Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
politics
How The Press Can Remain Relevant Under Obama
Tony RommPosted: Feb 24th 2009 12:27PM
Filed under: Politics, Featured Stories, Advise & Dissent, American UniversityAnimated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on Obama's media management style.
In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush did the unthinkable: He snubbed Helen Thomas.
Indeed, contrary to established White House ritual, whereby Thomas concluded presidential press conferences with her signature "Thank you, Mr. President," Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer noted at this particular Spring presser that "Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, 'Thank you for your questions,' and flushing a decades-old White House custom."
To a press corps that is as much a part of Washington culture as the presidents they cover, Bush's misstep was pure anathema; journalists could not conceive of a previous abomination of equal impudence.
Their manifest perplexity, however, was not a function of Bush's audacity; rather, it was a byproduct of their short collective memory. Before Bush brazenly brushed-off Thomas, Ronald Reagan renounced press conferences and jipped journalists of due access to the United States' intervention in Grenada. After the impeached Richard Nixon realized he could profit from perceivably facile foreign interviews, the lore of which now lives in Oscar infamy, Bill Clinton sat cozy with critical columnists on his airplanes.
Of course, these abuses of the "fourth estate" varied in effect, duration and warrant. But they nonetheless represented repeated attempts by presidents to manhandle press-government relations and control the scope and tone of national political reportage.
Is it any surprise, then, that the Obama administration has employed a similar strategy to cordon journalists in 2009? The new president's pre-determined question lists exhibit a striking resemblance to his immediate predecessor's surprise seating rearrangements or follow-up question bans, among other silencing tactics. Add to the brewing controversy Obama's over-reported tendency to ignore conservative-leaning reporters and outlets, and it is easy to understand why journalists at large are growing increasingly upset with the new administration.
That is, easy to see, but nonetheless unreasonable. The presidency and the press have always maintained a historically adversarial relationship, one that is contingent upon coexistence: the president depends on media to articulate policy, and reporters depend on presidents for information.That the two constantly struggle for control in that relationship is merely an inherent byproduct of political tradition and media evolution.
It is also why journalists should not expect anything more from the Obama administration. No matter how frequently he associates his presidency with a new "era of transparency," the executive branch's general need to rebuff external criticism and skepticism persists irrespective of which party or president controls the White House (and whatever rhetorical platitudes they offer voters on the path to get there). Openness is integral to democracy, -- and the journalists who claim to defend it -- to be sure. But an unfiltered relationship between the press and government is hardly as practical as some reporters would like to believe.
To stay relevant, journalists must adapt. From the news media's incremental lateralization -- the idea that news is now a many-to-many dialogue, not a one-to-many hierarchy -- has arisen the importance of truth gatekeeping, a task for which professional journalists have always been best suited. And in this occasionally cacophonous era of "social media" -- an area in which Obama's administration also possesses some advantages -- the value of news filters have increased exponentially.
As a result, Beltway journalists are still the most tactically and (surprisingly) financially equipped breed to build source networks, launch massive investigations and deliver enterprise reporting -- even if their poor short-term memories often cause them to forget this. Obama's hackneyed information strategy may complicate those tasks, make no mistake; but those "abuses" hardly constitute brash exceptions from an unfortunately historic -- yet democratically destructive -- political norm.
In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush did the unthinkable: He snubbed Helen Thomas. Indeed, contrary to established White House ritual, whereby Thomas concluded presidential press conferences with her signature "Thank you, Mr. President," Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer noted at this particular Spring presser that "Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, 'Thank you for your questions,' and flushing a decades-old White House custom."
To a press corps that is as much a part of Washington culture as the presidents they cover, Bush's misstep was pure anathema; journalists could not conceive of a previous abomination of equal impudence.
Their manifest perplexity, however, was not a function of Bush's audacity; rather, it was a byproduct of their short collective memory. Before Bush brazenly brushed-off Thomas, Ronald Reagan renounced press conferences and jipped journalists of due access to the United States' intervention in Grenada. After the impeached Richard Nixon realized he could profit from perceivably facile foreign interviews, the lore of which now lives in Oscar infamy, Bill Clinton sat cozy with critical columnists on his airplanes.
Of course, these abuses of the "fourth estate" varied in effect, duration and warrant. But they nonetheless represented repeated attempts by presidents to manhandle press-government relations and control the scope and tone of national political reportage.
Is it any surprise, then, that the Obama administration has employed a similar strategy to cordon journalists in 2009? The new president's pre-determined question lists exhibit a striking resemblance to his immediate predecessor's surprise seating rearrangements or follow-up question bans, among other silencing tactics. Add to the brewing controversy Obama's over-reported tendency to ignore conservative-leaning reporters and outlets, and it is easy to understand why journalists at large are growing increasingly upset with the new administration.
That is, easy to see, but nonetheless unreasonable. The presidency and the press have always maintained a historically adversarial relationship, one that is contingent upon coexistence: the president depends on media to articulate policy, and reporters depend on presidents for information.That the two constantly struggle for control in that relationship is merely an inherent byproduct of political tradition and media evolution.
It is also why journalists should not expect anything more from the Obama administration. No matter how frequently he associates his presidency with a new "era of transparency," the executive branch's general need to rebuff external criticism and skepticism persists irrespective of which party or president controls the White House (and whatever rhetorical platitudes they offer voters on the path to get there). Openness is integral to democracy, -- and the journalists who claim to defend it -- to be sure. But an unfiltered relationship between the press and government is hardly as practical as some reporters would like to believe.
