Don’t think for a second that smiley Politico editor Jim VandeHei doesn’t have a mile-long enemy list. All of those Washington Post staffers who didn’t show up to his farewell party last December when he decided to jump ship to run the Politico are definitely on it. Which is partially why after the Washington Post ran a piece Monday highlighting Rudy Giuliani’s distaste for the Politico, it’s not that surprising that the Politico has now blatantly attacked the Post for its coverage of Barack Obama.

VandeHei’s feelings, we hear, were “deeply hurt” when the Post ran with a quote by Maria Comella, a Giuliani spokeswoman, who said that a recent Politico story by Ben Smith was “neatly packaged in a very salacious and somewhat misleading way. There are inaccuracies in the piece and a mischaracterization of the situation that lends itself to being described as the mayor described it.”

“Jim was deeply hurt and angry,” a journalist close to the situation tells Big Head DC. “He immediately began looking for ways to find revenge.”

The revenge came in the quick form of a Tuesday Politico hit piece involving a recent WaPo story that spells out clearly that Barack Obama DOES NOT having Muslim ties. However, the Politico piece makes it appear as though the Post somehow reported that Obama DOES have Muslim ties.

The Politico piece by Michael Calderone doesn’t even link to the Post’s original story.

One thing’s for sure: As VandeHei grows increasingly keen on competing with his former employer, watch out for more underhanded and biased journalism coming from his camp.

Earlier: Politico Hammers People of Color — Again

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (6) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

Ben Smith, a staff writer for the Politico, had to correct a lengthy item yesterday regarding a pro-Hillary Clinton site that claimed to offer cash in return for positive comments about the candidate on other sites. Turns out the site was totally fake. Smith finally took note after his own commenters drew the obvious joke to his attention. “On further examination, this site is parody, or something,” he wrote. “Excuse my gullibility.”

Earlier: Politico Wrong Big Time on John Edwards Campaign

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (1) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

Remember back in March when the Politico’s Ben Smith breathlessly declared that John Edwards was backing out of the presidential race because his wife has cancer? Yeah, well, that didn’t happen.

Remember earlier today when you thought the Politico had editors who wouldn’t let fake press releases get published on their Web site? Yeah, well, you were wrong.

And remember how before the Politico started in January, it was originally to be called The Capitol Leader, and wasn’t supposed to have a political spin? Hmmmm.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (12) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

Big Head DC has received credible evidence that GQ leaked the Hillary Clinton kill story to Ben Smith of the Politico in an attempt to have revenge on the Clinton camp for leveraging its weight against the magazine. Some journalists and/or bloggers have accused the Politico of being conservative, which is why GQ chose to leak to that particular outlet, we’ve been told. Still, pundits have largely agreed today that the move has made Clinton simply look like a stronger force to reckon with.

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comments (6) | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink

Ben Smith, a blogger over at Politico, says he’s worried about who he’s befriending on Facebook and whether his journalistic credibility has been compromised:

…Facebook has some interesting implications for reporters and sources, ones that make me a little nervous. Earlier this year, a campaign staffer I hadn’t ever met or spoken to added me to his list of friends; I emailed him that I was only making him a “friend” because he wasn’t actually a friend. And I didn’t accept a couple of people I actually know as friends to avoid compromising them as sources.

I’ve given that up, partly because I now have more than four “friends,” most of whom aren’t actually sources, and partly because it’s sort of not nice not to accept a friend invitation, which is Facebook’s whole trick.

But it still seems a bit dicey. When a campaign or a government agency is trying to pin down a reporter’s inside source, Facebook might be a good place to start. And when a campaign type is considering leaking to a reporter, couldn’t the fact that you’re “friends” on Facebook make the source queasy?

If only Smith had been so worried about his street cred earlier this year when he falsely reported that John Edwards was dropping out of the campaign due to his wife’s cancer!

................................................................................................................................................................................................
comment | digg this | reddit | facebook | del.icio.us | stumble | permalink