Jump to content

Talk:Politico: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
4,733,870 edits
m clean up, replaced: {talkheader → {Talk header using AWB (6813)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{forum}}
{{forum}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPBS|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject DC|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject DC|class=Start|importance=Low}}

Revision as of 09:14, 10 July 2010

Domain name

I was wondering how they got such a convenient domain name. Apparently politico.com has been owned by Irides since September 1998. Irides is owned by Allbritton, the same parent company of Politico. So apparently Allbritton has been planning to launch the site since the dot-com bubble? --Interiot 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing Bias

Quite a few left-wing blogs have accused The Politico of being right-wing for several reasons, added that in there. 67.160.106.255 05:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is. With headlines like "Tax returns show Clintons got rich quick," "Extreme Makeover: Pennsylvania edition" "bloomberg candidacy would help dems" OF COURSE there is a clear rightwing bias. Just look at the site. Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. The site has gone after conservatives too. Just because "a few left-wing blogs" have accused them of being biased doesn't mean anything. Some of them would accuse JFK of being right-wing. Arnabdas (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The charge of right-wing bias appears warranted. On July 31, 2008 Carrie Budoff Brown published an article at 04:33 AM which says in the title "GOP's celeb-Obama message gains traction." Since the video ad she refers to was released on July 30, 2008, and is critical of Obama it appears it would be impossible to ascertain by 4 o'clock IN THE MORNING of the following day that her assertion was verified by any objective measurement technique known to science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.57.109 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your entry. Poorly written, slanted, et cetera. Wikipedia isn't an opinion blog. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Muskogee (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above people. Politico seems pretty conservative. Granted, I occasionally see something attacking conservatives, but it seems to have a preponderance of anti-Obama, anti-Democrat type articles. It almost seems like a weak Fox News. In fact, I came to Wikipedia to see what, if anything, Wikipedia said about it. Squad51 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. I think the problem is just finding a credible source stating it has a proven or self-proclaimed conservative bias. It's obvious to the casual reader, but as evidenced by Arnabdas' comment, not 100% apparent and therefore seems to require a source. I'll see what I can do. john factorial (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I became curious when Politico articles started appearing alongside AP and Reuters in my Yahoo newsfeed out of nowhere. I'm not trying to say that AP or Reuters, etc., are without problems, but it made me wonder what kind of clout Politico carries to be able to acquire that kind of exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.107.211.229 (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it has no bias really. Specific articles can certainly be left-slanted or right-slanted, but there appears to be no consistent trend. The readership, though, appears to be majority conservative, based on the comments and their daily polls. Metallurgist (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the editorial policy seems to be about as straight down the middle as possible. The average reader is definitely conservative, but the political cartoons are consistently liberal. I dont think we can apply a specific lef/right bias on this one. --Estrill5766 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Middle" today isn't the same as it used to be, look at how Justice Stevens is considered 'liberal' on the Supreme Court. And one editor's perspective of "middle" is another's conservatism. Politico may frame themselves as nonpartisan journalists, but it doesn't ring true. Media watchdogs at The Nation (like Eric Alterman) and Media Matters consistently call them out on conservative bias and misrepresentation. PrBeacon (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Smith / Nevada primary debate / cowards

Regarding this series of edits... there was a lot of national coverage of the Edwards mistake,[1][2] particularly because it was a clear case of journalism moving too fast and on too few sources. It's one of Ben Smith's stories that will probably be remembered for a long time. On the other hand, it's not clear the "coward" entry has gained much attention, or will be remembered in the history books.

If the point of the sentence is to establish that the Politico as a whole leans right, then the paragraph right before accomplishes that far better, since it reviews many different articles, by a cross-section of Politico writers. Selecting a single quote by a single writer that's gotten very little coverage just strikes me as not being very informative about The Politico as a whole. --Interiot 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I was editing something in that required citations, I put them in, preview, then save the edits, and then all of a sudden the References list is gone. What gives? Did I do something to cause it? Fifty7 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't figure this out. I don't want to leave the page like this OR remove what I added, but I don't know how to fix it. Fifty7 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever the bottom half of the article disappears for me, it's always been a missing </ref>. --Interiot 02:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. Lesson learned. Fifty7 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism?

