Not sure I disagree with much here. But feels like 4 semi-separate issues are getting smooshed together:
1—Insider/access-driven model vs outsider/empirical(?) model
2—Horse-race vs. non-horse-race focus
3—Tone of coverage
4—Velocity of coverage (quick/incremental vs big-picture)
1—Insider/access-driven model vs outsider/empirical(?) model
2—Horse-race vs. non-horse-race focus
3—Tone of coverage
4—Velocity of coverage (quick/incremental vs big-picture)
I think No. 3 has changed—the "savvy", Halperin-ish tone has gone out of style in U.S. political journalism. More important, journalists are asking questions about what neutrality really means and whether it's even desirable. But the other categories maybe haven't changed much?
Having access to good sources is still *highly* prestigious in White House coverage (though, maybe less so in election coverage). Horse race coverage is still really popular (trust me). And not sure if velocity has slowed down—a lot of quick-hit blog posts have become tweets.
