

Most time they use one source only.

Notice the MSNBC "breaking" news from tonight in where Scott McClelland got to call the Media "liberal" really, really loud. WTF was that about? Got to wonder, at least.

sourced to the site, but I don't visit it. Or Drudge. I'm not surprised to see the creep extending. I can't imagine what liberal press Scotty was talking about. He himself probably spoon fed the 'liberal media' all their news stories.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you explain all the SCOOPS they get..one has to have pretty good connections to be able to "break" all this breaking news. Its no accident. MSNBC announced a scoop from Politico.. people rush to the site.. ad revenue is generated.. same difference.

Weren't they the first to get a look at the new Bush Bashing Book by Scott McClellan?

Anyway, good digging Frenchie. Let's stay on this and try to work on it after the Trolls are gone and we settle down into the GE Mode. I don't see it going much of anywhere right now with the climate in here. :hi:

Bookmarked.

to each other while we listen.

In essence, they decide and they report. Question is, do we buy it?

I sure in the hell don't.

got an eyeful.

The Bush Family has invested heavily in Politico. It's just another propaganda tool.

They just get worse.

Until it is understood.

I believe that most DUers do not want to be hosed.

Politico is setting us up for the fall (literally), if we let them.

During the GE, their assignment has been to have us concentrate on the trivial......but comes the GE, they may have been provided credibility to do much more serious harm.

Again, we already were done wrong by the media in 2000 and 2004. We need to have learned our lesson by now.

In numerous ways, Harris' proclaimed self-awareness only goes so far. While he points to his newspaper's role in "breaking" the Edwards hair story -- and admits, with great understatement, that he "was not exactly despairing when other websites and cable TV networks went way overboard on the story, with citations to Politico" -- he also claims that The Politico itself "handled that news nugget with a decent sense of proportion." Actually, The Politico alone published at least eight items on Edwards' haircut in that two-week period.

Perhaps when compared to subsequent fixations on matters such as Barack Obama's lapel pin and bowling score, The Politico's "flood-the-zone" coverage of Edwards' hair counts as restraint.

Harris' mea culpa is also woefully incomplete. The belief that petty items will attract links is only one of the motives driving political journalists to fixate on trivialities, and it's probably not even the most significant reason. "Reporting" gossip is incredibly easy to do, and requires little effort and, more importantly, no critical thought. Harris, for instance, recounts his disappointment that The Politico's Jonathan Martin wasn't the first one to post the comments made by Hillary Clinton on Friday about the RFK assassination, and thus, to compensate, he pushed Martin to be the first to post any statement about Clinton's comments from the Obama campaign:

thanks for scrutinizing Politico. This is great work. OpedNews maybe?

never was comfortable with some of the stuff on that site

Many of the Obama/Hillary stories that led to fights between Democrats were originally published at the Politico. I think that was intentional.

Thanks for posting this Frenchie Cat. I recommend we keep this thread kicked awhile. For my part, I went through the DU archives and compiled just a few of the propaganda-bunking threads calling Politico on the right wing b.s. that place reeks in. They present themselves as neutral and well-reasoned, but there's a stinking mountain of horse shit's worth of evidence to the contrary and their real agenda: gentle manipulation of well planted, strummed up, sensationalized, and illusory mind control that's just a bow-tie white-washed version of the MSM.

check out these former DU threads on the topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1475273

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3043518

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3249530

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x589967

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3730495

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x230720

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3328214

* * Within this link, i'll append this great summary by BlooInBloo (post #5):

Worth reading.

Those who go to the politico now as their source of news need to stop it!

Thanks for the info.

Some of this goes back to shortly after Politico "happened" to materialize.

Just at one of the links:
POLITICO" that new Webzine that C-Span and M$M Quotes all the time...WHO OWNS THEM?
Edited on Mon Jul-30-07 05:43 PM by KoKo01
Friday May 4, 2007 13:08 EST
Who funds and runs the Politico?

UPDATE IV: Politico CEO and President (and former Reagan official) Frederick Ryan donated $1,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 (earlier this year, as linked above, Bush interrupted his press conference to flamboyantly plug Ryan's Politico). When making that donation to Bush, Ryan listed his occupation as "Allbritton Communications Co." (h/t Casual Observer). Both Joe Allbritton and his wife donated $1,000 each in 1994 to the Republican National Committee.


-----------------------
SINCE THEY COULDN'T BEAT THE INTERNET, LOOKS LIKE THEY JOINED IT.

