Web Site Pitch

Elevator Pitch: Let's create a Web site for one-stop shopping for news and information on Muslim extremism, terrorism and national security.

Far from defeating al Qaeda and its ilk in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States faces, and will continue to face for years to come, militant Muslim groups as a core and perhaps most dangerous element of its foreign policy. Extremists are on the march in Pakistan -- already termed for years the most dangerous country on the planet by many experts -- and could gain control of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the United States could be facing its second war in Afghanistan, possibly bigger than the first one. In sum, U.S. exposure to Islamist threats will only grow for the foreseeable future.

This is a business opportunity to be seized by today's journalists.

The multimedia potential for the Web site is as broad as any. Look at the stuff we can already "bank" as an indication: video footage of, say, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; still images of bombings in Baghdad; audio outtakes of Osama bin Laden's taped rants; maps of Pakistan's Swat Valley; blogs, Twitters and Facebook entries from on-the-ground citizens. We can also link to official documents from the U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies confronting extremism here and abroad. Just one representative offering: perhaps a map of the Middle East with markers of some kind that, as users mouse over them, become popups with descriptions of the extremist groups there.

A major goal of the Web site will be to educate readers about links -- real or supposed -- among the many extremist groups around the world. The great but dubious achievement of the Bush administration was to conflate 9/11, al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein into the same threat for U.S. public consumption, thereby winning support for the invasion of Iraq. Our mission will not be to fight against such things from the left or any other ideological viewpoint, but to lay out the facts for readers to decide matters for themselves. For example, the public might have found useful writings from the early 1990s by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others that the United States should consider picking a fight in the Middle East. Such things are already publicly available, but we would house and highlight them on our authoritative site.

Another goal would be to provide some historical context for readers, looking at the sources of Muslim extremism and terrorism as far back as World War II. Going back much further would diffuse matters and just be "too much," but of course the present and future can't be understood without knowledge of the past. Circa 1945 sounds about right.

Readership -- and remuneration, be it through subscription and/or advertisements -- would run the gamut. Everyday citizens would be interested in us, as certainly would other news outlets, policymakers, the military, and more. When we become the leading source of Muslim extremist information, it isn't hard to imagine Northrop Grumman, say, paying big money to get its name and pitch in front of the eyeballs of congressional defense appropriators -- our readers.

It's difficult to say at this point how we would need to resource our site. How much original reporting would we need on the scene? (If a lot, then, yes, this would present many logistical and financial challenges, not to mention safety issues for our employees.) How much good reporting could we crib through agreements with other outlets? At first at least, much staff time would have to be devoted to developing our bank of historical material, linking to other sites and information, and other work related to nonbreaking news.

Politico 44

Having digested it for a few days now, I can say that Politico 44 does a rock-solid job of meeting its goals: comprehensive, up-to-the-minute (or damn near) coverage of the Obama presidency. The schedule down the right-hand side is nicely done, though maybe it's not a whole lot more or better than what's available from the White House itself. I like the Whiteboard as well. It does seem a little stalkerish, as others have pointed out, but if you're laying claim to minute-by-minute coverage, you almost have to do this, no? Below that, the series of postings -- video and written articles -- are on topic, well organized, and easily accessible. As for the third and final column, on the left, the links to other publications is a nice feature, too. Finally, at the bottom, the sections on the Obama family and the like are also well done. I wouldn't quite call it a "living diary," but to be all Obama, all the time, the site seems as complete and accessible as you'll find.

It's difficult for me to say how many people it would take to pull together Politico 44 as a stand-alone publication on a daily basis, but it need not be THAT many. The bulk of the staff would have to be reporters/videographers (the same thing nowadays?) to just stalk, uh, tail Obama and administration officials. Would they edit video themselves onsite and send it to HQ or even upload it themselves? Would Politico 44 honchos want an intermediary editor even if not absolutely necessary? The answer there would determine some staffing needs and levels. Some editor/copy editor would be needed for the written stuff. Another person could be tasked to collect and mind the daily schedule, but that hardly seems a full-time job. Likewise selecting the links to the other pubs in the left-hand column. The site would absolutely have to have a project manager to keep tabs on reporting, editing, uploading, etc.

