Meet the press
Friday, September 3rd, 2010
I had to read the announcement twice, just to ensure that I was correctly processing the information. But, yes, it appears to be true: President Obama is now scheduled to conduct a press conference one week from today.
Obama and the White House press corps, doing actual Q and A…what a concept. Despite candidate Obama's promise to conduct the "most open and transparent administration in American history," the press conference ritual has become nearly as rare as the sighting of Haley's Comet.
Conservatives assume, and frequently complain, that the press loves Obama and that Obama loves it back. Dead wrong. Relations between the president and the people who cover him are actually quite hostile. Obama himself rarely interacts with them, and, according to various press reports, Obama's aides are described as "prickly," "thin-skinned," and "stingy with even basic information."
Granted, some of these institutional tensions occur in all administrations; every president tries to "control the message," and the press always resists. But Obama and his team had vowed to open up in an unprecedented fashion. Instead, they've shut down. And the statistics prove it.
Bill Clinton averaged 24 press conferences a year. George H.W. Bush averaged 35 a year. Bush's son, George W., despite his press-averse reputation, averaged 19 press conferences during his first two years. And Obama? He conducted only five press conferences during 2009 – and this year, only one.
It's not hard to figure out why Obama has been so stingy. He's actually not very adept at those events. As evidenced last year, during one press conference dominated by the health care issue, his answers are often longer than the Gettysburg address. And even when seemingly in control, he's prone to stepping in poop; 14 months ago, in the waning moments of a press conference, he riffed on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and declared that the Cambridge Police had "acted stupidly" – thereby trumping everything else he had said during the previous hour.
Obama has been relatively Garboesque in other settings as well. Presidents have traditionally taken a few questions from the press pool during news events – while strolling past the rope line, while posing for photos with a visiting dignitary, while meeting with foreign leaders abroad. But Obama doesn't like these informal Q & As, either. According to Towson University professor Martha Kuma, an expert on press-presidential relations, Obama took press questions on 46 occasions during his first year in office. George W. Bush, in his first year, logged 147 times. Bill Clinton, in his first year, 252 times.
Granted, nobody is going to cry a river for the White House press corps. Sometimes it fixates on trivia, sometimes it exhibits what author and professor Deborah Tannen has called "the ethic of aggression." But Obama ill serves himself by resisting the spontaneity of open exchanges. At a time when so many Americans are freaked about the future (today's economic report includes an uptick in the jobless rate to 9.6 percent) – indeed, at a time when Democratic voters need a darn good reason to turn out in the November elections – this president needs to engage far more frequently with the journalists who cover him. Imperfect as they may be, they still function as surrogates for an anxious public. By dodging the surrogates so often, Obama further undercuts his promise of transparency.
——-
However, Obama's press relations are stellar when compared to Sarah Palin's. The former half-term governor is the subject of an unflattering new Vanity Fair article. If you want to read about her mercurial temperament, and about how she and her spouse hurl kitchen items at each other, this is the place to go. She basically confirmed the material about her temper on Wednesday when she lashed out at the press during an appearance on Sean Hannity's show. Check this out:
"Those who are impotent and limp and gutless and they go on their anonymous – sources that are anonymous – and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references."
"Impotent and limp"? Gee, that seems to be a bit…um…below the belt. Ever since Spiro Agnew, we've been accustomed to hearing the press pejoratively described as "liberal." But never before, at least to my knowledge, has a political figure suggested that journalists are afflicted with a manhood deficit that can only be cured by Viagra. In terms of rhetorical infauxtainment alone, John McCain's gift to America just keeps on giving.
——-
I did an hour of politics today on WHYY's "Radio Times," along with Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online. It's archived here.
——-
I'm off the grid on Monday, for the Labor Day holiday. See you on the flip side.
SMike, do you actually think the 'pubs have put anything close to a good faith effort into negotiating reforms? All they've shown so far is the desire to block anything that has a chance of making the dems look good. Of course, it is an election year so go figure… If you think the 'pubs negotiations have any other intention, like providing viable alternatives, I'd like to hear about it 'cause it sure looks like all they want to do is fold their arms, stamp their feet and say no. Sounds like my kids… Of course the dems are no better but don't tell me the 'pubs are trying and it's the dems who are saying no, at least the dems are trying to move the country in a different direction. Tell me one thing the 'pubs have done with regards to reform to change the direction of this country, I'm curious. That being said, yes, the course the dems are charting is not necessarily the *exact* course we need as I mentioned in my previous posts but the general direction the dem's reforms are moving us in is better than the status quo. As I said, I'm no fan of partial reform and I only partially agree with the current reforms but at least it's a start. I'm just frustrated as an independent voter that there isn't anywhere to turn that isn't either hard right or hard left. Where have the moderates gone? No country can survive being run by extremists, just look to the Middle East, Russia and China for your extremist models. You have to govern from the center and that just ain't happening. Calling me "delusional" does nothing to refute my comments, only facts can do that. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Facts are stupid things.", especially when they don't support your position. And for the record, I will never refer to you or anyone else on this site using derogatory language or name calling.
