"Call Us Crazy" Reaction

We played Devil's advocate yesterday with a theory on Politico's rough day yesterday. Here's some of the feedback: sorry, but the good-for-politico theory is ludicrous Re: upside for Politico -- heck yeah. The story was wrong, but they were aggressive, and they got loads of pickup. And when it went wrong, they acknowledged the mistake, apologized, and are taking it on the chin. They didn't hide, they didn't spin. Everyone gets something wrong once in a while, but not everyone admits it so fast. Regarding "Call Us Crazy" post I had never heard of Stephen Glass until his professional explosion. Sure, his name was publicized, but he hardly did well from it. I'm sure the folks at Politico will think it's really awesome when they're talking to a new source and they're like, "Oh, I heard of you, you're the paper that can't get your facts right." Awesome. You can try and put a good spin on the Politico f*ck up, but in the end its bad. Bad publicity shouldn't be seen as good plubicity for people who make a living based on their readers' trust in their ability to deliver the news -- unless, of course, John and Jim like being the Paris Hilton of journalism. Politico's coverage of Edwards announcement: fast, definitely first, and wrong. Major blow to its credibility. No upside. GETTING THE POLITICO NAME OUT... You have a good point regarding the "all publicity is good publicity" theory. BUT here is the problem: people may begin to connect a NEGATIVE (ie: inaccuracy) to the word Politico. All publicity is good --negative or positive -- if you are Madonna. If you are trying to build a solid reputation as a news organization... this ain't good. We on't know for sure until all the "big dumb mistake" pieces are out. It stretches the imagination that there is a "net gain" for The Politico. Does it matter if everyone knows your name but no one takes you or your pub seriously? For editors that seem awfully high on the journalistic morality horse, they don't even adhere to basic standards of fact-gathering taught to journalism classes. It might be a "blog" but it's a blog written by a credentialed reporter (a.k.a Main Stream Media) published on a corporate-owned paper's website. This ain't some guy at home in his pajamas. In short, act like grown-up reporters and do due dilligence, or get out of the way. One tipster says "politico.com got over half a million visitors yesterday." And some readers think we shill for the Politico... could you please just go work for the politico already? you shill for them so friggin much this site is becoming absolutely un-f-king readable. And some think we're being too mean... Regarding Politico: Please -- all this piling on is so unseemly. Show me one journalist who hasn't gotten at least one thing hugely, embarrassingly wrong...Let it go and be glad it wasn't you. Because if there is one truth in journalism it's that if you mock someone for getting it wrong, the next jerk writing a correction is YOU. Oh for God's sake calm down. Ben Smith got it wrong. But unlike MOST of the DC press pool - he admitted his mistake quickly and with some class. Not many of us would have the rocks to be that public in the mistake. Read the WPost corrections for a couple of days, and you'll see profiles in cowardice on display every day. And when exactly did Fox back off the Obama school story?

Fishbowl

"Call Us Crazy" Reaction

Patrick

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Patrick