dates themselves as by reporters. They are not byproducts of New Hampshire's social or political culture. Indeed, they are likely to occur in any state occupying a similar position. If any broad claim can be made on the state's behalf, it is that its size and demographic composition compel candidates and reporters to approach voters on an individual or small-group basis rather than as an amorphous electoral mass. Rosenstiel records journalists' surprise that questions asked by New Hampshire citizens were so "serious, focused and surprisingly substantive," yet this is a much-observed quality and is a direct consequence of decades of exposure to intensive vote-harvesting by candidates. 109
In New Hampshire, reporters and candidates alike are exposed to a retail campaigning style that is fraught with danger because it cannot be stage-managed in the manner of a California stadium rally. New technology has impacted on the first primary, but the retail dimension can never be seriously threatened. The up close and personal tradition and logistics of state organization leave little room for maneuver here. If media stories emanating from the Granite State sometimes exaggerate the human interest dimension of the campaign, it is because that dimension is unusual and will, in any event, progressively fade from television screens as the primary process moves into high gear later in the spring. Again, as with the broad candidate field and novelty of campaign themes and issues, the New Hampshire arena exhibits unique characteristics that require an approach by observers and participants far different from those that will be required at later stages. For journalists, as much as for longshot candidates and grass-roots voters, the quadrennial Granite State contest affords both opportunities and pitfalls unlike those to be found in any other part of the nomination process.