I don't think it's necessarily recentism if the subject is relatively young. Fifty7 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just appears that we're documenting the daily postings of one journalist, and it's not clear to me what the historical relevance is. --Interiot 16:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's simply updating the criticism section with published criticism of the publication in order to contribute to the information here about the identity of a journalistic entity that is only a little less than three months in the making. Fifty7 17:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Launched?

When was it launched? The article does not mention the date. Soomaali 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticsm

A lone editor has been removing criticsm without a proper reason. Listing errors and criticsm by others is reasonable for a criticsm section. WP:Consensus, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may also be in play in this instance. A consensus should be gained before removal and changes made, like fixing the section rather than removing it entirely should be made first. - Mike Beckham (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The Intro to this is POV, without sources, off topic and very bias. Is this an article about Politico (whose contributers are being featured on CNN,Fox, and MSNBC) or is it about Robert Albritton and The Bush's? This needs an entire rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.224.233 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The intro definitely needs a rewrite to remove anything that doesn't directly contribute to the Politico article. Any comments about Albritton or the Saudi's or Bush can be done on those articles76.189.113.184 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

At one of his Press Conferences, Bush specifically asked a Politico representative if they wanted to "introduce" Politico to the rest of the WH press corps. Believe me: Politico is another GOP organ, like the National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Time, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News, Commentary, Human Events, American Thinker and Lucianne.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.40.248 (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Bush was allowing Politico to be introduced was because they had just been started up in 2007. As a new paper, it only seems polite to allow them the opportunity to say hi to everyone else. check your facts before screaming conspiracy. --Estrill5766 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're understating the event and overstating the previous comment, #75 didn't say anything about a conspiracy. Or scream. And Bush wasn't merely introducing them. He was virtually endorsing them. Even the editors at Politico admit as much:

Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders. politico.com

If you look around it shouldn't be too hard to find secondary sources for Politico's conservative bias. PrBeacon (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see previous thread above. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged liberal bias

An anon has recently been attempting to insert this statement into the article: "However, it has been charged with a liberal bias many times by conservatives."

The problems with this statement are:

  • None of the cited sources contain the phrase "liberal bias".
  • One of the cited sources is merely a link to every blog post on Newsbusters about Politico. This might be appropriate as an external link, but a claim must be cited to a particular post. It is also a violation of WP:SYNTH to take a bunch of posts and then draw a conclusion from them.
  • Even if Newsbusters claims "liberal bias" (which they do not appear to be doing, see point 1), they cannot be used as a stand-in for the views of all or many conservatives.
  • Newsbusters is an unreliable source, a publication of the right-wing fringe group Media Research Center.

Gamaliel (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Everything is right wing fringe you to Gamaliel. You allow a link to SALON to show conservative bias. HAHAHA. Give me a break. SALON? Talk about beyond fringe. [personal attack removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SALON needs to be removed as a usuable source. It has been proven to be an arm piece of the far, radical, left agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate and doesn't address the problems with your edit. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that MRC is a right wing fringe group, is inaccurate. It is a respected media watchdog group that has been around for decades.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk • contribs)

Even if we accept this statement as true, that doesn't address the other problems with your edit. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HA!, one your "problems" is that the words liberal bias don't appear. The words liberal bias are obviously implied in the over 20 links given. It is a Institute developed to bring awareness to liberal bias in the news. The words do not need to be written. Your "problems" are all extremely biased and if applied to the Salon article would all fail. I will not be initmidated like Wikipedia wants people to be: ie: locking the John Edwards page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Implied" is not sufficient for Wikipedia to use that as a source for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon page also "implies" it. The words conservative bias are not written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page to understand the some of the disdainful references I see online to Politico. While it is apparently considered common knowledge among liberal bloggers that they consider Politico biased, there's absolutely no mention of it on the article. At least, I'm guessing that this is the subtext of the references. Shouldn't something that's grown so infamous be noted? 134.84.166.21 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

wondering whether this should be changed to ---politico--- rather than --the politico--, since that is what appears on their website. Their legal name is still the politico, though. Iowawindow (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd. Seems to me the paper is The Politico (at least in the version reflected in the article), but the web page drops the "The". Whatever we have, we should make sure there is a redirect of the other I would think.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they changed the name to "politico" a lonnnng time ago. paper and online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.106.131 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website and print edition do not include "The". (Scroll down to the bottom of politico.com's home page; digital copies of the newspaper are accessible.) I guess the infobox needs an updated image of the newspaper's front page. APK whisper in my ear 00:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any movement on this at all? I dont know how to do a vote, although it would seem the consensus is for switching to Politico. Metallurgist (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possible sources