Good job, FrenchieCat. Spreading this one far and wide.

If it ain't DU, then well, it ain't DU.

I love you DU, don't ever change.

I had sort of been thinking about this...but not very clearly. you brought to the forefront what has been nagging me about this site and others like it.

He used to be the blogger for the NY Daily News. He's very hooked in to NY politics and I go to him first for leaks from the HRC camp. You may be right about the motives of the founders, but I believe that Smith and others I read there have integrity as journalists.

starts to flourish right on time.

They wanted you to trust 'em.......but I don't believe that you will reap any long term rewards for it.

8 stories about Edwards' hair would be considered overboard by any reasonable standard.

I'm not impressed with the New York daily News either.

But I have been reading the NY Daily News for 20 years and they have some good political reporting, some good columnists. The editorial page is not so hot but it's the working man's paper in NYC. Don't confuse it with the Post.

Just like any other "news source," one has to read and decided for themselves on INDIVIDUAL articles and op-eds.

I "travel" to a lot of different sources, even conservative ones. I've read pro-Obama and pro- Clinton items (on the issues, not just the politics) even on those. I believe one needs to read a broad variety of stuff to be well-read and informed.

do not be sucked-in

Thanks for the post!

When I started hearing CNN and MSNBC quote Politico, I knew they were crap. Also, I had read several of Glen Greenwald's articles on them. Anytime I see anybody posting anything from that site here I am always suspicious. Good catch!

in America.

Hell, these folks cite internet "polls" as if they were the gospel truth.

you are another jewel on this site! Thank you!

to remain "relevant". It is a bunch of beltway insiders online, no more, no less. They still subscribe to the "top-down" news dissemination model that is dying an photogenic death all over our TV screens.

When TV bobbleheads quote Politico, pretending to be in touch with the American people, they are just quoting themselves. (See yesterday's thread of Monica Novotny interviewing Contessa Brewer)

They are just the last, faintest echo in the DC echo chamber. .

HELLO, HELLO,HELLO, HELLO, HELLO, HELLO,HELLO,HELLO,:tv:

hell must have frooze over :wow:


I have been telling the good folks of DU this for the past year but because Politico supports Obama none here besides you seems to give a shit.






.

See, the Jets and the Sharks really CAN get along;)

We can finally agree on something. Well-researched and well-though-out post.

Well Done!

of his infamous (and incomprehensible) Press Conferences a while back? I won't forget after some ass-kisser pseudo-journalist asked Chimpy a softball question he snorted, "What organization do you represent? Oh, it's *politico.com* is it? Yes, politico.com."

IMO, if The Chimperor himself is OPENLY PROMOTING a web journalistic site, there's NO JOURNALISM there that would NOT cumulate as a NET positive image for BushCo. and the GOP.

Be wary of politico.com ... they're like Tweety - one day objective, the next - BAT SHIT CRAZY RIGHT WING. :scared:

and all fellow Bush Bots should make sure they supported it...Right off.. And, now they have their "plants" all over the Cable and Network Media.

I do not trust any single media source. Politico.com is no different.

"MEDIA BULLSHIT 24/7
Their Agenda is not mine!
Whatever they say, think opposite!"

then you simply weren't looking as to whom "supports" Obama. It's not always the topic of the story, but how they choose to report on it. Believe you me, pastorgate was a real attempt in bringing Barack Obama down for the fall.

That and the manner in which the media, including Politico, have reported on voter groups; how they are segmented and then commented on, including who's got a "problem" with which voters tells a story that does not show "support" of Barack Obama.

You must not have watched the Daily Show last night where he showed how the media reported on selective polling to make Hillary Clinton look good as of late. Polling that Bill Clinton attempted to state was not being reported, when in reality favorable Hillary polls have been the ones most reported on.....loud and often.

I wasn't trying to become partisan with this post, but you more or less forced my hand.

strange cuz I always veiwed you as birdseye oak type.

That's what I am.

That is why I always refer to them as the "dressed up Drudge Report". Here's the Media Matters article on it. Some of their first articles were hit pieces on the Democratic candidates. They reported that Obama had a Jewish problem and Richardson was a womanizer. Both articles were based on rumors with little support. They also posted the rumor that Edwards was going to drop out because of his wife's health. Media Matters has 100's of articles detailing their misrepresentations.

and I always check to see who's written it. You never know where they stand and that makes me uneasy about them.

And I most definitely do not link to Newsbusters. I never thought I'd see the day people would link to Newsbusters here. But then when people have been linking to Charles Krauthammer and Michelle Malkin, nothing seems shocking.

