One better than usual
Niall Stanage, New York Observer: "Such a poor performance by Clinton is bound to be seen as evidence that the aggressive strategy her campaign pursued in this state backfired."
I guess this is just the same dull point about how "electability" is a fake thing, but this still seems significant to me. Usually campaign analysis is about how certain maneuvers will be seen by the electorate -- how this or that phrase as uttered by this or that candidate will appeal to this or that kind of voter, etc. Which is a weird enough stance because it implicitly signals to the reader that they are not the ones being manipulated. "All these other people, the voters, are the ones whose minds are changing based on what words the candidates say -- you guys reading this, you know better." It is implied, in other words, that whoever it is reading the analysis is not susceptible to the candidates' tricks/manipulations.
What Stanage is doing here is pretty different: the people he's talking about, the ones who would see Clinton's poor performance in S.C. "as evidence that the aggressive strategy her campaign pursued in this state backfired" are not those dummy "voters." They're pundits! Other journalists. Stanage is warning the readers about what all the other newspapers are going to extrapolate from these results: "they're going to say Obama is on a roll."
I guess this is like when New York Magazine decides to write an article about Gawker, a power move basically whereby whoever's writing the thing implicitly elevates him/herself above the subject. The subject is the specimen; the reporter is the scientist.
To be covered is to be taken down a notch: so you keep fighting, staving off competitors by treating them like they're part of an ecosystem over which you preside. Maintain position by being quicker, more independent, always more broad in the scope of your analysis than the other guys. Stay behind the mule, ahead of the pack; let everyone around you get tired and then report on them like they're yours to play with.
I guess this is just the same dull point about how "electability" is a fake thing, but this still seems significant to me. Usually campaign analysis is about how certain maneuvers will be seen by the electorate -- how this or that phrase as uttered by this or that candidate will appeal to this or that kind of voter, etc. Which is a weird enough stance because it implicitly signals to the reader that they are not the ones being manipulated. "All these other people, the voters, are the ones whose minds are changing based on what words the candidates say -- you guys reading this, you know better." It is implied, in other words, that whoever it is reading the analysis is not susceptible to the candidates' tricks/manipulations.
What Stanage is doing here is pretty different: the people he's talking about, the ones who would see Clinton's poor performance in S.C. "as evidence that the aggressive strategy her campaign pursued in this state backfired" are not those dummy "voters." They're pundits! Other journalists. Stanage is warning the readers about what all the other newspapers are going to extrapolate from these results: "they're going to say Obama is on a roll."
I guess this is like when New York Magazine decides to write an article about Gawker, a power move basically whereby whoever's writing the thing implicitly elevates him/herself above the subject. The subject is the specimen; the reporter is the scientist.
To be covered is to be taken down a notch: so you keep fighting, staving off competitors by treating them like they're part of an ecosystem over which you preside. Maintain position by being quicker, more independent, always more broad in the scope of your analysis than the other guys. Stay behind the mule, ahead of the pack; let everyone around you get tired and then report on them like they're yours to play with.
posted by Leon at 3:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home