Two weeks ago I wrote an essay in The New York Times arguing that horse-race coverage is bad because journalists don't understand how campaigns work.
Over the last decade, almost entirely out of view, campaigns have modernized their techniques in such a way that nearly every member of the political press now lacks the specialized expertise to interpret what’s going on. Campaign professionals have developed a new conceptual framework for understanding what moves votes. It’s as if restaurant critics remained oblivious to a generation’s worth of new chefs’ tools and techniques and persisted in describing every dish that came out of the kitchen as either “grilled” or “broiled.”
Today I proffered a solution: journalists should work on campaigns.
We need working reporters who have spent time inside a field office and have the comfort with the street-level politics that an engaged activist would develop after a few months of regular volunteer shifts on a modern campaign.
Iowa’s Early Birds Republican presidential candidates are trying to figure out the secret of success in the Hawkeye State.
The XX Factor
GOP Women Stopped the 20-Week Abortion Bill. That’s Not Standing Up for Reproductive Rights.
What Happened at Slate This Week? Traffic swami Jeremy Stahl tallies his favorite stories of the week, from #Ballghazi to #SotU.
The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun The NRA is wrong: Owning a gun is far more likely to harm you than protect you.