Stop Not Being Better People
I remember – back in the day – all the liberal and journalistic whining about Republican plants in George W. Bush’s press conferences because lord knows throwing the man a softball wasn’t charity but a GRAND OLD CONSPIRACY. You know what, it was justified. It’s not something that angers me but that doesn’t preclude my viewing such criticisms as entirely valid.
Part of the credibility of the President, the credibility of our democracy, and our credibility to speak to the world rests on free and open inquiry by a free and open press. Selecting only favorable outlets is what the communists do. Not that the press aren’t dealing with their own issues of ethical lapses and bias but such concerns don’t outweigh the prerogative of the President of the United States to stack press conferences in his own favour.
Which is why this is so disappointing to read about President Obama. It’s one thing to add Huff Po to the Press Corps, it’s another to directly ask them for questions on certain topics. Add this to the pile and you have the makings of a trend that is laying the foundation for an enormous collapse in trust and approval of the President down the road.
Continuing on the issue of popularity, the President’s single greatest advantage going into Election 2008 was not being Bush, by continuing in his predecessor’s footsteps he threatens to blow some of that by 2012. Moreover, Democrats should be concerned about the enormous gap between their Congressional Representatives and the President.
President Bush redefined conservatism and the Republican Party to mean whatever issues he and his cabal deemed important. They rode roughshod over Congress because well their popularity (among the base) gave them the cover to get away with it. Relatedly, both conservatism and the Republican Party became defined by this face:
That did not happen by accident. Nor did it happen because it wasn’t useful for the then-President. So beware.
Either way, if you don’t have to do stupid, alienating things, why do them?
Frankly, the Milbank piece was absolutely ridiculous. I would go on about it, but I actually think Yglesias puts it a lot better than I could here:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/pitneygate.php
norwaynoah said this on June 24, 2009 at 8:45 am |
Disagreed. If the President wanted to answer questions posed by Iranians and thought Huff Po was the best media outlet to do so with, he could’ve offered a brief exclusive.
Just like he did with NBC two weeks ago and ABC this week, a Presidential Press Conference was inappropriate.
Yglesias’ post is utterly unconvincing because it tables for the moment the actual reason why the WHPC was upset to speculate on what it means that an arranged Huff Po questioner asked a better question than the establishment. He comes up with well the established media is losing prestige and has no job security.
I submit an alternative. Their motive for criticism is irrelevant. There is legitimate reason to be concerned at the White House prearranging questioners (if not questions) and ignoring crucial topics like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Such actions are only a hop, step, and skip away from what the Bush administration did in the lead up to Iraq and before outright giving questions. I think it’s fair to respond to the institution without prejudice to the person holding office.
Moreover, this Administration set a high bar for itself in terms of openness, accountability, and transparency. Holding them to their own standard is neither unfair nor ridiculous.
Kyle said this on June 24, 2009 at 11:22 am |
I don’t understand why it’s worse to have this happen at a Press Conference rather than via an exclusive. Isn’t it exactly the same thing–a prearranged forum for the President to answer questions which have not been pre-vetted? The reporter in the exclusive knows he’s going to ask a question!
And if the press isn’t asking questions about Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t that the press’s fault, and not the President’s? If they want to waste everyone’s time by talking about smoking… (It’s like they just saw “Celestial Navigation” and thought they were being clever.)
And I don’t really recall the President saying anything about how he would take questions from reporters.
norwaynoah said this on June 30, 2009 at 7:25 pm
As much as access to the President and membership in the WHPC is limited, of all the public/press interactions the President does, the Presidential Press Conference is traditionally the least staged.
The only real control – particularly as they’re live – is who the President calls on. As a point of comparison, President Bush notably called on relatively safe reporters. He was criticized for that. For tapings, exclusives, etc… that’s all negotiated. We have no idea what is and isn’t vetted.
You wouldn’t say an edited interview is exactly the same as a live conversation. That’s the difference.
Members of the press did want to ask questions about Iraq and Afghanistan…so I don’t get where you’re coming from saying they aren’t.
The White House’s actions were disappointing and inappropriate. I thought they were when the Bush people did it. I think they are today, too.
Kyle said this on June 30, 2009 at 10:45 pm |