In the wake of the AOL acquisition, I've been reading a lot about HuffPost from people who don't really know what we do. I thought it'd be useful to address our content model from the perspective of someone who actually knows something about it.
The American media has more or less abandoned a substantive discussion of the effects of policy, because they are -- for a lot of reasons -- averse to the idea of coming down on one side or another. Many Beltway media types don't want to do this, for fear of coming across as biased. The rest literally cannot do this because they lack the chops. That's why when major events happen, like the ongoing revolt in Egypt, most of the political media cannot muster up any sort of analysis beyond how those events will effect everyone's reelection hopes back home.
In a magazine piece previewed in the Times, Peter Baker drops thousands and thousands of words concerning the White House's effort to do something about the terrible economy. The piece sprawls on and on, but it never even attempts to move beyond insider sources who evince no knowledge whatsoever as to how actual Americans are living in the economy. The singular takeaway is that inside the bubble, everyone is doing pretty well in this economy. We'd send you a postcard, but who knows if you'll be in your home a week from now?