Does anyone else think that the "journalists" at Politico are really just frustrated Letterman writer wannabes?
C'mon. Let's call their list gimmick what it really is - lazy-ass reporting.
I suppose it works for "the Internets" - easy, quick reads. But it takes ignoring the context of a story to a whole new level.
Here are my top 5 reasons I find the lists so annoying. Add your reasons to the comments below!
- They've decided to draw my conclusions for me.
Journalists (and their editors) always have the power to be 'agenda-setters' - they decide what the public should pay attention to by covering some things and not others. Or deciding what parts of a story to include and how to frame an issue for us. But at least more descriptive coverage sometimes means readers are given info -- and then we are able to draw our own conclusions. But via the lists, the Politicos have decided they will make our conclusions for us.
- They are BORING.
Snooze-city. Most of the time the lists are often just masking boring topics - pretending to make them more interesting by framing them in this gimmickry. Can you say 'phoning it in' or 'it's my deadline by I have nothing interesting to write about.'
- They should be funny, but they're not.
Because they use the Letterman format, I always think the lists are going to be funny. It's kind of like an implied promise they give us by using the format. But they aren't funny. Or at least they're not intentionally funny. Very disappointing.
- The lists showcase their conservative bias.
The actual content of the lists reveals what they are thinking - and is a reminder that they slant conservative. And that just pisses me off. I am annoyed that they have become so popular (at least inside the Beltway) but they are a conservative rag a lot of the time. I mean, I guess maybe I should be thankful for the reminder that they are conservative, so I don't take it so seriously - but honestly, I don't really appreciate having it rubbed in my face.
- The Politico staff gets to think they're hot shit for being list makers.
It's the ultimate form of the journalist becoming part of the story. The list forum means that the writer is inherently part of the story being told. The story IS the list, not what the list is about. There is no longer even the pretense that the journalist is mediating a story for us. And I'm sure these journo-lebrities dig this part of their job - because it may just get them more face time on cable news talk shows. But we all know most of the have a face for print journalism (or maybe radio) - which is why they didn't go into broadcasting to begin with.
From the Politico mission statement:
Politico will promote and celebrate journalists who have a unique signature. That's why we've been able to attract reporters and editors who have worked at such places as Time magazine and The New York Times, National Public Radio, Roll Call and The Hill, Bloomberg News Service, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and The Washington Post.
There is a difference, however, between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans -- many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions -- live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology. Our belief in this is one reason The Politico will not have a traditional editorial page. Only rarely will we write as "We."