Open-ended question that I can’t even begin to answer: Is an upsurge in liberal sentiment driving the traffic growth to liberal sites? Or do sites like Huffpo and Daily Kos deserve some of the credit (or blame, depending on your point of view) for the current pro-Democratic trend in politics?

Interesting numbers posted by paidContent about the top political weblogs this campaign season. Just for fun, I coded the sites along political leanings (red-conservative, blue-liberal/progressive, black-objective/centrist):

  Total Unique Visitors (000)
                                 Sep-2007        Sep-2008      % Change
Total Internet: Total Audience  181,858         189,468             4
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM                  792           4,545           474
POLITICO.COM                        532           2,362           344
DRUDGEREPORT.COM                  1,215           2,059            70
REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM               192           1,129           489
FREEREPUBLIC.COM                  1,022             987            -3
Capitol Advantage                   794             959            21
DAILYKOS.COM                        192             923           381
TOWNHALL.COM                        407             884           117
NEWSBUSTERS.ORG                     113             732           547
WORLDNETDAILY.COM                   411             636            55
TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM                32             458         1,321
MICHELLEMALKIN.COM                  103             247           140
REDSTATE.COM                         38             235           514
CROOKSANDLIARS.COM                  122             218            79
RAWSTORY.COM                        219             212            -3
POLLSTER.COM                        N/A             194           N/A
MEDIAMATTERS.ORG                    145             178            23
FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM                 N/A             169           N/A
CQPOLITICS.COM                      N/A             139           N/A
AMERICABLOG.COM                     N/A             104           N/A

The results:

Conservative: 8 (5,992)
Liberal/Progressive: 7 (6,595)
Objective/Centrist: 5 (4,783)

A pretty even breakdown between conservatives and liberal/progressives (although Huffingtonpost.com represents a majority of the liberal/conservative traffic. Obviously, all these blogs are benefiting from the intense scrutiny of this historic election.

Rafit Ali asks an important question:

And while these numbers are in and of itself interesting, the biggest question for any of them is what happens the day after?

I suspect many of these sites will do well in the coming year, although certainly not as well as they are doing during the campaign season. Remember that many of these sites (Daily Kos or RedState, for instance) have an agenda, and the agenda doesn’t stop with the election  – especially not this election season, with the economy, war, and health insurance promising to be at the forefront of the next president’s agenda.

No related posts.

I’m also watching the financial news and wondering what’s ahead for 2009. It could be an ugly year.

No related posts.

For the past five days, I’ve been riveted by the media frenzy over vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. What strikes me most is the way the media – print, tv, radio, online – have rushed to fill in the details on the sketchy knowledge available about the candidate.

They say that nature abhors a vacuum. I would suggest that the media abhors a vacuum even more. Since the announcement, we’ve learned about Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy, “Troopergate,” her support for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” her husband’s involvement in the Alaska Independence Party, her lobbying for federal funds for local project, her role in a 527 for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, and who knows what will turn up in the days to come.

Also fascinating was the Wikipedia battle that arose from the appearance of a user “YoungTrig,” who began editing Palin’s Wikipedia entry the day before the announcement. Check out this NPR story for more details on that angle.

What to make of all this? Certainly there has been a rush from both the G.O.P. and the Democrats to “define” Palin one way or the other. But the definition is hinging on the reporting of media outlets and bloggers, responding to a wide-open v.p. pick with the type of reporting you probably wouldn’t have seen had the pick been a “known quantity” like Min. Gov. Pawlenty or former presidential aspirant Mitt Romney.

It’s too soon to see what damage all these revelations might have on the McCain campaign, but it’s fascinating to watch the media in action. Naturally, the McCain campaign has complained that the media are being “vicious and scurrilous” in their Palin stories.

I don’t really see that as the case. The media are doing their job. They are retroactively vetting the McCain vice presidential pick. They did the same to a lesser extent with Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s pick. But Biden was a known entity. He’d been a presidential candidate twice, and a senator for a long time. If Obama (who has had his own taste of the media scrutiny) had picked a little-known governor from a small (population) state, he’d have witnessed the same intense scrutiny of his pick.

Related articles by Zemanta

• McCain Says Palin Always a Republican
• Palin Coverage Squeezes McCain [Sarah Palin]
• Media blamed for Palin woes
• Republicans rebut claims they failed to vet Sarah Palin
• Advisers craft Palin’s introduction

Related posts:

1. College media bowl coverage list