Speaking of which, Eric Wemple at the Washington Post, in his words, “reported that “Playbook” author Mike Allen of Politico showed a discernible pattern of writing favorable blurbs about advertisers.” In response to which, Mike Allen’s
pimp editor-in-chief complained to Howie Kurtz:
… Given the success of it, it did grow to become something that was highly coveted by advertisers. So it’s sponsored, but in tone, in substance, in the type of items: Who’s in, who’s out? That’s never changed a lick, not once, in seven years. So the idea — and it really wasn’t an argument what I read; it was more of a suggestion, insinuation, innuendo in a really unfair way — that the product is somehow compromised by advertisers was a) not supported and b) horribly, horribly unfair to what really is one of the most transparent journalistic products in the city. Anyone can read it any given day and sort of take their best guess as to why this is in there, why it’s not, who Mike had lunch with, who was giving him this, who he had dinner with, who was feeding him that. Totally transparent. I feel very, very strongly, if I could just say this about Mike Allen. I’ve known him for 23 of the 27 years he’s been in the news business. Some people like “Playbook,” some people don’t like “Playbook.” But no one has ever in those 27 years — not once, not ever — questioned his journalistic ethics. So I think as somebody did in this instance, was quite irresponsible in my view…
Translation from the (wounded) Weaselspeak: Sure, the ‘right’ people have long known that Mike will be their friend in exchange for money. But to call him a whore in public — that’s just hurtful!”
Off to have a nice dinner at one of our favorite local restaurants, with plans to be home before the drunks get loose on the roads. What’s on the agenda, celebratory or otherwise?