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to another title. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico → Politico — Politico is current name Shortride (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism

Former John McCain chief of staff and campaign aide Mark Salter has argued that Politico has "taken every worst trend in reporting, every single one of them, and put them on rocket fuel. It’s the shortening of the news cycle. It’s the trivialization of news. It’s the gossipy nature of news. It’s the self-promotion.”[1].

Ok this was stuck in Content section by an IP, it didnt really fit there so putting it here for now. Somone want to Create a Criticism section or something go for it. i just dont like ip putting ciritical commentary -Unsigned comment by User:Weaponbb7 18:12, 22 April 2010 [3]

Separate criticism sections are generally discouraged in favor of working the criticisms into the text. I don't think the article is big enough for a separate section, anyway. The above quote needs some context, perhaps just from the NYT story itself -- I don't know how much clout Salter has in the Republican party [now] or if his opinion about Politico carries much weight. Although I can see how someone might argue that a Republican criticizing Politico could be used to counter the claims of conservative bias, that might also be a stretch. I may take a shot at working it into the text. And while I'm at it, I'd like to move some of the intro detail into the body, the lead is way too long in proportion to the rest of the article. Perhaps renaming the section "Distribution and content" to something else would be appropriate, too. -PrBeacon (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead change

On May 6 of this year, the following sentence was added to the lede at the end of the 2nd paragraph: "The connections between Politico's leadership and conservative and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of conservative bias." [4] It was soon reverted. I restored it then added a cite tag. (more details about this edit history). It's now been removed, reverted again, re-reverted (ie, removed again) and now restored again with the following sourcing:

(which is already quoted above in Bias but it could still use more context, even just for the talkpage):

From 2 user comments:

At one of his Press Conferences, Bush specifically asked a Politico representative if they wanted to "introduce" Politico to the rest of the WH press corps. ... Bush wasn't merely introducing them. He was endorsing them. Even the editors at Politico admit as much:

From primary source:

"In response to a letter from Media Matters for America accusing Politico of a Republican tilt, Politico Editor in Chief John F. Harris asked Senior Political Writer Ben Smith [and others at Politico] to participate in an e-mail exchange about the merits of the piece. ... [Politico's] Ben Smith says Media Matters has a point ... I'll pick another point of his to agree with: His implication that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." - politico.com

Though there is plenty of criticism from groups like FAIR and Media Matters (both sources considered reliable as watchdog groups in at least two RS/N threads) including the letter referenced by Politico above (!) to substantiate this, personally I think the source from the horse's mouth is more than enough. However in the spirit of cooperation I will make the following change as well as add the new tag at the end for confirmation: "The connections between Politico's leadership, conservative and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of right-leaning editorial views." [5] [non-primary source needed] I will look for specific secondary sources and also add some of the above detail to the article's body text. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I did not realize that the RFM for "Media Matters" thread had anything to do with this current discussion. I am merely going of what i see, We have an accusation with a "{fact}" tag thus i consider it Vandalism until a source is provided. I am not opposed to the content as long as it has a source and is not jst a vague allegation. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The connections between Politico's leadership and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of right-leaning editorial views."

