Covering Washington like Kabul<\/h1>\n Posted By Annie Lowrey<\/a> <\/span> ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.foreignpolicy.com\/images\/091022_meta_block.gif?w=525\")
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 – 11:31 PM<\/span> <\/span><\/a><\/h2>\n<\/div>\nOn his New Yorker <\/em>blog, George Packer takes<\/a> aim at the “devastatingly unremarkable” bloviation of Beltway journos. He cites Washington Post<\/em> columnist (and “dean” of the Washington press corps) David Broder’s analysis<\/a> of a recent Sarah Palin speech as “[showing] off a public figure at the top of her game — a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself.” He also offers up the New York Times<\/em>‘ Adam Nagourney’s coverage of a recent Republican leadership conference<\/a>: “Here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way.”
\nThese two characterizations from two top writers for the United States’ two leading papers, Packer argues, are but purple guff — in the words of Michael Kelly, examples of how the “idea of image” is “faith in Washington.” The journalists follow the same, strange, well-worn routine. They take the mundane comings and goings of major political figures, interpret them according to prevailing partisan winds, and write them up in the overheated, undercooked language of a harlequin novel. The result is airy nonsense that fervently insists on its trenchancy.
\nPacker further demonstrates the absurdity of this journalistic convention by satirically recasting the Palin passage about Afghan President Hamid Karzai: “Speaking at the presidential palace in Kabul, Mr. Karzai showed himself to be at the top of his game. He skillfully co-opted his Pashtun base while making a powerful appeal to the technocrats.”
\nThe point is that Washington coverage of major political figures is not just bizarre stylistically, but dead substantively. To discuss for hundreds of words how Palin is at the top of her game is to spend hundreds of words not discussing her actual relevance to the fractured conservative scene. Foreign correspondence on major political figures needs to be more explanatory than illlustrative — and it would be better if coverage of Washington were more like the clear-eyed, clean-written analysis of Kabul.
\nvia Covering Washington like Kabul | FP Passport<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This post should be titled better press corp and better electorate please. This is because the two sides are at fault for how lousy the coverage of elections has been. The blame goes to the people who now thinks of politicians as entertainers and vice versa (if I hear another question about Noy and Shalani\u00a0 … <\/p>\n
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 – 11:31 PM<\/span> <\/span><\/a><\/h2>\n<\/div>\nOn his New Yorker <\/em>blog, George Packer takes<\/a> aim at the “devastatingly unremarkable” bloviation of Beltway journos. He cites Washington Post<\/em> columnist (and “dean” of the Washington press corps) David Broder’s analysis<\/a> of a recent Sarah Palin speech as “[showing] off a public figure at the top of her game — a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself.” He also offers up the New York Times<\/em>‘ Adam Nagourney’s coverage of a recent Republican leadership conference<\/a>: “Here in Honolulu, the strains within the party over conservative principles versus political pragmatism played out in a sharp and public way.” <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This post should be titled better press corp and better electorate please. This is because the two sides are at fault for how lousy the coverage of elections has been. The blame goes to the people who now thinks of politicians as entertainers and vice versa (if I hear another question about Noy and Shalani\u00a0 … <\/p>\n
\nThese two characterizations from two top writers for the United States’ two leading papers, Packer argues, are but purple guff — in the words of Michael Kelly, examples of how the “idea of image” is “faith in Washington.” The journalists follow the same, strange, well-worn routine. They take the mundane comings and goings of major political figures, interpret them according to prevailing partisan winds, and write them up in the overheated, undercooked language of a harlequin novel. The result is airy nonsense that fervently insists on its trenchancy.
\nPacker further demonstrates the absurdity of this journalistic convention by satirically recasting the Palin passage about Afghan President Hamid Karzai: “Speaking at the presidential palace in Kabul, Mr. Karzai showed himself to be at the top of his game. He skillfully co-opted his Pashtun base while making a powerful appeal to the technocrats.”
\nThe point is that Washington coverage of major political figures is not just bizarre stylistically, but dead substantively. To discuss for hundreds of words how Palin is at the top of her game is to spend hundreds of words not discussing her actual relevance to the fractured conservative scene. Foreign correspondence on major political figures needs to be more explanatory than illlustrative — and it would be better if coverage of Washington were more like the clear-eyed, clean-written analysis of Kabul.
\nvia Covering Washington like Kabul | FP Passport<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n