US political news site Politico will launch a subscription news service early next year, reports the New York Times.
The new service will focus on healthcare, energy and technology and run alongside the existing website and free daily publication.
The idea behind the service, which will cost subscribers $1,495 to $2,500 a year for the first topic and $1,000 for each subsequent topic, is to provide coverage at the microlevel of what Congress, federal agencies and trade associations are doing.
Last week we highlighted some of the criticism being directed at Rolling Stone magazine for its decision to hold off publishing the now notorious General McChrystal article online.
The magazine’s hold-for-the-newsstand tactic led Time.com and Politico to make full PDF copies of the printed article available through their websites – copies which were not provided directly by Rolling Stone, as was first thought, but by third parties.
In the wake of Rolling Stone’s much-derided decision, New York Times’ Media Equation blogger David Carr turns his attention to the behaviour of Time.com and Politico, which later linked back to Rolling Stone’s website when the magazine finally published online.
Publishing a PDF of somebody else’s work is the exact opposite of fair use: these sites engaged in a replication of a static electronic document with no links to the publication that took the risk, commissioned the work and came up with a story that tilted the national conversation. The technical, legal term for what they did is, um, stealing.
Jim VandeHei, executive editor and a founder of Politico, defended the site’s move by claiming that “the imperatives of the news cycle superseded questions of custody”.
The American Society of News Editors (ASNE) has appointed not one, but two web editors to its board – the first time web editors have been represented on the group’s executive in its almost 100-year history (picked up via Editor & Publisher).
John Harris, editor-in-chief of Politico, and Anthony Moor, deputy managing editor/interactive of Dallas Morning News, will take up the positions.
The appointments were made ‘to reach out to news executives beyond the group’s print newspaper roots‘, an ASNE announcement said.
The addition of web editors to the association’s board is one of many recent changes by the ASNE towards a more digital outlook. In April this year the body changed ‘Newspaper’ for ‘News’ in its name.
From Politico: a report on a panel at the Institute’s Ideas Festival in Colarado, asking ‘What’s the News Worth to You?’
For us Brits, this is the interesting part:
“During the panel’s Q&A, Gawker Media’s Nick Denton sarcastically thanked the American newspaper industry for being so unaggressive, making it possible for ‘thugs’ like him to succeed.
“Conversely, Denton said he’d never set up shop in England. ‘Every single day, those editors get up and try to kill each other,’ said Denton. Not so in the U.S.”
The original Politico story:
“Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive ‘salon’ at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to ‘those powerful few’ – Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.”
And also read about it here:
A video from Politico showing the Whitehouse press secretary Robert Gibbs answering a question about the ‘salon’:
Politico, the ad-supported political news site founded in 2006, will become profitable this year, according to co-founder John Harris.
In the video below, Harris tells Beet.tv about Politico’s ‘new’ syndication model involving regional and national newspapers:
An extract from comments made by New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, at the opening of the Stanford Daily’s new building this week, has sparked a flurry of comment under the original Politico.com post, which was picked up by both the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post.
Michael Calderone’s post uses quotes reported by Politico’s Tim Grieve, which include:
“Keller predicted that the Times will be ‘left standing after the deluge.'”
“Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: “Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.””
The comments below the article particularly pick up on the latter remark, many readers angered by what they perceive as Keller’s likening of the New York Times situation with that of the crisis in Darfur. “Talk about delusions. As important as Dafur!” writes ‘CLJ124’.
The link to the article on the front page of the Politico site, meanwhile, makes reference to the fact that Keller ‘joked’.
Commenter ‘Michael Green’ writes: “Some of the comments about this piece miss a point or two. One is that Mr. Keller might have been ironic in referring to saving The Times as the equivalent to saving Darfur.”
Another, ‘Stacy Harris’, writes that it “is likely a poor choice of words that, upon reflection, Keller will regret.” An anonymous commenter, writes that it was a ‘parody’: “Regarding Darfur, Keller said that, considering all of the people who have offered to donate money to keep the Times alive, it appears that at least some people equate saving the Times with saving Darfur.”
Keller is also reported by Politico to have said “If you’re inclined to trust Google as your source for news – Google yourself.”
If he does that today he will find that a Google blog search on “bill keller” now returns: http://blogsearch.google.co.uk/blogsearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=vih&q=bill%20keller&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wb and this is the result of a Google News search: http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22bill%20keller%22&sa=N&tab=bn.
Update: Bill Keller has emailed Politico, in response to the comments on the Politico post. Of his remarks he said:
“I think it’s pretty obviously a reflection of my mild astonishment at the earnest fervor with which some people have suddenly embraced the cause of saving newspapers.
“That’s matched only by my mild astonishment at the silly literal-mindedness with which some people read my occasional public comments.”
A fuller context to his comment is given in a new Politico blog post, at this link.
The deal between Reuters and Politico is a far better proposal for newspapers seeking an alternative to the Associated Press (AP) than CNN’s plans for a newswire, argues Philip M. Stone.
It’s ‘an outstandingly smart marketing ploy’ by Reuters, adds Stone, as it gives the agency access to a wider range of newspaper subscribers.
As reported at NYTimes.com and elsewhere, Politico and Reuters have joined forced to offer articles to newspapers and sell advertising on newpspaper websites: ‘the latest step in the rising competition among electronic news media to fill the void left by the shrinking print business,’ NYTimes.com reports.
Politico’s content-sharing network, launched only three months ago, has signed up more than 100 partners, including 67 newspapers.
The agreement will make Politico’s online political news content available in return for ad placement on partners’ sites.