The publicity politician starred centrally in the attention economy. He vied for press attention to maintain his symbolic and political relevance. Celebrity politicians drowned out other politicians and policies in the news – demonstrating the disparity in media attention. Yet too much attention hurt leaders’ traditional ‘aura’: quantity jeopardized quality. To remain aloof, they limited their exposure – avoiding early ‘paparazzi’. Maintaining stature was easier for monarchs than conventional politicians, but even the latter attained elevated positions. While this containment of coverage brought benefits, extra exposure could also enhance a politician’s celebrity – even if it was negative. Politicians and journalists realized the advantages of negative publicity, with some opposing criticism of a political competitor to avoid increasing his attention capital. This attention economy functioned according to a Matthew effect: politicians who received attention garnered ever more attention. Mediagenic politicians, notably natural celebrities like monarchs, flourished in the international struggle for media attention. While the mass press democratized celebrity – a diversity of people gaining fame and access to power – political noteworthies, traditional anchors of stability, occupied a privileged position in the fin-de-siècle attention economy. Ample attention finally constituted feedback for politicians – the media ‘democratically’ shaping the parameters of politics.