WhoRunsGov
January 27, 2009 4:22 PM Subscribe
WhoRunsGov (beta). A Washington Post project to profile political players. Public participation is planned.
WhoRunsGov : will be an ever-growing database of government power-brokers containing key information on new administration officials, lawmakers, senior Hill aides and ultimately interest group and think tank experts. We aim to be a single-stop shop for all those interested in the people and personalities who run the government.
WhoRunsGov : will be an ever-growing database of government power-brokers containing key information on new administration officials, lawmakers, senior Hill aides and ultimately interest group and think tank experts. We aim to be a single-stop shop for all those interested in the people and personalities who run the government.
Potentially a potent people powered portal!
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 4:32 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 4:32 PM on January 27, 2009
I will mock their earnestness by making fun of this guy's photo: is that his hair or a jauntily canted beret?
posted by smackfu at 4:35 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by smackfu at 4:35 PM on January 27, 2009
Boy, this sure would have been useful during the last 8 years.
posted by mediareport at 4:42 PM on January 27, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 4:42 PM on January 27, 2009 [3 favorites]
is that his hair or a jauntily canted beret?
Rod Blagojevich's profile
posted by ornate insect at 4:43 PM on January 27, 2009
Rod Blagojevich's profile
posted by ornate insect at 4:43 PM on January 27, 2009
HowShotWeb?
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:45 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:45 PM on January 27, 2009
Has LittleSis been mentioned here? Kinda the same thing, but coming from the ground up instead of top down.
posted by with hidden noise at 4:51 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by with hidden noise at 4:51 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
CONSERVATIVE PAPER LAUNCHES ATTEMPT AT ACCOUNTABILITY ONLY AFTER DISASTROUS CONSERVATIVE LEAVES OFFICE
posted by DU at 5:11 PM on January 27, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by DU at 5:11 PM on January 27, 2009 [5 favorites]
The Washington Post leans toward the left, the Washington Times is a batshit insane Moonie owned Republican rag with an radical right wing agenda and an axe to grind against all that is good and decent in the world.
posted by stavrogin at 5:22 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by stavrogin at 5:22 PM on January 27, 2009
Hey, I like the way LittleSis is put together! Thanks, with hidden noise.
posted by merelyglib at 5:24 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by merelyglib at 5:24 PM on January 27, 2009
The Washington Post leans toward the left
Huh? That's definitely not true on foreign policy, and arguably false on economic policy as well. The Post's editorial board *and* its front page were two of the most prominent cheerleaders for the neocon rush to invade Iraq. It's surprising to have to remind anyone of that so soon after the fact, but here:
The fundamental question: Why did the press as a whole fail to question sufficiently the administration’s case for war? More specifically:
...Q. Why, on the eve of war, did the Washington Post’s executive editor reject a story by Walter Pincus, its experienced and knowledgeable national security reporter, that questioned administration claims of hidden Iraqi weapons and why, when the editor reconsidered, the story ran on Page 17?
Q. Why did the Post, to the “dismay” of the paper’s ombudsman, bury in the back pages or miss stories that challenged the administration’s version of events? Or, as Pincus complained, why did Post editors go “through a whole phase in which they didn’t put things on the front page that would make a difference” while, from August 2002 to the start of the war in March 2003, did the Post, according to its press critic, Howard Kurtz, publish “more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq”?
For just the first two examples I can remember off the top of my head. The one thing the Post clearly doesn't do, stavrogin, is "lean toward the left."
posted by mediareport at 5:55 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
Huh? That's definitely not true on foreign policy, and arguably false on economic policy as well. The Post's editorial board *and* its front page were two of the most prominent cheerleaders for the neocon rush to invade Iraq. It's surprising to have to remind anyone of that so soon after the fact, but here:
The fundamental question: Why did the press as a whole fail to question sufficiently the administration’s case for war? More specifically:
...Q. Why, on the eve of war, did the Washington Post’s executive editor reject a story by Walter Pincus, its experienced and knowledgeable national security reporter, that questioned administration claims of hidden Iraqi weapons and why, when the editor reconsidered, the story ran on Page 17?
