Axios

[DonRocks]

I can see no better introduction to Axios (Mike Allen's new news company) than to start off by watching "Jonathan," featuring Sean Spicer and our own Jon Karl, unless you see it on Jon's Facebook page itself. 

[DonRocks]

2 hours ago, Al Dente said:

Anything the Dems do he attributes to Hillary losing the election. I'm exhausted by the Fake News claims. I now refer to 45 as our Fake President.

The galling thing is that I think there's merit to the concept of "fake news," but it's everywhere, and not exclusively perpetuated by the left or the right. Just as big of a problem is "BS news," which is co-mingled with truly important stories - sorting through it is frustrating and exhausting.

I don't know what people think about Axios, but I'm getting my morning political news from them, instead of bouncing all over the internet - I can read the top stories quickly, and if I want more depth (Axios is short and to-the-point), or different opinons on a story (if you lean left, you may wish they did, too), I'll go to any of a few other sources. But it's hard news, not much opinion, and no Kim Kardashian.

Picture me at the beginning of this decade, running around to 15-20 restaurants a week, and that's what Mike Allen does with political news - he's inexhaustible. I don't know how long he can keep this up, but for now, he is, to say the least, "copious" (he just broke the Dumke story, for example).

I guess I should say Mike is an acquaintance of mine - I wouldn't call him a "friend," so much as a "friend-of-a-friend." A lot of insiders think he was the most influential political journalist in DC for many years (it is said that Washington, DC is "run" by 200 people, and all 200 of them read his newsletter). You'll have to make your own decisions, but for me, it's a good jumping-off point for U.S. political news.

[Al Dente]

I'll take a look at Axios-- thanks for the tip. 

I agree there is fake news on the right and the left, but the damage done by Breitbart and InfoWars in recent elections has been appalling. Case in point, Comet Ping Pong. I don't see anything on this scale in the "liberal elite" media.

And then there's this about our Supreme Leader and where he gets his info from. It's disturbing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-02/trump-s-world-increasingly-shaped-by-fox-news-and-fox-by-trump

[DonRocks]

57 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

I'll take a look at Axios-- thanks for the tip. 

I agree there is fake news on the right and the left, but the damage done by Breitbart and InfoWars in recent elections has been appalling. Case in point, Comet Ping Pong. I don't see anything on this scale in the "liberal elite" media.

And then there's this about our Supreme Leader and where he gets his info from. It's disturbing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-02/trump-s-world-increasingly-shaped-by-fox-news-and-fox-by-trump

I am about as *completely* non-partisan as someone could be - I honestly couldn't care less about people's politics, religion, sexuality, etc., and do not judge anyone on them (to a reasonable point). I agree that it has been taken to unprecedented levels.

[DaveO]

There are some issues with Axios.  Its very new, though.  I've glanced at it/ scanned it.  IMHO there is more relevant news out there then they are currently publishing.

I'm simply going to list some of the "issues".  Make you own judgements.

• The real business concept behind Axios is as a corporate newsletter.  Corporate and topical newsletters are BIG BUSINESS now.  If they work right they are quite profitable.  There are a growing volume of them on all sorts of topics, some are narrow and others are more widespread.  But the goal is to build big subscriber news letters and particularly with those that will pay (not unsubstantial fees for the newsletter).
• Axios provides for PAID CONTENT that is intermixed with its stories.  Its discernable...but not Incredibly Discernable.  There are real issues with how visible and pronounced paid content is differentiated from real stories. 
• Big monied interest groups (ie special interests and the like) will pay large seemingly ungodly amounts of money to get their CONTENT in all sorts of publications and to promote as much as they can while seemingly not seeming to be an ad.  I wouldn't call it epidemic now..but its getting there.  

How am I aware of this status?  I know a number of publishers of varied types of substantial content on the web.  They have large websites.  They are typically informational on some topic that most of us would view as narrow or special interest. Not necessarily special interest in a lobbying/big business kind of way--but special interest in that it covers a specific topic in great detail.  Could be academic or social or any of a wide variety of topics.  Suppose it was sports and some equipment manufacturer publishes its BS report on how its equipment has been tested and verified to make you jump higher, run faster, and   last longer.  Who knows?

Cripes --foodie stuff is "special interest" and gets a limited but very or hyper interested readership. 

The owners of these topical sites can get tremendous pressure from special interest groups that want to publish literature that they produce.  In some cases these publications or posts will be considered controversial by one side or another.   Take climate change..or privatizing certain public type services as examples.

• So if Axios' content is intermixed with corporate produced content that is NOT THAT distinguishable from news---that could be an issue.  It could easily skew their coverage.   I'd be wary of it at this point.  If the $$$ starts pouring in from one source or another--of which you might be completely unaware its likely its coverage will start becoming significantly skewed.

But its new.  Who knows.  Read it yourself and make your own decisions.   I'm a voracious news reader...or so i think.  I still go through a number of news sources.  I'm convinced its difficult to find NEWS that is completely divorced from political winds these days.   Here is a review of an experiment I tried about 2 years ago.

1. I spent months reading BUSINESS NEWS from the WSJ and the NYTimes business section every or almost every weekday.  These were news sections.  It was business news--so often about some particular business, some industry, or some business policy or general economics.
2. I learned that I didn't know one iota of the amount of business "stuff" that I thought I did.  (but so what)
3. It was remarkable to see that the WSJ and NYTimes business coverage was substantially different.   Freaked me out.  I never would have thought that.  Clearly there was editorializing on the content.  Cripes more than half the time I wouldn't have known whose politics were whose on some esoteric business info on which I knew nothing.   But the coverage in some ways was skewed.

Anyway I believe its difficult to find independent sources of news that are also similarly completely independent of some kinds of political or financial backing.   So I suggest read from a great variety of sources and form your own opinions.

[DonRocks]

5 hours ago, DaveO said:

• Axios provides for PAID CONTENT that is intermixed with its stories.  Its discernable...but not Incredibly Discernable.  There are real issues with how visible and pronounced paid content is differentiated from real stories. 

This was the criticism I most often read about Mike's morning newsletter for Politico. It's a legitimate thing to watch for, but I guess the investors aren't feeling terribly charitable, and this was how they chose to make revenue - it worked for Politico, although was the subject of some derision.

My advice to readers would be to look at the upper-left corner of each article, where (if you're looking there) it's fairly obvious if something is a paid ad, or a piece of news.

I remember reading some speculation that the content itself (of the Politico newsletter) was influenced by the ads, but it should be noted that said speculation was written by a competitor (a somewhat covetous competitor, in my eyes), so it's a two-way street.

Someone like Al Dente - with no real axes to grind or grapes to harvest - will probably be an objective judge of things over time, and I'll be interested in his opinion a year from now.