WaPo Weighs New Politics Site
Over the past year, politics-oriented Web sites have attracted record amounts of Internet traffic, and the Washington Post has apparently concluded that it’s not commanding enough of it. Top thinkers at the paper are currently discussing a brand-new, semi-autonomous site that would package the Post’s politics reporting, multimedia offerings, and other stuff.
“We’re exploring whether or not it would be feasible or advisable to create a niche Web site on politics in parallel with our political coverage on washingtonpost.com,” says Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr.
Users could find it all at Postpolitics.com.
But just what they would find isn’t clear. “I don’t know what it is yet,” says Jim Brady, executive editor of Washingtonpost.com.
Whatever it is, it all bears some resemblance to a concept advocated two years ago by Post politics veterans John Harris and Jim VandeHei. They wanted the paper to have a strong and separate identity on politics, a refuge for junkies uncluttered by weather reports and stories on the region’s latest double murder. “This sounds similar to what Jim and I had proposed,” says Harris, who left the Post along with VandeHei in 2006 to launch the Politico.
The Post project may gain some clarity in high-level meetings this week, as Brady and others sprint to flesh out their options. If a new product is launched, it has to be ready in time for the conventions later this summer. The goal would be to create something with greater appeal than the site’s current politics front page, which gives the reader an inventory of the Post’s work in this realm. Today’s iteration, for example, presents a story by staff writer Eli Saslow on false rumors about Barack Obama in the country’s heartland, links to Post.com bloggers, and a display of polling numbers.
Says Brady: “The question is, basically, that we already have a politics page that kind of aggregates everything we do in politics.”
Not exactly a full-throated endorsement from the company’s Web boss. Though embryonic, planning discussions on the politics page pack all the ingredients of a classically divisive Washington Post Web venture–and help explain why Publisher Katharine Weymouth is looking at ways to mesh the D.C.-based main newsroom and the Arlington-based Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (WPNI).
The revival of a separate politics site reportedly originated from talks on the D.C. side of the Web divide, with Weymouth and Downie insistent on exploring its possibilities, according to knowledgeable sources. A June 20 memo from national desk honchos Bill Hamilton and Rajiv Chandrasekaran drives home the point that “[t]he site has to feel new…” “It cannot simply be a version of the current politics page, now also called Post Politics.”
In seeking uniqueness, Hamilton and Chandrasekaran propose a great deal of same-oldness. Their outline of the site advocates, for example, “News and analysis…”; “Emphasis on our best political enterprise stories”; all kinds of archival functionality; “More photography…”; “Video–with an emphasis on quality and exclusivity over quantity”; and, my favorite, “Interactivity: Regular chats and online interviews with newsmakers.”
The memo’s indirect slight toward washingtonpost.com lies in the history: Many, if not all, of the specified functions are things that the dot-com troops long ago instituted, in some cases over the protests of the newsroom staffers.
And its direct slap-in-the-face to the Web site comes in this passage: “Many of WPNI’s resources are currently tied up in their re-design. We need their best designers on this project. That did not happen with The Trail….,” reads the memo, referring to the online campaign diary launched last summer.
The memo’s weirdest part states that the Post is a “late entrant into this field.” What field would that be? Semi-autonomous news sites by the paper of record in Washington, D.C.? Coverage of politics? Having a Web site? Writing?
Who knows. What is clear is that the Post has choked on campaign 2008. Though departed top national editor Susan Glasser put together some nice pre-primary candidate profiles, the newsroom has come up short on the sort of scoop-driven coverage that would do more to drive traffic than any fancy Web apparition. Too often the Post has been scrambling to follow its competitors.
And not just on the news-breaking front, either.
Around the time that operatives at Albritton Communications were working on the launch of Politico, they went on something of a bender in terms of registering domain names. Along with purchasing all kinds of URLs relating to Politico, a staffer at the paper’s Web-hosting outfit had the bright idea of registering Postpolitics.com.
The Post Co. found out months later about this instance of legal identity theft. At first, says a source, the Post people said they didn’t particularly want the name. Later, they said they did.
After some negotiating with the the Albritton/Politico folks, the Post paid around $20,000 to secure its very own franchise.




)



July 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
Didn’t the Post HAVE a packaged politics site about 8 years ago. It was called OnPolitics. I still have a t-shirt promoting it.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
The Post had a top-notch, very well-regarded politics site called PoliticsNow. This was back in the ‘95 to ‘97 timeframe. I still have a great t-shirt and some excellent promotional cups. And even the clock from the office wall, which came with me when the Post and its partners (ABC News & National Journal) decided to pull the plug on a very successful web property. Because (apparently) being the first, best product on the market wasn’t quite good enough.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Isn’t there tons of politics news at the Post’s web site? Why does there need to be another site? How will the new site be any different from the Post web site? Will the new site take people away from the newspaper site? What will be the actual difference between the two sites? Why does the Post need another web site? How will the content of the two sites be any different? If the Post web site is not attracting huge ad revenues and actual profits, then why on earth create another web site? Why spend money on something in the wake of forcing out 100 of your best people, including Richard Harrington, Eve Zibart, Tim Page, Bob Woodward, David Broder, Judy Sarasohn, Pat Myers (the Style Invitational), Steve Barr, and many, many others? Why force out talented people and then create a new web site that could very well not have a clear purpose, not attract ads, not attract profits, be a drain on finances, and not even have a clear purpose? What sense does any of this make? And the Post wonders why subscriptions, profits, readership, ads and ad revenues are down?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
This is classic WP. Rajiv and Bill have done a disasterous job perpetuating Susan Glasser’s arrogance and ruining the paper’s politics coverage. Now they are going to tell the web folks what to do. Wemple is right -why don’t they take a break from their condescending memo-writing and figure out a way to break a single story on any subject Post readers care about?
July 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
they could still buy Postpwned.com
July 1st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I agree with jon that the Post has to start concentrating on breaking stories. The second part of this is that it has to do stories that take aim at all sides. Many of the reporters have Obama biases — John Harris and Vandehei said this at Politico some months ago. One reason I read Politico is that the writers there take potshots at everyone. The same is true of Jake Tapper at ABC. I trust the writers there, because one day they’re after McCain, the next after Obama, etc. The current crop of Post reporters does not seem to be able to dig. And the wasted resources on things like reporting on what the candidate did each day, e.g., “he talked to a crowd of 50 geriatrics patients at a pancake breakfast, blah blah.” They were waaaay behind the pulse on the Wright story, for example.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
thefrontpage, your take on the Post’s strategy could describe just about every newspaper in this country. If the bosses would focus on retaining the most seasoned, most experienced, most talented, most proven reporters and writers instead of casting them loose, replacing them with web-savvy youngsters and flailing about for some magic formula — if they would build on their strengths and let the rising journalists create their own vehicles — I think we could all find a home in the new media landscape.