The Washington Post opinion pages on Sunday included a forum on how President Obama should conduct press conferences, complete with opinions from Helen Thomas, Sam Donaldson, and Dan Rather. Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush’s first press secretary, said he usually gave Bush a call list and a seating chart. But he suggested that sedate press conferences are in the best interest of the press, since they’re not pretty when they’re rowdy:
If President Obama wants to see the White House press corps hoist themselves on their own petards, he should grant them their wish. Instead of using a list to call on reporters at his next news conference, he should let them shout.
When trust in the media is dropping along with the number of people who read newspapers and watch the news, the last thing journalists should do is act like fools on national TV, seeing who has the loudest voice -- or the reddest dress -- with their hands raised, yelling "me, me, me, me."
As White House press secretary, I typically gave President Bush a call list and a grid showing him where reporters would be seated. For the president, it makes things easier and more orderly. On the other hand, it might be tempting to the "Sonny Corleone" side of press secretary Robert Gibbs's personality to let the unruly mob contrast with a calm and cool Commander in Chief.
The media resist being "controlled." But in the YouTube age, the media will make themselves look bad if left to their own devices. President Obama should do himself, and the media, a favor and keep working from a list.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So the press needs the POTUS
February 22, 2009 - 10:15 ET by snaggletoothieSo the press needs the POTUS to keep them from looking bad. And the press does there best to keep the POTUS from looking bad. Is there something missing here? Oh yeah, the public interest. I guess you can't have everything.
Why, exactly,
February 22, 2009 - 10:28 ET by dervishshould the President do the press this favor? Save them from themselves? Give me a break.
If the press conferences were accompanied by a free-for-all amongst the groundlings, they would at least be interesting.
"Liberals have many tails, and chase them all." H.L. Mencken
Because...
February 22, 2009 - 17:07 ET by needle“Why, exactly, should the President do the press this favor” and “[s]ave them from themselves?”
Because Obama needs the Press much more than Brezhnev ever needed Pravda.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Well, yeah --
February 22, 2009 - 18:05 ET by dervishbut surely Ari Fleischer isn't arguing from that position...?
"Liberals have many tails, and chase them all." H.L. Mencken
I wouldn't be too sure
February 22, 2009 - 19:54 ET by needleI would not say that Ari Fleischer is arguing from that position publicly; but with respect to the “Ulterior Motives Dept” I would certainly NOT bet against it. It is just that this is difficult to prove, especially when one is dealing with lying liberals. Ari’s denials, of course, can be discarded out of hand.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
It's no secret that 80% of
February 22, 2009 - 11:09 ET by TN MomIt's no secret that 80% of the WH Press Pool has a Liberal agenda- ABC's Chip Reid (when asking Gibbs about new mortage bailout) denounces Rick Sentelli as "CABLE RANT". Very telling also, that journalist refuse to focus on the 92% of people who are paying their mortgages on time. No wonder trust of media has dropped.
If you really wanted to make the press look bad...
February 22, 2009 - 11:15 ET by superconyou would make sure that you brought your own damn camera and pointed it right back at them.That way you would capture every juicy eye roll,sigh,huff,scowl and whine and you could show the public a media they might never get a chance to see.
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
We could use more
February 22, 2009 - 11:57 ET by StarAZWe could use more of the press clawing for a story! Digging. Insisting! Doing what we can't do because we can't get in.
Forget the press
February 22, 2009 - 12:24 ET by KC MulvilleI know I'm asking for something that will never happen, but I'd rather see the president be held accountable to the Congress. The Congress represents the people more than the press does, and that's a sad statement, given where the Congress is.
Let him come to the Congress and have a Parliament-style Q&A. I want to see the senators jumping up and shouting "Huzzah!" to answers they like, and scorn and whistling from the other side. Besides, under Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's thumb, this may be the only way for Republicans to have any voice at all. The media barely let them speak when they were a majority, and now have no inclination to listen to them now that they're in a veto-proof minority.
Parliament-style Q&A…
February 22, 2009 - 13:17 ET by JPR1Well said as usual KC.
I have about zero interest in the “Reality” fare served up by Hollywood, but if there were some real programming of real debate among real leaders I’d tune in every chance I got. Maybe we’d get some conservative leaders willing to go for the jugular when necessary.
Maybe keep the current format of House/Senate debate, but then once a week have a full-on throw-down where issues get a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Losers slink off to rethink their ideology.
White House Press Corpse
February 22, 2009 - 13:49 ET by Jersey GirlBetween the lapdogs in the press room and the totally lame press secretary there is no chance any of them could possibly look worse.
Why is this so difficult?
February 22, 2009 - 14:16 ET by slickwillie2001If I was President, they would sit in alphabetic order and I would ask the first question at a random spot, and continue in alphabetic order until they all had asked their question. If I ran out of time, I would pick up at that spot the next time. What would be wrong with that?
Why should the guy that works for NBC news always get to ask a question every day, while the guy in the back that works for the Dayton newspaper shows up every day for years and never gets to ask a question? Where's the democracy?
Maybe we should have a
February 22, 2009 - 14:24 ET by gopcongressMaybe we should have a "Fairness Doctrine" for reporters at the POTUS press conferences. That way Dayton can be just as important as Wapo, NYT, and NBC.
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist.
The progression is clear as day.
Respectfully, Ari, the press corps has already . . .
February 22, 2009 - 14:42 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . hoisted themselves on their own petards.
Thing is, they're too dull of wit and ignorant of what that means to understand it.
Meanwhile, letting them shout makes for good circus.
The Press...
February 22, 2009 - 17:05 ET by Mother...are getting their Karma.
Too bad Boy George is in jail. he-he
The honest thing to do...
February 22, 2009 - 17:15 ET by ledurchiThe honest thing to do would be to only allow the reporters who will be allowed to ask a question into the press room. It seems like the rest of them are now just decoration anyway. It does not seem to be ethical to present the scam of a biased photo op as an actual press event.
When is a scam ethical?
February 22, 2009 - 20:10 ET by needleBasically I agree with your premise that most of the "journalist" are essentially stiffs being use to help authenticate a Potemkin Press Conference.
But:
"It does not seem to be ethical to present the scam of a biased photo op as an actual press event."
Huh? You are joking, right? Are you withholding a mental reservation for when a scam might be ethical?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
I believe...
February 23, 2009 - 16:41 ET by ledurchi...that biased photo ops are scams. Some people believe that biased photo ops are just good public relations. Either way, in this instance, I believe it is unethical to present to the unwitting masses something which is entirely different from what it seems and pretend otherwise.
Tim Graham: I love you like my little brother (since I'm older
February 23, 2009 - 02:24 ET by Rush Fanthan you), but when you throw in phrases such as: "But in the YouTube age, the media will make themselves look bad if left to their own devices." I want to sit you down and remind you that the polls having been showing for quite some time that the public does not trust the media. That is, the media has been looking bad for quite some time.
Newsbusters has noted this decrease in media trust quite often, including Warner Todd Huston's post in January, 2008.
In March, 2008 a Harris Poll showed that only 30 percent tended to trust the press.
As long as colleges continue to teach liberal dogma, the journalism students who graduate with that mindset will continue to forgo their objectivity and balance when reporting the news. Even if journalists attempt to be fair and balanced, their leftist newspaper editors and network producers and owners (such as GE) will ensure that the news is portrayed with a liberal slant.
In summary, the old media is going to look bad for quite some time. The future of fair and balanced media is in the new online media, such as NewsBusters, Michelle Malkin, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
“The media is a disgrace. You have forfeited any notion that you once had of respect” ~ Rush Limbaugh