Does every source of information (not necessarily "news") have to have a group they "serve"? Does there always have to be a hidden agenda, real or imagined?

to defend this news-source throughout this thread. Odd is that you are the only one.

And yes, corporate media has an agenda, sometimes not so hidden.

You sound awfully naive when it comes to the methods of propaganda and control through mass media.

For those still paranoid about Politico's "agenda", who they "serve", and their bias, here is a summary of the articles on their home page as of noon today:

Top Political News:

Breathless speculation marks veepstakes - Neutral
Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House - anti-Republican
Playbook: 'Matrix' strafes the nest - anti-Republican
Clinton writes Supers: I can win - Neutral or anti-Clinton?
Dems seek to avoid meltdown - anti-Democrat
No RBC protest from Obama camp - neutral, possibly pro-Obama
Straight Talk Express stalls in Hollywood - anti-McCain
Colorado, Oregon chairs for Obama - pro-Obama

Politics '08

Obama looks west in electoral map play - pro-Obama
On global warming, it's McCain v. GOP - anti-Republican
FEC, media can't handle Obama jackpot - anti-administration, pro-Obama
How small stories become big news - neutral
Obama calls on Wesleyan grads to serve - pro-Obama
Clintonites try to move past RFK remark - pro-Clinton

Congress

Dole campaigns on illegal immigration - pro-Republican
The Huddle: The $64,000 question - neutral
McConnell up 11 points in internal poll - pro-Republican
Lieberman to share stage with Hagee - anti-Republican/Lieberman
Campaign gas gimmick backfires - anti-Clinton/McCain
Senate votes show GOP power vacuum - anti-Republican

Need I go on? How would one assess "the people they serve"???

The OP is pure paranoia and negativity. Nothing more, nothing less!

PS - "througout this thread"? Up until this time I've made THREE posts (this is my fourth) in this thread of almost 100 posts. Exaggeration (and yes, PARANOIA) are getting the best of you.

also note that you highlight my point; we are getting "lulled" into trusting this entity.

Because what you cannot deny is who owns this piece of media.

So keep on being in denial and attempting to poopoo my warnings...but understand that this is DU, not some LIV's living room.

The corporate media is nothing but a Matrix with a self-serving agenda, they don't represent the American People, they represent corporations that sell advertising to them.

Corporations are their clients, the people are just their customers or consumers to be sold, and there is a major difference in owed fiduciary responsibility of the two.

ie; If you ever once in your life believed for one minute that Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the Internet, it's only because the corporate media as mostly a single conglomerate promoted that slander and libel from the morning breakfast shows to the prime time dinner news to the late night snack comedians.

This was an out right lie perpetuated without remorse or conscious on the American People by their "trusted" news sources and I have no doubt hundreds of thousands of people are dead today because of it, the world coming closer to global warming climate change tipping points which threaten life as we know it, the melting dollar, gas going through the roof, etc. etc.

I believe their primary motivation for this slander and libel was precisely because Al Gore was the primary political champion for opening up the Internet to the American People and the corporate media saw this as a threat to their monopoly on information. As the Internet grew in power and influence, all they could see or care about was their gradual loss of power, money and influence as the new medium took over. So they played Zeus and his vulture(s) to Gore's Prometheus only instead of chowing down on eternal growing liver, they feasted on a good man's credibility and integrity while promoting a far lesser man to the most powerful job in the land. I believe had they given credit or due for Gore's vision and dedication to the American People and the democratization of information, he would have won in a land slide too large for the neocons to steal.

In conclusion, I don't believe for one minute, they've given up trying to control information so as to distort reality and brain wash the American People all to suit their own corporate loving agenda. They will do whatever they can to diminish the power of the people's voice via the Internet even if it means putting out a relatively new website sympathetic to their bidding and then promote them on television as if they reflected the Internet.

Thanks for the reminder.

Brain, please categorize Politco under triple check the sources, and then connect it to the Corporate Media neurons.

They seem kinda smarmy to me.

Once in a while they insert stories that Democrats might find favorable or interesting, but their audience (and agenda) is right wing.

This is why I was puzzled to see links to their site on DU. Although I must admit the writing style is usually very good. Almost like real journalism :)

to make sure their site gets the hits and their "news" makes the rounds to drown out our struggling, underfunded, Liberal News sites.