That is so vague it make it sound like the the GOP owns it behind the scene, that is not remotely what the source says so please dont imply there is smoke when there is no fire Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "What is not vandalism" You can look at edit summaries to see my explanations. You should have come here first to discuss it. Not just remove it because you don't like it. Frankly, it's insulting. Also do not move this discussion to another page without asking first. WP:TPG
    I understand if you like Politico but I disagree with your claims of 'vague' and 'undue' and inferring "GOP owns it behind the scene." Did you read the full story? My first version for the lede was close enough to the source & you should not revert so quickly without trying to improve it. The article already mentions ties to previous Republican leader Ronald Reagan. The quote i listed above makes a clear tie to Bush. I already said I'm looking for secondary sources, but surely you can see how the above primary source (Politico) already makes reference to a secondary source of criticism (Media Matters). Please also see the above threads for other user comments about Politico's bias. Thanks -PrBeacon (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've revised the line and added it back: Politico has acknowledged a "Republican tilt" from its ties to conservatives.[6] If you don't like it, explain why here. Don't just revert. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what they said. One editor said that MMfA had a point, that is a far cry from admitting that they have a Republican tilt. Furthermore, the other editors in that article all disagree with the general premise to varying degrees. I would like to know how you came to your conclusion? Arzel (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As i Recall Beacon, you insisted the disusion was going on at RFM so i merely took the conversation there, and Cherry picking quotes to fit an agenda helps nobody as this is flimsy stuff at best. I fear consensus is against you 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
@ Arzel: So let me get this order straight -- first you revert then you discuss? You're experienced enough to know that is not in the spirit of this project. And "far cry" you say -- yet there's clearly a concession to right-leaning. Both the chief editor and the senior writer acknowledge it, with the headline "Ben Smith Says Media Matters Has A Point (Dock His Pay)" [the parenthetical part is sarcasm, obviously] .. and Smith's words: "Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House." It's right there. The other editors' denial can be included, then. Seriously why are you so keen to keep this out of the lead? Your edit summary of "guilt" is overstating the impact.
@ Weaponbb7: this is not cherry picking quotes. The last version is even tame compared to what the source actually says. You two are tag-teaming this article. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil, Tag Teaming requires active collaboration, Dont make such accusations like just because Two editors disagree with you. Secondly Arzel is perfectly within the his rights as it appears you two have a history. When there is stuff that does not match up to the source and especially when you contributions seem to imply things that proably are not true. It looks like cherry picking to me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you see it's not 'just 2 editors disagreeing' -- unless you mean that you show your disagreement by reverting first & asking questions (maybe) later. And are you also implying that because Arzel & I have exchanged words, that he is free to disregard revert principles? -PrBeacon (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because you think Politico has no conservative bias, despite what the source says. And I have been civil, you are the one who first called my edit "vandalism" and ignored my request for explanation. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you both have shown no inclination to work with me (and opinions from past editors who agree with me) to improve this addition. Only block it. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i never said it didnt what you have written makes it sounds like the its the mouth peice for the Republican illuminati Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allow me to Cherry pick, Politico Admits its biased to Obama Also Cherry picking a singular quote from thier web Site is Called Original Research Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't say what you want it to say, the title you provided there is misleading. The writer only remarks on how their coverage of the Obama-McCain race reflected reality, how each was doing. ... I'm not sure from your previous reply ("i'm not saying they didn't") but are you saying they do have conservative bias? Then you could have simply suggested alternate phrasing or at least say what you think Ben Smith is admitting to. But neither of you have done that. Whatever it is, it could be qualified with something like "..other Politico editors deny this" or whatever. Lots of different ways to say it, the English language is pretty amazing that way. And I see this article as much a spin piece for Politico, it needs the balance of a little criticism. I know I'm not alone on this.-PrBeacon (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

I have closed the ANI thread as unnecessary. This minor content dispute can be resolved here. Some comments: 1. Weaponbb7, please do not characterise someone adding back unsourced material as "vandalism". 2. Everyone, please stop making weak interpretations of what sources say. Stick to what independent secondary reliable sources have said about Politico's position, not what they say about themselves or what their political opponents say. Fences&Windows 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what you make of these sources: the Boston Phoenix wrote about accusations that Politico is partisan in some detail. Glenn Greenwald on Salon has written about Politico several times, on who runs and funds them, whether they are right-wing due to a Politico reporter accusing critics of the Bush administration of being "left-wing haters", and whether they are an example of 'our broken political press' because of their reporting of John Edward's hair and other trivialities.

