Furthermore those who are experienced begin to perceive themselves as having more expertise in understanding the process than the average voter, to the extent that they allow themselves to become part of the process, thereby abandoning any kind of objectivity at all. Those inside the process all know the photo ops are staged, but there’s a tacit agreement among journalists to pretend they’re not, because good pictures are better than bad pictures. They all know the candidate has to say X because to say Y would embarrass a segment of their base, so they understand X as a reasonable response. People outside the process, outside the club that includes journalists, probably see X quite differently. The outrage on blogs is proof enough of that.

Joan Didion’s landmark essay “Insider Baseball” was the first time I saw the problem nailed down, back in the late 1980s. It’s only become worse since then:

“American reporters “like” covering a presidential campaign (it gets them out on the road, it has balloons, it has music, its is viewed as a big story, one that leads to the respect of one’s peers, to the Sunday shows, to lecture fees and often to Washington), which is one reason why there has developed among those who do it so arresting an enthusiasm for overlooking the contradictions inherent in reporting that which occurs only in order to be reported…

“The Narrative is made up of many such understandings, tacit agreements, small and large, to overlook the observable in the interests of obtaining a dramatic story line.”

Furthermore those who are experienced begin to perceive themselves as having more expertise in understanding the process than the average voter, to the extent that they allow themselves to become part of the process, thereby abandoning any kind of objectivity at all. Those inside the process all know the photo ops are staged, but there’s a tacit agreement among journalists to pretend they’re not, because good pictures are better than bad pictures. They all know the candidate has to say X because to say Y would embarrass a segment of their base, so they understand X as a reasonable response. People outside the process, outside the club that includes journalists, probably see X quite differently. The outrage on blogs is proof enough of that.

Joan Didion’s landmark essay “Insider Baseball” was the first time I saw the problem nailed down, back in the late 1980s. It’s only become worse since then:

“American reporters “like” covering a presidential campaign (it gets them out on the road, it has balloons, it has music, its is viewed as a big story, one that leads to the respect of one’s peers, to the Sunday shows, to lecture fees and often to Washington), which is one reason why there has developed among those who do it so arresting an enthusiasm for overlooking the contradictions inherent in reporting that which occurs only in order to be reported…

“The Narrative is made up of many such understandings, tacit agreements, small and large, to overlook the observable in the interests of obtaining a dramatic story line.”