I'm starting a regular gig as a New Hampshire campaign correspondent for Columbia Journalism Review. My first post, which focuses on the challenges of covering an increasingly national campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, is now online -- here's an excerpt:
At one time, the hope was that people in early states would have a unique opportunity to avoid the media filter and get to know the candidates and what they stand for on a more intimate level. In this cycle, however, analysis of how the candidates are faring threatens to crowd out the actual content of the campaign, even in early states like New Hampshire. The danger, in other words, is that the presidential campaign will be Politico-ized all the way down.
Is there a better approach? Rather than adopting the prevailing framework from national journalists, we should hope that state reporters write in a framework that is attentive to strategic factors but still places their primary emphasis on the positions and proposals of the candidates.
Hope you'll go to CJR and read the whole thing.