So the Washington Post is in a pissing match against the winds of change — this time in the form of POLITICO:
On Nov. 20, the Erik Wemple Blog reported that “Playbook” author Mike Allen of Politico showed a discernible pattern of writing favorable blurbs about advertisers. Ahead of the post’s publication, Politico’s leadership declined requests for an interview to discuss Allen’s work. Allen did as well, and continues to dodge interview requests.
Full freakin’ stop.
For how many years has the Washington Post kowtowed and humbled itself before Democratic candidates and causes?
…and they have the testicular fortitude to blast POLITICO for sponsored content at worst, and nods at best for advertisers?
POLITICO’s editor-in-chief Mike Harris fires back and is quoted in depth by Erik Wemple with the Washington Post (who in turn delivers a Fisking of his own).
Yet the bottom line here isn’t POLITICO’s method of journalism, even if advertisers get a mention in the articles. Two things stand out clear: (1) the Washington Post has long been known for bias, yet hides under the pretense of objectivity, while (2) POLITICO may give a mention to the folks who are on the radar — yes, that’s what advertising is supposed to do — but they have made it abundantly clear that it does not change their journalistic integrity.
That is the real scandal here. POLITICO is transparent, yet the WaPo continues to hide behind a veneer of objectivity while cranking out article after article of left-leaning viewpoints leading to the predictable crescendo of a leftist endorsement for whichever politician the WaPo editors believe will move the ball down the field for Team Liberal.
POLITICO is the future of journalism. At least there, the writers wear their bias on their sleeve, if they purport to have one at all. It is the inverse of the journalistic ethics of the WaPo — viewpoints leading to objectivity, rather than the long-standing MSM tactic of “objectivity” being used to push a viewpoint.
Gee — wonder why the WaPo doesn’t like that.