I get the feeling that several things came together to "make" Politico do Politico 44. First, it seems the site exists because it CAN exist; that is, in the last few years -- say, since the last election in 2004 -- the Web and video and audio and computers have evolved and converged such that Politico's leaders felt compelled to cover Obama 24-7 just because they could. Second, I question whether we'd be seeing a Politico 44 if not for Obama himself -- he's a rock star. If John McCain had won the election, would the public be as interested in him, and would Politico bother with a 24-7 site for him. If Hillary Clinton had bested Obama and then McCain, same thing -- would public and Politico interest be as great? I certainly get that interest in the 2008 election was off the charts and these are difficult, maybe historic, times, but would interest be sustained if anyone other than Obama was 44? (Carlos -- do you happen to know whether Politico was ginning up a 44 site before it was clear Obama would win?)

I'd like to go outside the box -- NOT treating Politico 44 as a stand-alone publication -- for one observation. In that context, the site isn't really "all that." Politico reports and collects a whole raft of material and then portions it out under various rubrics -- Congress, Campaigns, Campus, Life, etc. But there
is considerable cross-pollination, which is one of the oldest tricks in the editorial book. For instance, you could get the piece on Jill Biden at Politico 44 -- and certainly she can be counted as part of the Obama presidency and worthy of a diary entry -- but you could also get it under at least two other Politico headings. I suspect other economies of scale are at work, too. Does Politico 44 have dedicated editors and copy editors, or does Politico maintain one shop and pass copy from all its branches through it? Same with rights and licensing -- I can't imagine Politico 44 has its own legal team when Politico had to already have one in place. All in all, it seems Politico has done a very smart thing with 44 -- re-packaging content it would have already had for its other sections, add some Obama-specific stuff, and capitalize on the public fascination with Obama.

Good -- But Not Great

Going local this time -- DCist is a pretty good, if not great, Web site focusing on just local stuff. The problem is, that "stuff" can seem like flotsam and jetsam -- it's awfully random and perhaps for that reason difficult to organize/categorize. DCist is part of the "-Ist" empire: one of 13 city-centric sites, 10 U.S. and three foreign. The outfit is clearly going after the Creative Loafing/__ City Paper market and might be having an effect, as the other is now in Chapter 11. DCist mostly has a genuine, local, "insider" feel, with many photos snapped, it seems, by young residents just walking by something in their neighborhood. Real local familiarity is also evident in the articles (more accurately, "just" blog postings). Again, though, it can be mighty random. Are the writers kept on message by any editors? Who assigns stories? The product seems more like organic submissions based on little more than whim. Also, why push the other -Ists? Monday morning's homepage had a roundup of the other -Ists, with the lede story and photo series about a cat surviving a 26-story fall -- in Manhattan. What's that gotta do with DC?

Another Great One

So I revisited an old favorite -- the Atlantic -- but this time the online version for the first time. It's great, and for much the same reason that I love The New Republic site. The Atlantic is also simply and well organized, laid out with the preliminary info horizontal up top -- i.e., title, laudatory statements, Web site sections -- and the meat of the contents in three vertical columns below that. The lede story was actually a video, an interview with ___ (?) Starobin about his book on a post-American-dominance world (good, relaxed, accessible stuff, but a little long at nearly 7 minutes). Other videos are clearly called out, and text articles are easily clickable. Interesting -- I picked up a hard copy of the magazine a couple months ago for the first time in quite a while and thought I noticed a falloff in quality, or was it just a different editorial tone? The covers look like they're getting a bit garish, too (a lot of hot pink). I'm curious what the effect/relationship between the hoary old magazine and the fancy-schmancy new Web site is -- the latter pulling resources away from the former?

Great Overall Web Site

Sorry, y'all -- I'm behind in my Web site assessments, but for now here's one I love: I think The New Republic Web site hits every mark wonderfully. The spatial design is great, with horizontal presentation of information at the top and the "meat" of the thing presented in three vertical rows. Using just three colors -- red, white and black -- is also pleasing to the eye and keeps things simple. At the very top is a rotating banner of accolades for TNR from various notables -- better than an ad, and even though it's self-serving, somehow I don't mind. Right below that is the title in a handsome font, and blow that are the section names. The articles themselves descend down the left, corresponding to day/date. In the middle are blogs, organized by topic (The Stash, money; The Vine, energy and environment; The Spine, boks; etc.). On the right are a couple offerings from TNR, with ads kept over here and underneath, tactful and unobtrusive. All in all, just a great design and execution -- clear, concise, attractive.