I'm not exactly sure why, but former American Prospect staffer Nick Confessore has picked up some very bad habits as a reporter at the New York Times.  Confessore wrote some classic pieces of DC journalism - Welcome to the Machine on the K-Street Project, and Bush's Secret Stash on the right-wing's innovative use of secret c6 money.  For some reason, Confessore has started to adopt almost all the bad habits of the generic political reporter.  He's cynical and reliant on inappropriate sourcing, he doesn't get to know his subjects, and he tries to compensate for his lack of general political knowledge with anecdotes that are meant to give a fakely authentic tone.  I really love Confessore's old investigative stuff, and I hope he gets back to it.  The world needs great journalism desperately.

Anyway, I suppose it's somewhat fitting that Confessore writes the 'Lamont campaign problems' article.  This kind of process nonsense is a really standard piece of narrative arc for bad journalism.  Lamont was doing well, so he must be brought down.  Lamont's campaign was innovative, so the old guard must strike back with their greybearded experience.  Lamont went to the left, so now he must tack to the center, with nailbiting loser DC insiders fretting about his chances.

It's a narrative that flows simply and powerfully, but it is not good journalism.  Let's take this passage, which is instructive.

"Given the demographics of Connecticut, it's still an uphill battle for Lamont, even as the Democratic nominee," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic consultant and official with the Democratic National Committee, which is supporting Mr. Lamont.

"Ned came out of nowhere to beat an incumbent, but now he has to rally the party and reach out to independents," Ms. Brazile said.

Why is Confessore quoting Donna Brazile?  She is not from Connecticut, she knows nothing about the race, and she is a corporate consultant who lives in DC.  Nothing against Donna, who I've met and I like very much, but she is clearly not competent to intelligently discuss this race.  I mean, Lamont did not come out of 'nowhere'.  The only people who think he came out of nowhere are people who haven't been paying attention to Connecticut politics until a month ago.  It's not her fault that she gives bad information, but at the same time, that's why journalists covering political races shouldn't quote people as experts who know little about the politics they are commenting on.  

Donna continues.

"Joe Lieberman won 48 percent of the Democrats in the primary. Now he has to maintain that and build on it. Can he? Sure he can. It's way too soon to call this race, because it's going to be a dogfight to the finish."

How does Donna Brazile know?  She doesn't.  She thinks Ned came from nowhere, remember?  Confessore could have written a completely different article, with a discussion of Lieberman's meltdown, his alienation of Senate Democrats, his use of Enron lobbyists to raise money, the lack of talented consultants available to him now, his 'loser' mantra, the collapse of his support among Democratic voters, or any other storyline.  But the point is that Confessore wrote a semi-random pointed article meant to fit the next chapter of the Lamont story as told by the press.  The giant-killer becomes a giant, falls prey to inexperience.  The press reigns supreme in this story, which is a classically superficial tale of American politics that is also completely devoid of all but aesthetic meaning.

This election was about Iraq and accountability, Lamont ran a stunning campaign, and he'll probably be behind in the polls before Lieberman melts down again.  Sure, Lamont has to scale his campaign to attend to the new national pressures, but of course, Lieberman has a lot more institutional hurdles now that he's lost the Connecticut machine support.

Anyway, here's to hoping that Confessore gets back to great journalism.  And here's a really good sign that the Lamont campaign is still as powerfully competent as it always has been.