Posted on 06/28/2009 5:00:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Barack Obama made news at a press conference last week – by planting a question with a blogger, not by offering anything new in spite of taking his sharpest questions to date.
The sharper edge of reporters’ questions had much to do with the setting, one White House press corps member said afterward: “It was our turf, in our seats … no formality of the East Room or even (the) Rose Garden. So I think when we're comfortable, we're more likely to fire back at him for follow-ups.”
Obama coming unarmed with news led to more probing, analytical-style questions which can always tie up presidents.
The planted query (the White House denies it being planted) came from Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney; an administration official phoned him ahead of time to suggest that Obama would take a particular question from him.
“Planted questions undermine the integrity of the process,” says Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University.
If the president wanted to offer a response to a communication from an Iranian citizen, Rozell explains, that would have been fine. “But citizens are led to believe that the questions in the press conferences are not known in advance by the president and his staff and that the process has some degree of spontaneity.”
To be sure, presidents and their staffs spend serious time anticipating likely questions and preparing answers. They have a really good record of being able to anticipate most of what a president is asked by reporters; not a lot of surprises occur.
Every so often, in response to an unanticipated question, a president will give a candid answer – and then the press conference becomes especially newsworthy.
But if “the questions are planted, then what is the point, really?” Rozell asks.
Presidential historian Joel Goldstein says the press should play an independent role and its independence is compromised if reporters simply serve up questions provided to them.
“I think there are real concerns regarding the future of the media,” he says. “Bloggers provide access to many (readers), yet much of what then passes for journalism lacks the professionalism of the good political reporters and columnists, whose experience provides a context in which to present current events.”
Part of the problem, though, is with Americans. Just look at our obsession this news cycle regarding the Gov. Mark Sanford story.
“Surely the Sanford story has many tragic dimensions, but was it really the most important story last week to justify the sort of coverage it got on CNN and MSNBC?” Goldstein wonders.
“For my money, the Senate's cloture vote on Harold Koh's nomination, Iran, health care, Korean threats, etc., will have more impact on our lives than the fact that yet another ‘family values’ politician has acted in a manner which is inconsistent with what he preaches.”
Villanova University’s Lara Brown offers two reasons why this particular press conference is just the beginning of what we can expect between the press and the president: Obama’s slipping popularity numbers, and the roughing-up of his policies on Capitol Hill.
Obama and his staff, she says, may be increasingly concerned about too many substantive questions from reporters who may smell blood.
Perhaps it is not so surprising that Team Obama might create a diversion at a press conference, to get everyone talking about the diversion instead of reporting on substantive issues – health care, energy, the economy, the budget deficit, Iran, the president's lack of engagement on many of these issues – that do not reflect well on Obama.
It’s a political strategy that can be summed up as “Look at my right hand, so you don't watch what my left one is doing.”
Remember that old song, “Smooth Operator?” Obama is just that – the smoothest operator that Purdue’s Rockman says he has ever seen.
While such tricks may not jeopardize a free press, Rockman is “worried about the decline of traditional media and reporters without axes to bear.
“There is no doubt that the ‘new media’ is actually leading us back to a 19th-century party-press, where we read only what we agree with,” he says. And that “is a genuine concern.”
Since last week’s press conference, three things have emerged that will probably change how Obama approaches a microphone.
First, there definitely will be more scrutiny of blogger questions from Obama-friendly websites. Second, since first-blood has been drawn, the press will engage in a frenzied feeding.
And third, that probably was the last time Obama will step to the podium without real news to take queries about.
And I just have to laugh at him.
So the fascist Obama finally turns on his pet lapdogs in the media and now they’re upset?
Every one of his press conferences that I’ve watched have clearly featured a list of reporters that he wanted to call on. The fix has been in since the beginning, but now they’re upset because he put a blogger on the list.
I do not ever recall Sanford as being a "family values" politician. He was only a fiscal conservative.
IMHO, the mainstream media uses this charade to apply a different set of standards to Republicans than Democrats.
Yeah, maybe so, but I bet Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are still kissing Obama’s ass and performing his ablutions.
What's with the collective 'we' here; and what a lame excuse for the 'belly up' MO of MSM. . . since first becoming a 'national' personality and Demrat Party 'standard'.
Forget formal White House environs; how comfortable are these people sitting with their personal laptops; reporting from their own desks. . .
Frankly, I will believe it when I see it. The MSM Press has been so enamored of Candidate/President Obama that it would take a real and extensive period of actual probing before I would give credence to a turn in the press. After all, remember what happened on Wednesday of this past week when Disney/ABC pwned itself to the Obama Health guess. Without Jake Tapper and John Stossel, I would give ABC a negative grade!
He says just look at our obsession with Mark Sanford,,, our obsession? That was all media driven and I doubt that many Americans gave it too much of a second thought. But no, it was rammed down our throats and they stopped worrying with the coverage of Iran around that time until Farrah’s and Jacko’s deaths. They have no idea what the American people want to see reported.
To portray this press slobbering debacle as somehow a victory for the press goes beyond the realm of fantasy.
I know, I know, repeat the lie often enough and people will believe it(especially the dumbed down spoon fed morons who make up a large part of this nations voting public)
Mr. President. You stated last week your favorite color is green, that it had always been green and will always be green. Care to explain why you have been wearing purple for a whole week?
I'm much more concerned about the loss of an independent media. When the media are state-run, democracy is on a path to extinction. Bloggers are filling the traditional role played by the independent press. Paraphrasing the author, much of what passes for journalism by the mainstream press lacks professionalism.
“Remember that old song, ‘Smooth Operator?’ Obama is just that – the smoothest operator that Purdue’s Rockman says he has ever seen.”
Great. Now THAT’s gonna be stuck in my head all day long! ;)
Reporters simply serve up questions provided to them.
I went "Huh?" at it being called an old song. Sade cut the song loose in 1984.
She was really something. Loved her songs.
And just WHO are you calling ‘old,’ whippersnapper? LOL!
Our media has become state run simple as that folks. It is not more independent than the media in Iran!!
Bill Clinton had Monica in the blue dress. Obama has a whole press corps to choose for the same purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.