I read this whole article about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s visit to Mexico, and still didn’t know why he was there.
A campaignlike air pervaded his events, whose locations seemed to be chosen for their cinematic backdrops…There was a TV-ready quality to his schedule. Aides rushed reporters and photographers into many of his meetings for a few moments, to briefly witness Mr. Christie at work, then commanded them to leave. Inside the school stadium, his staff repeatedly repositioned reporters for the best possible shot of Mr. Christie, who seemed to bask in the presidential-style trappings and treatment.
Finally, I viewed the embedded video, in which the governor talks about the importance of trade between his state and Mexico.
Based on the New York Times reporter’s account, one might think the entire purpose of the trip was to practice campaign stagecraft, which he apparently did all too well, in the reporter’s slyly inserted opinion.
I’m not saying that Gov. Christie’s supposed presidential aspirations aren’t a legitimate topic of news coverage, but if you really wonder what type of president he might be, it would be useful to hear about whether, and how, he fulfilled the purpose of his trip.
As usual, reporters are more interested in horse races, than policy, competence and integrity.
That said, it’s refreshing to see a Republican who actually understands that we have rapidly become a visual society, and if you want to communicate, you need to pay as much attention to scenery and shot angles as you do to what you say.
[NOTE: This brief article does not imply endorsement of Chris Christie, the nation of Mexico, or the New York Times. Sad but true, I hesitate to even write on such topics because of the vitriolic comment streams that flow from the mere mention of certain words or names. On-topic comments deeply appreciated.]