[link|http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/01/21/iowa_campbell.html|http://journalism.ny...owa_campbell.html]

In another Page One story from the Post, John F. Harris describes Dean as having been \ufffddethroned \ufffd from the near-invincible position he had seemed to enjoy at the start of the year.\ufffd While Dean\ufffds \ufffdinsurgent candidacy \ufffd seemed to dominate the Democratic contest, the Iowa results amounted to a validation for two polished and more conventional candidates.\ufffd

These characterizations beg several questions. Who enthroned Dean and named him the front-runner? By what criteria can journalists claim he has been dealt a serious blow or dethroned? Who vaunted his grass-roots movement, and who characterized his position as \ufffdnear-invincible\ufffd? (By what criteria of invincibility?) Who decides that New Hampshire is a critical test for Dean, but not others? Who will decide whether Dean passes it? Who pitted Dean\ufffds organizational prowess against Kerry\ufffds and Edward\ufffds \ufffdmessage and momentum\ufffd? Who says \ufffd and exactly what does it mean to say things this way \ufffd that voters \ufffdbegan\ufffd to take a \ufffdmore serious look\ufffd at \ufffdall the candidates\ufffd in the last two weeks? (What had they been doing in earlier weeks? Looking facetiously, or at only some candidates, or not at all?) And who has the prerogative to describe the candidacy of a former governor as an insurgency and the candidacy of a first-term senator, taking on the same political establishment, as conventional politics?

We know the answer: The campaign press corps. But the campaign press corps\ufffd stories citing all these factors, causes, dynamics and developments never mentions the centrality of the campaign press corps in picking what counts and doesn\ufffdt count in explaining--or explaining away--political reality. The campaign press corps pretends it doesn\ufffdt exist, except to observe and explain. It pretends it is a political innocent.