×
SCHRODINGER'S REPORTING. Ana Marie Cox, who's been doing really fine blogging (and Michael Kinsley-baiting!) over at Swampland, does my heart good by suggesting to her colleagues that how the Edwards' announcement gets covered is a function of how they cover it:
I've been thinking really hard about Jay's points from his piece yesterday. His argument initially struck me as interesting -- even a good point -- because it was so different than almost any other piece I'd read after the announcement; it was largely an examination of the baldly political consequences rather than a reaction to the press conference itself.As a piece of punditry, his point may yet stand: Over time, voters may react negatively to image of a man pursuing the presidency as his wife struggles with an incurable disease. But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards' decision. Specifically, such an image will emerge if we depict that choice as Jay did: as a man -- John Edwards -- torn between "his duties as husband and father to three children, including a 6 and 8 year old" and "his duty to his country and the cause of winning the White House."Right. Carney's prophecy is self-fulfilling. If the information being transmitted from media outlets explains that John Edwards is torn between two worlds, then the electorate will think he's torn between two worlds. If it frames his campaign as the legitimate family choice, then it will be understood as a legitimate family choice. By reporting on reactions that haven't happened, Carney calls them into being. It's Schrodinger's Reporting. And props to Cox for pointing it out.--Ezra Klein