To stay relevant, journalists must adapt. From the news media's incremental lateralization -- the idea that news is now a many-to-many dialogue, not a one-to-many hierarchy -- has arisen the importance of truth gatekeeping, a task for which professional journalists have always been best suited. And in this occasionally cacophonous era of "social media" -- an area in which Obama's administration also possesses some advantages -- the value of news filters have increased exponentially.
As a result, Beltway journalists are still the most tactically and (surprisingly) financially equipped breed to build source networks, launch massive investigations and deliver enterprise reporting -- even if their poor short-term memories often cause them to forget this. Obama's hackneyed information strategy may complicate those tasks, make no mistake; but those "abuses" hardly constitute brash exceptions from an unfortunately historic -- yet democratically destructive -- political norm.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- Nintendo DSi:
- Quran Jones charged with murder
- New football uniform now on display in bookstore
- Lambert cover controversy
- Cyclist assaulted, injured by driver
Recent Comments »
Page 1/1
Post Your Comments Below
Angelia
1:46PM 1:46PM Feb 24th 2009
Obama does not want to answer questions because he is afraid the "honeymoon" is over. The press made this president and they can break him. We all know it. Some of us just call it like it is instead of being afraid we will be called "racist". AND NO I did not vote for this Socialist.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
GreatR
11:48PM 11:48PM Feb 24th 2009
The only thing the Press has shown is that its a part of the Socialist Administration. Fawning over the people you cover is not "journalism." It is advocacy. Play softball with the Messiah but don't call yourselves "journalists." You are just hack writers.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
thelaughingcossack
11:59PM 11:59PM Feb 26th 2009
Investigative journalism is an oxymoron. Competent journalists is an oxymoron. Anyone who aspires to become a lying,effete journalist is a moron. Anyone who reads the blather of mainstream media journalists are morons. No wonder they want to protect their sources. Then no one will be able uncover their lies. Free press in America? If only it were possible.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
JimK1987
1:55PM 1:55PM Feb 25th 2009
We have one of the worst press corps going. They never seem to fact-check if a "story" sounds hot or controversial. Look what they did to the stimulus bill. Gave endless access to Republican critics only to have to retract or debunk most of their outrageous and hysterical rantings weeks later. Meantime they had contributed greatly to the continued dumbing down of the American people by our bankrupt and corporate owned media.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Annee
4:57PM 4:57PM Feb 25th 2009
The only way reporters can be "relevant" with any presidency is to avoid sniffing presidential butts.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Peter O
5:05AM 5:05AM Feb 26th 2009
these so called reporters are as worthless as the scumbags they cover, they wouldnt know how to report real news if it was handed to them typed up , sources in tow. I think theres a poll out there that basically puts the nonelected scumbags right next to the elected scumbags in regards to most nontrusted people on earth.
they cant cover there man Obama or else they will be seen as promoting and backing the wrong horse. wont happen at all.
the only good thing to come of this total loss of trust is at least some have gotten some cushy jobs in the white house.
whoooooopeeee
Peter
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Kate
1:16PM 1:16PM Feb 26th 2009
I for one am sick to death of having to read or hear what Obama says then watch him to the exact opposite!
His "transparency" is obvious! He is a liar! Change? You have got to be kidding me...the change is he likes to spend more than the typical tax and spend Democrats! He makes them look like amatuers!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
KC
12:49AM 12:49AM Feb 27th 2009
FIRST WE ARE AMERICAN
This is not about Republican or Democrat this is about America. Please go to this
site and read the first four post by Carmen. Bad things are happening with our jobs and freedoms, if we don't forget about party and stand as Americans we will all pay the price. If you do nothing else tonight, please check these post. FORGET party we are AMERICANS. Four new bills please pay attention to what this will do to all of us.
PLEASE GET THIS TO EVERYONE YOU CAN!
http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
KC
1:06AM 1:06AM Feb 27th 2009
FIRST WE ARE AMERICAN
This is not about Republican or Democrat this is about America. Please go to this
site and read the first four post by Carmen. Bad things are happening with our jobs and freedoms, if we don't forget about party and stand as Americans we will all pay the price. If you do nothing else tonight, please check these post. FORGET party we are AMERICANS. Four new bills please pay attention to what this will do to all of us.
PLEASE GET THIS TO EVERYONE YOU CAN!
http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
KC
6:04PM 6:04PM Feb 27th 2009
Rule by fear or rule by law? Operation "END GAME":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
------------------------
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Richard
3:23PM 3:23PM Mar 1st 2009
They can remain relevant by telling the truth like this Scottish paper did.
______________________________________________________
Emboldened by President Barack Obama's announcement he will close the Guantanamo facility housing suspected terrorists, one of the most notorious leftist terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s has written the president, asking him for help in finding a "former comrade-in-arms" missing for 14 years, and closing his letter with "Allahu akbar! ... yours in revolution."
Ilich Ramirez Sanchez – aka Carlos the Jackal – penned his letter to Obama from the Paris prison where he is serving a life sentence for the murder of two French agents and an informer, and for a series of deadly bomb attacks in Paris and on French trains, the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported today.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
acheapmom
8:57PM 8:57PM Mar 2nd 2009
What a GOOD reporter does:
He/she will:
"Report Fairly.
Ask the important, tough questions.
Quote in context.
Do QUALITY research.
Be fair to all sides, but tough."
Today's reporters seem to all be evangelists disguised as reporters. Until reporters, writers clearly separate news reporting from commentary, they will continue to lose audience (at least in the post college world).
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Thomas J Gassett
12:13PM 12:13PM Mar 4th 2009
The Press has lost its relevance, and it's not coming back. Instead of expecting news, we expect spin, and we get it by the truck load. The press is nothing but a hack for the liberal agenda, and has nothing to say to me or most Americans.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!