Q. Why did the Post, to the “dismay” of the paper’s ombudsman, bury in the back pages or miss stories that challenged the administration’s version of events? Or, as Pincus complained, why did Post editors go “through a whole phase in which they didn’t put things on the front page that would make a difference” while, from August 2002 to the start of the war in March 2003, did the Post, according to its press critic, Howard Kurtz, publish “more than 140 front-page stories that focused heavily on administration rhetoric against Iraq”?
For just the first two examples I can remember off the top of my head. The one thing the Post clearly doesn't do, stavrogin, is "lean toward the left."
posted by mediareport at 5:55 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
Greenwald has a relevant post today: a sharp dissection of "Liberal" Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.
posted by mediareport at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by mediareport at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
WhoRunsGov
Dammit, I told you, no more embargos.
posted by Bernt Pancreas at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dammit, I told you, no more embargos.
posted by Bernt Pancreas at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
The Washington Post leans to the left?
posted by DU at 11:48 AM on January 28 [+] [!]
No, it dresses to the left, but it leans to the right.
posted by 5MeoCMP at 6:44 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by DU at 11:48 AM on January 28 [+] [!]
No, it dresses to the left, but it leans to the right.
posted by 5MeoCMP at 6:44 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
"WHO RUN GOVERNMENT? WHO ... RUN ... GOVERNMENT?"
"... You know who."
"SAY."
"Lobbyists."
"SAY LOUD"
"Lobbyists"
"LOBBYISTS...WHAT?"
"Lobbyists run government"
"LOUDER"
"Lobbyists run government!"
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:44 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
"... You know who."
"SAY."
"Lobbyists."
"SAY LOUD"
"Lobbyists"
"LOBBYISTS...WHAT?"
"Lobbyists run government"
"LOUDER"
"Lobbyists run government!"
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:44 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
I look forward to the liberal commentary of newly hired left leaning journalist Bill Kristol.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:52 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:52 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
The Washington Post leans toward the left
In what universe? The fucking Nation leans to the left; ditto the SF Chronicle. The WaPo is only slightly to the left of the WSJ, i.e. it's generally right of center.
posted by ornate insect at 7:04 PM on January 27, 2009
In what universe? The fucking Nation leans to the left; ditto the SF Chronicle. The WaPo is only slightly to the left of the WSJ, i.e. it's generally right of center.
posted by ornate insect at 7:04 PM on January 27, 2009
Now now. They can be leaning to the left if you assume that they're standing waaaaaaay over there on the right.
posted by ook at 7:34 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by ook at 7:34 PM on January 27, 2009
Yeah, but it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:09 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:09 PM on January 27, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can I has gov?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:30 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:30 PM on January 27, 2009
In Soviet Russia, gov can has YOU.
posted by Pallas Athena at 9:48 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by Pallas Athena at 9:48 PM on January 27, 2009
All wacky snark aside, this seems to be a good site, thanks for the link. It's easier to remember what people do and who they are when you see pictures of the people.
posted by zardoz at 11:12 PM on January 27, 2009
posted by zardoz at 11:12 PM on January 27, 2009
Who runs gov?
BEAR RUNS GOV! HOW CAN THIS BE?
posted by explosion at 3:43 AM on January 28, 2009 [4 favorites]
BEAR RUNS GOV! HOW CAN THIS BE?
posted by explosion at 3:43 AM on January 28, 2009 [4 favorites]
This isn't a product of Washington Post (the newspaper) or WashingtonPost.com (the website), which are separate corporate entities, but the Washington Post Company that owns those two as well as a few other media properties and Kaplan. I could not tell you why the corporate office is building this instead of the news-gathering offices. I really sort of wish someone would tell me, because it's the exact sort of thing we do.
Also: I find the idea that the Post is lefty to be all kinds of hilarious.
(Context: I work at WashingtonPost.com and am not any kind of boss or PR person; grain of salt from the trenches and all that.)
posted by Harkins_ at 7:18 AM on January 28, 2009
Also: I find the idea that the Post is lefty to be all kinds of hilarious.
(Context: I work at WashingtonPost.com and am not any kind of boss or PR person; grain of salt from the trenches and all that.)
posted by Harkins_ at 7:18 AM on January 28, 2009
« Older Art is everywhere | The Wizard of Wood Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ornate insect at 4:28 PM on January 27, 2009 [1 favorite]