I found "Politico" when I was surfing one day, and didn't much care for it because it seemed very pro-establishment. Daily Kos is much more to my liking! ;)

But now I understand why my instincts were correct and it's eye-opening. Thank you for doing the research and passing it along.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5180278
repuke friendly, for sure.

i guess i'll be sticking to huffingtonpost.

I really liked Roger Simon's work with the Sun-Times. I thought he was smart, and it pains me to see him fall in with partisan hacks...

by whom I specifically mean Jim VandeHei, who I saw on MSNBC on election night last year; and though I no longer recall exactly what he said, it was such a stupid and wrongheaded analysis of the day's events that I started yelling at the TV. That much I remember...

because I was so appalled that I went to the newly-launched Politico and read the profiles of that idiot and his boss Harris. I didn't like anything I saw.

I read Roger Simon's profile, too, in the hopes it might explain why he had chosen to join them. Loss of work? Bad investments? Grown kids moved back home? But it did not say. So I closed the window and have never clicked on them since.

:thumbsup:

That place is not a professional investigative news site. They lift their "reporting" from corporate MSM sources and pick stories that fit a narrow political agenda. It's another sock puppet POV, and they manipulate our nations political dialog for profit.:puke:

I avoid it because as you pointed out, they use hyped news pieces specifically to attract the most rabid responders to their message boards. The discussions over there are unproductive and irrational.

Thanks for giving DUers the heads up FrenchieCat!:think:

FrenchieCat, :yourock:

Oh, I did some research and you were also right about Rendell. Whew. Thanks. ;)

K&R

:applause: Note that KO gets too many stories straight from Politico. Someone should email this entry to him.

Republican Propaganda network......they try to make themselves legit.

If you go back and note who were the authors of all of those articles at the Washington Post in 2002 and 2003, you won't find many familiar names among those who make commentary at Politico dot com who wrote pro-war articles about WMD's in Iraq.

Take some time to see what Jim VandeHei wrote back in 2002 and 2003.
He wasn't writing pro-war articles for the Post.
He was more concerned with the Valerie Plame leak scandal during the summer of 2003.
Maybe that's why he left the Post, I'm not sure.
I think he has learned a lot about reporting since then, about how newspapers are more controlled than the sites like his on the internet.

I've been reading the Washington Post off and on ever since Bernstein and Woodward did their work 36 years ago when they broke the Watergate story wide open at the Washington Post.

Mike Allen also wrote for the Washington Post back in 2002 and 2003.
I took note of the fact that his name was also associated with many articles about the Valerie Plame incident.
He seemed to be more of a researcher than just an ordinary everyday reporter.

I'm not saying he's Clark Kent, but you never see him and Superman at the same time.

:)

It just seems to me that they wanted to have more flexibility over what they wrote than the Washington Post was willing to give them.
And they also may be trying to head off being labeled as "left-wing journalists" that just work at "the famously left-wing Washington Post", which is what the right-wingers have been saying for years about them.
Neocons and Republicans have been bashing anything they don't like that is printed by the Washington Post ever since 1972.

Of course, one source is never the end-all, be-all of getting out the truth.
The truth doesn't just fall out of the sky that way.
But, I appreciate your candor in forewarning us.

I like reading what those guys have to say, and I've seen both of them on so-called "liberal" tv shows giving interviews.

But, like the man says at the end of the ad, your mileage may vary.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290002
Drudge links to Politico 45 times during its two-month existence

As Media Matters for America has noted, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen's March 27 article, "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama," was apparently flagged by Matt Drudge's website, The Drudge Report, approximately one hour before The Politico posted the article on its website on the evening of March 26. John Harris, Politico editor-in-chief, has written about the media's interest in having their work linked to on the Drudge Report. Several commentators, including blogger Glenn Greenwald, have noted an apparent tendency of Drudge to link to Politico items. Media Matters has reviewed the Drudge Report Archives and found that since The Politico launched on January 23, Drudge has linked to Politico items on at least 45 separate occasions.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200703270006

Drudge flagged Obama hit piece on Politico -- which presented admittedly "trivial" inconsistencies -- apparently one hour before it was posted
Nonetheless, Allen stretched these alleged "trivial" inconsistencies into a 1,200-word article headlined, "Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama," which appeared on the front page of the print edition. The Drudge Report flagged the article by posting its headline verbatim approximately one hour before The Politico posted the article on its website on the evening of March 26, according to Google News.

publishes is truth - it really doesn't matter what the source's agenda is. Politico has managed to stay on the "cusp" in my book so far - more equitable than the WSJ I think.

:kick:

But then I wonder about DU sometimes too.