When the off-the-bus team asked us to write in on what beat we'd like to cover, I said the metaphor beat. As someone who teaches poetry and looks at language and image and tropes, I wanted to see how my skills translate into campaign coverage and candidate messages. The word "change" for example is used differently by Obama and Edwards--it's the same word but different subtexts accompany it. Even within this larger topic, I knew I'd somehow be referencing Adam Nagourney, NYT political reporter, because I noticed last election how he managed to sneak in opinion and judgements into his prose, sometimes snarkily. And let me say, before I actually read anything Adam Nagourney had written I'd see him on the News Hour, really enamored of Gwyn Ifill, his mouth stretched even wider across his face than it appears in its resting position. I adored watching him--he was like a little boy with a grown-up newsroom behind him. Then came the text. I should thank him though, because it is his article in today's New York Times on John Edwards and the force of Joe Trippi behind the Edwards campaign, that has caused me to set aside pen and paper, and foray into my first blog post ever.
It's not that I think people shouldn't give opinions in newspapers articles. I just think they should be identified as such, and Nagourney often doesn't identify what is, in fact, an opininated remark posing, because of form and platform as fact, so I'd just like to be watching him. In the referenced article, after a synopsis of Edward relationship to the internet, Nagourney moves in for the close-up:
""They want me to shut up,'an unsmiling Mr. Edwards said to an audience in Creston, Iowa, on Thursday -- remarks that were videotaped by an Edwards campaign worker and posted both on YouTube and the popular liberal Web site MyDD.com. 'Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children. Let's talk about this frivolous, nothing stuff.'"
'They will never silence me,' he continued, not explaining who "they" were."
Let's pause for a moment here. Who might "they" be? The world after all is full of theys. It's so broad. But if we narrow it down to people who obsessively talked about John Edwards $400 haircut, when in fact there are some other things that don't bode well going on, well I see his point--butcher, baker, Indian Chief. It's probably because I shop at a grocery store and our University mascot has been retired, that it seemed to me pundits, journalists, and possibly hair stylists who haven't figured out how to make that kind of money talking about the hair cut. Could "they" be "you" Adam?
We then move in to an examination of Mr. Trippi, described later in the article as "an ambling 51-year-old college dropout from Silicon Valley with chronic diabetes" (see the internet isn't so cool--it's like your fathers Oldsmobile) and Trippi's role in Mr. Deans campaign and how it is translating to to Mr. Edwards. This is a pretty fair and considered passage, which moves to this:
"These days the Edwards campaign has taken on the appearance of Dean 2.0, and listening to Mr. Edwards is often akin to reading the postings on an angry blog." OK. Cute internet pun, and we do have the journalistic evidence that Edwards was unsmiling in the previously mentioned video. As an added benefit get to slam blogs a little. It's a good sport, but aside from the fact that aural listening is very different than reading, in what way are they akin? To whom? Any sources here?
Then we have a comparion to Edwards 2.0 to Dean 1.0. Nagourney's numbering not mine.
"'She's much more into it than he is, but he gets it in a way that Howard didn't,' Mr. Trippi said. 'I mean Howard got it, but he didn't get into it. You would never get a call from him saying: "Should I call Ann Coulter? Or should I blog on this today?" What I'm trying to say is she and John think about it more.'" Hard to say whether this is a compliment or not, but it's in quotes so at least Trippi is to blame if not.
There is a three paragraph discussion on the hair video which isn't gratuitous and then a caveat from Mr. Nagourney: "There are risks to this strategy: As Mr. Edwards's aides said, it is critical that he not throw out the best of the old in his search to harness the passion and money that can be raised through the Internet. And of course, Dean 1.0 did not take Mr. Dean even through Iowa."
He ends up hedging his bets by pointing out the obvious:
"But Mr. Edwards is not Mr. Dean. And the Internet is an entirely different force today from what it was when Mr. Trippi and Mr. Edwards ran their last campaigns."