I guess the issue that I have with all the news organizations that have a political MO, if you will, attached to them is that they sometimes jump to conclusions about what this will mean. Get ahead of themselves.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
My close proximity to many of the newsmakers can give me a different perspective about people in politics and what they might say than others who don't know them.
Political reporters no longer get to decide what's news. The days when a minister gave briefings to a dozen lobby correspondents, and thereby dictated the next day's headlines, are over. Now, a thousand bloggers decide for themselves what is interesting. If enough of them are tickled then, bingo, you're news.
In so many of the other beats these days, there are these layers of public relations people that you have to go through to get to the newsmakers themselves.
God, newspapers have been making up stories forever. This kind of trifling and fooling around is not a function of the New Journalism.
The things journalists should pay attention to are the issues the political leadership agrees on, rather than to their supposed antagonisms.
A news organization has a much different responsibility. I might not be telling you the whole story. I might not be telling you a story in a manner that is properly sophisticated.
There are some people in politics and in the press who can't be confused by the facts. They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that's regrettable.
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, that's what keeps them digging rather than simply accepting the official line, whether it comes from government or corporate bureaucrats.
You know journalists. You know the media. They are going to hang on to anything negative they possibly can.
The Congressional leaders set the agenda for journalism; it's not the other way around.