Over 3 decades, The Hill has changed the conversation

This is one in a series of op-eds celebrating The Hill’s 30th anniversary.

“I work at The Hill now.”

“The what?”

“It’s a newspaper covering Congress.”

“Never heard of it.”

When I started working at The Hill in the early 2000s, I had this conversation (or a variation thereof) dozens of times.

Back then, The Hill was a tiny niche publication trying to compete with a long-established, larger and better-known competitor. Outside of Washington, nobody had heard of it.

And even inside Washington, people would often confuse us with a similarly named, community-based newspaper.

“Oh, you mean the Hill Rag?”

“No, it’s not that. We are covering Congress.”

“Oh, like Roll Call?”

“Yes, kinda like Roll Call.”

Of course, and I say this with no small amount of pride and satisfaction, The Hill is nothing like Roll Call anymore.

I do believe that our underdog role served us well in those early years. When you have a big chip on your shoulder, you simply go out and work harder…and hard work has always been one of the foundations for The Hill’s success.

Another one is that the people in charge have always had a knack for spotting promising young journalists and allowing them to flourish.

As it turns out, when you put together a bunch of hungry reporters and good editors and then let them loose on Congress, good things are going to happen.

While some of the gains were incremental in those early years, The Hill’s audience began growing exponentially with an increased online presence — and it hasn’t stopped in the 20 years since.

All of a sudden, people had seen our logo and were familiar with the name.

Another pillar of the paper’s success is that, in an increasingly polarized world, it is viewed as a fair arbiter of news — and rightfully so.

Yes, of course there are opinion pieces. But when it comes to straight news reporting, The Hill does not take sides.

And don’t take my word for it. Instead, look up any “media bias” chart and you’ll find The Hill right in the middle every time.

I think that is something that anybody who has ever worked for the paper can be really proud of.

Finally, I believe that a big reason for The Hill’s phenomenal success has been that it had the right leaders at the right time. Hugo Gurdon was an excellent choice for editor-in-chief in those early years when the paper was battling for market share. And then, with Bob Cusack at the helm, The Hill made the leap into a different stratosphere in the media universe.

That’s no accident, because Cusack epitomizes all of these things I talked about: Hunger, great reporting skills, hard work and no political agenda.

It’s no wonder that he is one of the most respected journalists in Washington.

It is also a testament to these two men that The Hill has had such an amazing continuity of leadership. Their steady hands have guided the paper through some difficult times and on a course to prominence and prosperity.

Of course, this is not just their success, but also that of every reporter and editor who has written for The Hill, the advertising and marketing staff, the IT department, interns and (certainly during my time) the best receptionist in the world.

Every single one of them should be very proud of what The Hill has accomplished in the last 30 years.

Today, when I tell people what I do, my conversation goes more like this: “I used to be a reporter and editor for The Hill.”

“The Hill? Wow, that’s cool.”

And, you know what? It really is.

Klaus Marre worked as a reporter at The Hill starting in 2003, and as The Hill’s inaugural online editor from 2006 to 2009.