The Change in Campaign Coverage

I found this quote, from the article Colin linked to, to be very interesting:

A political reporter not covering politics from the campaign trail? Political journalism legends such as Theodore H. White, author of "The Making of the President" books, would surely raise an eyebrow. But during the 2008 campaign, "the trail" never seemed less important – or perhaps it was just less populated. Although a definitive headcount is hard to come by, the number of reporters traveling with the candidates during this election cycle appeared to be down considerably. Major regional newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle and Cleveland's Plain Dealer, didn't bother to staff either campaign. USA Today, the largest-circulation paper in the nation, had only irregular representation, as did campaign stalwarts like Time and Newsweek. In fact, only five dailies – the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune – kept reporters on the road with Sens. McCain and Barack Obama in the campaign's closing months. The TV networks were still there, too, but most relied on young "embeds" rather than their frontline correspondents until the last few months.

What is the most important contribution of technology in terms of campaign coverage? It may be that a paper, a news channel, a blog need not have a reporter with the candidate's press team at all time. Unlike, say, the inspiration for this blog's title, the necessary existence of a moving collection of reporters tied to a campaign's hip isn't all that, well, necessary. Rather, news outlets, through use of the internet, can gain information nearly instantaneously without much effort. While many reporters, as the article points out, do somewhat regret not being able to cover the entirety of a 3 month, general election presidential campaign, the fact remains that they increasingly don't have to. They can sit in a cube and gain nearly as much information. 25 years ago, when the ideas of live video feeds had only scratched the surface, the being-there-in-the-moment reporting was invaluable. Now, why should a paper foot the bill for a reporter when it costs significantly less with almost no drop in actual news coverage to keep them glued to a computer screen and a couple of TV's?