Not on the topic of bias, but Time's Swampland blog has written about their practice of "bite-size" news items, and Business Insider talks about their recent rapid turnover of staff. Fences&Windows 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has this primary source been considered.[7] The charge has been made, some others have picked up on it, and Politico has discussed it. The claim does not deserve an amazing amount of weight and the primary source might need to be used with a little extra care but I don't see the problem. I know this goes against Fences and windows "not what they say about themselves or what their political opponents say" but some mention of it might be acceptable as long as editors make sure not to scandal monger. There is a difference between acknowledging a minor controversy and WP:NOTSCANDAL.Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really meant "not just...". Their discussion of the charge, and the charge itself (hosted on their own site!) can be referred to, but with care taken not to add our own interpretations of what is said and to avoid cherry-picking comments. Fences&Windows 20:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really i could care less about wether or not they are biased, the Cherry picked quote was baloney and so were the insidious accusation in the Lead, i am not and have never been opposed to well sourced criticism. The sources you have presented look fine and do not cherry pick into a POV. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an outside voice, I would say that I agree with the version as is. There is really no need for such a statement to be in the lead and the statement as it stands in the body of article reflects the facts: one of the editors agreeing that the accusations had some merit, others didn't. It seems to be fine as is. Soxwon (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur the current version is appropriate to the scale of the "Controversy" (if it is even that), I am always thankful for outside editors to be willing to step in a provide outside views. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weaponbb7 the quote you keep calling 'cherry picked baloney' still appears in the body text. There is some disconnect between that and your agreement with Soxwon. -PrBeacon (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republican connections, bias

There has been some question about Politico's ties to Republican party leaders in light of their perceived conservative bias.
• Politico's CEO Fred Ryan is a former Assistant to Reagan (including post-presidential Chief of Staff) and current chair of trustees for the Reagan Library.
• Politico's owner Robert Allbritton is "a noted conservative CEO[1][2]" with ties to the Bush family. His bank is well-known for its support of Pinochet (regime ties which became a divisive, partisan issue in the 1980s and '90s).
• Politico's political writer/editor Smith's quote acknowledges (at least) a semblance of connections at the time of "Bush's public endorsement"
• the Boston Phoenix piece cited above by Fences (and which is already referenced on the Allbritton page), says "the issue of nonpartisanship — or lack thereof — has plagued Politico’s brief existence" (based on progressive/liberal criticism), mention's Politico's connections to Matt Drudge, and paraphrases Greenwald: "Given Ryan’s political loyalties, and the conservative bona fides of owner Robert Allbritton’s family, Greenwald concluded, it’s hard to take Politico’s claims of nonpartisanship seriously." To be fair, the Phoenix piece includes a rebuttal from Harris as well as observations about Politico's "critics on the right, though they're less numerous or less vocal." And it even remarks on Politico's "transparency" in publishing the MMfA's critique (which I don't see online anymore, but I may have missed it) as well as Politico's response which is quoted at the beginning of this thread. -PrBeacon (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but at this point you REALLY seem to be grasping at straws. Perhaps you should focus on other things? Soxwon (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't dismiss the connections so easily. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, that people who write a political newspaper happen to have political connections? I would hope so or they would most likely be pulling things out of their ass. The connection has been mentioned in the BODY of the article, as it should be. You need FAR more for it to reach the lede. Soxwon (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Soxwon here, I am not opposed to such material being added as long as the wording does not imply more than what the sources say and it is not given WP:UNDUE and it is not used to support original thesis. Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From The New York Times Magazine - "Before he goes to sleep, between 11 and midnight, Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, typically checks in by e-mail with the same reporter: Mike Allen of Politico, who is also the first reporter Pfeiffer corresponds with after he wakes up at 4:20....Allen also communes a lot with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Robert Gibbs, the press secretary; David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior adviser; and about two dozen other White House officials. But Pfeiffer is likely Allen’s main point of contact, the one who most often helps him arrive at a “West Wing Mindmeld,” as Playbook calls it, which is essentially a pro-Obama take on that day’s news. (Allen gets a similar fill from Republicans, which he also disseminates in Playbook.)" APK whisper in my ear 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Leibovich, Mark (2010-04-19) The Man the White House Wakes Up To, The New York Times
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politico&oldid=372718155"