What exactly does the counterlede in today's Times bring to the table? I realize that as the country's preeminent newspaper, a story about the final day of campaigning before the Iowa caucus is necessary. But I'm so tired of the "Candidates out scrambling for votes" story. From professional experience writing such a story on a much, much, much smaller scale, they always follow the same format and the reporter is dutifully required to include every candidate, creating a crammed piece with little flow that reduces each contender to one soundbite that you hope best summarizes their message, but really, is nothing you haven't heard a thousand times before, and then in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "I'm just stereotyping them now."
Much better is a series of short dispatches on page A17 about each main candidate, by the reporters who've been following them for months. (I'd link to it, but the Times' Web site doesn't have it all on one page.) It encapsulates where the candidates have been philosophically and strategically for the past couple months and includes a longer quote from each at the bottom.
Much, much better is the explanation on page A16 of how caucusing actually works. Apparently it involves asking people, "Do you like my guy? Come on, I think you like my guy. Come stand next to this post with me." And then you have to make sure they don't wander away to someone else's post. Sounds sort of like babysitting to me. Do you realize only 125,000 Democrats participated last year?
Much, much, much better is the series the Times has been publishing for what seems like the past year, The Long Run. It provides snapshots of the candidates at different moments in their lives in a very insightful way. When I vote, I want to know who these people are, where they come from intellectually, professionally, personally and ethically -- not what their campaign ads are. This series really does that by providing the intimate details that would otherwise get overlooked in daily horserace type of coverage. (Though looking back at all the stories, they're much too skewed toward Senators Clinton and Obama and former Mayor Giuliani. Former Gov. Huckabee didn't even get one until Dec. 6, after he hit the top of the Iowa polls.)
Anyway, here's to hoping no one trounces anyone tonight so the primary season is extended as long as possible. At least until Feb. 5 when I can vote.
3 comments:
I'm glad they had such a nice annotated graphic describing the caucus process. I, however, am not crazy about the glib way you describe it. Although I have limited caucusing experience (once, in the last presidential election cycle), I think the process bring politics to life for a part of the country filled with a type of people that are often (a) after-thoughts or (b) over-looked. This is unfortunate as Iowa is one of the most literate and civicly-minded states in the US.
Although caucus night can be intimidating as you "debate" with your neighbors about what most people consider to be a private issue, it seems to be a largely fun process that can only make people more interested in the race.
I only wish I was in Iowa tonight!
Jones, you're a great friend. I'll always remember my blog's first reader comment.
I agree it's good that Iowa's primacy in the process knocks the coasts off their mantle for the national media's love affair. (And I was glib about the process, you're right. I'm trying to be funny on the blog.) But I don't like how so few voters have such a huge influence on the nominating process -- 250,000 Democrats was a record turnout.
Are Iowans generally more civically engaged than the rest of the country? Certainly more than Nevada residents, but overall, I don't know how to measure that.
Are you getting ready to go work for Bloomberg?
Post a Comment