Posts Tagged ‘Alex Pareene’
Good morning, Washington. What DC cafeteria is featured above? Think you know? Email us with your best guess. AND: Join us after the jump to find out if you guessed our last contest correctly.
Got a blind item, interesting link, funny note, comment, birthday, anniversary or anything of the sort for Morning Reading List? Drop us a line or let us know in the tips box below.
We’ve got your morning mix of media Muesli after the jump…
Remember Alex Pareene? Our liver hates him.
Well, on the heels of “Politico TV” news (P.S. people: It’s not a done deal…details are still being worked out, we hear…) homeboy (now at Gawker) has some thoughts on the Politico and admits he’s been “skeptical from Day One.”
- The Observer reports today that Politico is now turning into a TV show, which makes sense, because they are owned by a company that owns TV stations, but there’s still not any word on whether this venture is actually making any money, for anyone. Which we’re kinda curious about! Is it, as it appears to be, a big vanity project?
- The Politico is now, apparently, launching a weekly television show, which will air on most of those Allbritton TV stations (though not in New York). It will be fast-paced and hard-hitting and EDGY.
“When we think of Politico, we’re always talking about, well, it would be nice to build the ESPN of politics,” said Mr. VandeHei. “I think part of that would be treating politics like sports, blending in more stats, dusting down the numbers and getting inside the strategy.”
Except ESPN makes money, doesn’t it? There isn’t, we’re told, a lot of advertising money, on this Internet, for pure political coverage. Denton describes political reporting as “toxic to advertisers.” And what money there is for it will dry up once this presidential election is done. HuffPo is raking it in, supposedly, but there’s a good reason why they’re expanding their lifestyle and health sectionsâ€”and trying to be seen as less of a rabidly partisan left-wing niche political site.
- And once the presidential thing is done, Politico will have to go back to what we thought it’d be in the first placeâ€”a wonkish, Roll Call-like little trade paper for Congress-watchers and DC insiders. In real newspapers, the political reporting is subsidized by the “fluff.” One cannot build a profitable brand on politics alone.
So if anyone smarter than us at this money thing wants to take a stab at explaining to us the economics of Politico, we’re all ears.
Well, we’re not as skeptical as Pareene about Politico (although we’ve had our doubts at times), in part because, thanks to an impressive PR operation, a supportive and generous owner, fast-acting Internet peeps and reporters with direct relationships with Drudge and other traffic drivers, they’ve exceeded the expectations of most. Like any paper, they do some things very well and some things could stand a second look.
BUT…Pareene does bring up the $64,000 question: What about the profit?
We hear about some of the impressive (and, in some cases, impressively bloated) salaries and the final product — both online and in print — costs some serious dough to produce. And it doesn’t take a genius to see that the reporters travel all over the place on the Politico’s dime.
So, well, we asked: One high-up Politico source tells FishbowlDC that Politico is ahead of plan financially. Make of that what you will.
Of course, if, in fact, the Politico is just a vanity project, does that really matter? It certainly doesn’t to the journalists now employed. And, to be fair: There are lots of impressive journalism ventures that exist solely/largely due to a rich owner willing to fund journalism.
See the reactions of Gawker readers to Pareene’s post here and let us know your thoughts, readers…
You gotta admit: Given how Washington’s party/dinner/gala scene can oftentimes feel like like “Groundhog Day,” last night’s “The Week” Opinion Awards dinner was a breath of fresh air.
The crowd was small, impressive and intimate and it lended itself to moments like when Bloomberg D.C. Bureau Chief Al Hunt approached one table and said “Hey, it’s Attila the Hun!” The wait staff was — wait for it — attentive and, like any good party, the dinner ended up at the hotel bar where, naturally, Tammy Haddad conducted the attendees like an orchestra.
The panel discussion with Sir Harold Evans (dude: we know you’re, like, a sir and all and that means all sorts of affected “I’m thinking!” gestures like carefully folded arms and stuff, but stop pacing back and forth across the stage! The seats are there for a reason.), Karl Rove, Howell Raines and Doug Schoen was heated not only on stage (Raines to Rove: “Would you just let me finish one paragraph please?” / Evans to Rove: “Keep quiet just for a second” … see write-ups here and here), but off stage as well, as when a handful of people flapped their arms so that Ana Marie Cox could press Rove on why Gov. Dukakis was considered soft on crime (As Alex Pareene might shout out, “Yeah, 1988 baby!“). Or when one audience member shouted at Rove, “Try not to lie!” Or when Rove accused Ruth Marcus of being a kiss-ass to Ben Bradlee. Or when one reporter nervously introduced herself to Howell Raines and confessed her high school crunch on him. You get the drift.
Per usual (cuz we love you, readers), loads of photos after the jump…
Wonkette Editor Alex Pareene announced yesterday that he’s leaving our fair city for some city up north that no one’s ever heard of and which subsists on fermented piss, bloated dreams and people who — much like the cockroaches all around them — shrivel when the sun hits their skin.
As a result, Alex will greatly need you to load him up with free cocktails before he heads into that dark oblivion.
The site announced two new editors: Jim Newell and Jim Clark, Jr. But will they be nearly as cute as the last Wonkette couple?
Alex Pareene recently got this bad boy tatooed to his chest.
Clearly, a bit more involved than the earlier Wonkette’s:
- That’s somewhat ridiculous! There are literally thousands of working journalists in the D.C. area. To assume that not one of them — I’m referring to girls here, since that’s my particular focus — isn’t “hot” is just a ridiculous generalization. The short answer is “yes.” In fact, there are “hot,” or attractive, women at small local papers in the suburbs, at papers in the Baltimore area, at papers, radio stations, television stations and internet sites throughout the D.C. area, and at many of the bureaus of the larger national publications in those offices at the National Press Building. There are attractive women at newsletters, publishers, p.r. firms, lobbying firms, marketing firms, and whatever else type of journalism office you can name. All you need to do is head out to social events (not even the high-end glitzy ones — those are bogus) such as happy hours, get-togethers, parties and Press Club functions, and you’ll see that there are literally plenty of attractive single women in journalism throughout the Baltimore and D.C. metropolitan areas.