Here's an intriguing interview/question period with Adam Nagourney, chief political correspondent for the New York Times. Nagourney spends most of the time talking about the last American election and looking forward to 2006 and 2008. He has some insights, though it's mostly the conventional wisdom (unsurprising given his job). What makes the interview intriguing is the kind of indirect light it shines on Nagourney's own prejudices and reporting, prejudices that he surely shares in common with much of the "liberal" media. The most striking thing is the way that Nagourney repeatedly speaks of what the public is or isn't convinced by in some politician's message, as though the choices that he and the rest of the media make aren't themselves a significant part of that story. The interview ends up making a great general primer on the sort of glib, superficial, horse-race style reporting that characterized so much of the mainstream reporting on the last election.
I don't have the time or the energy to go through the interview in detail. But if you're looking to sharpen up your media-criticism chops, give it a listen and judge for yourself.
Posted by Chris at July 23, 2005 10:00 AM