swedesboromike: What does "praising Europe's heathcare" even mean? You act as if there aren't vastly different healthcare models throughout Europe. England's is a disaster. No argument. Some others deliver more care to more citizens at a lower cost. Why your inferiority complex? You can't even admit that some aspects of paying for healthcare may be more sensible or effective in other countries? Maybe instead of castigating others and claiming that they hate America or are on "apology tours", many conservatives need to collectively grow a pair and be able to look themselves (and our nation) in the mirror. While I love this country, and would rather live here than anywhere else, that doesn't mean that everything we do is necessarily the best…. As far as taxes, no, I do not WANT to raise them in the future. However, being a grownup means making grownup choices. Keeping discretionary spending flat will NOT close the budget gap. Social Security is not going to go away, no matter how many times you sit around sipping a chianti in your Ron Paul 'jammies and wish it to be so. Cutting some spending AND raising taxes is the only way to close the gap. Were the 90's really that bad?
" Ron Paul Jammies"?? Really? Here is my logic on the healthcare. We have two entitlements that we can no longer afford. Medicare and social security. so why start a 3rd entitlement? You talk of grown up choices, then how about we phase out all entitlements and just let people keep their wages?
swedes, assuming that question was directed at me ….. yes, I have been against several. I stated several times to you and Tom that I was against the healthcare bill, at least the one that passed. I am against raising anyone's taxes right now (yet I acknowledge that not raising them will worsen the deficit). Those are probably the two big ones. I have also disagreed with him on a host of minor issues. … What's the point of the question. Again, anyone that's at all to the left of you (which I am), you automatically assume is liberal. Which is fine, but then the majority of americans are "liberal" according to that standard.
That's no great revelation. You spent most of your posts praising Europe's heathcare while bashing our system. Comforting to know you don't want to raise our taxes now. Of course you have no problem doing that in the future. I would say you are definately on the left.
There's really no excuse for the lack of press conferences in this administration. However, President Obama has done a high number of press interviews. Those are obviously less open, and are not a substitute for press conferences. Here's a link to a CBS news story dated January 2010 that notes his high number of interviews at 158 so far. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6119525-503544.html
A " high number of press interviews" ????????? Where he fields softball questions like , " what's your favorite color?"
Unemployment increased. The economy lost jobs. Obama and his merry band of democrats danced and pranced around the campaign trail as if they had all the answers. Perhaps some introspection and a look in the mirror is in order.
Smike, please…Every Administration has a tone that can be off-putting, & Obama's no different. If I recall, Bush took justified criticism for his Cowboy-kiss-my-butt persona. In fact, the one thing he & GWB had in common was they both hated & avoided the Press whenever they could.
This whole "doesn't do press conferences and therefore is not transparent" doesn't pass the smell test. Isn't it the same press that complains he out on TV too much? Especially when he is in a different city talking to town hall meetings, answering peoples questions from audiences that aren't prescreened or politically chosen from local supporters? Also, he has done more individual sit down interviews with the media than any president I can remember – everyone from Fixed news to the View. And what President in memory invited the press to witness an all day interchange with supporters and opponents of major legislation as he did with the all day live TV coverage of the healthcare forum? Let's also not forget the all afternoon live TV coverage with the Republican caucus from the spring (?)of 2009. Quite the contrary to the white house press corps complaint that he isn't transparent. What he is doing is not making their job easy. Besides, all the purported W news confernces were proven to have planted questions and handpicked questioners. Not doing the normal and usual is what folks are upset about. Hiding and not being transparent? I think not. All one needs to do is pay attention – it is coming at you in a different way.
I'm assuming that I'm not the only one that followed DP over here from philly.com that can't stop chuckling at the attacks on the [cough, cough] conservative [cough, cough] Dick Polman.
Correct assumption.
SI: Its FINALLY come out! Dick Polman – Tea Party Member!!! I guess
it just goes to show, everything is relative to where you're standing…
yobill, that's an argument I've had with swedes – being left of him doesn't put me on the left ….
Do you disagree with any of Obama's policies or policy goals?
It would be impossible to not disagree with some policy of the Obama administration. That is the nature of democracy Swede. Did you agree with everything Ronald Reagan did? You know he did raise taxes…
Logathis: Ronnie would be drummed out of the Party today. You know, all that consorting with Tip O'Neill!
Much protest to the supposed 'political analysis' show that skewed heavily to the Right! Ms. Lopez may talk in a moderately Right fashion, but her reporting is heavily biased to the Conservatives; pairing her with Mr. Polman, who I am really starting to generate some real venom towards, is a Republican dream ticket.
Why is there such a blatant trend to see all politics as only damaging the Democrats? There is a second oil rig on fire in the Gulf for God's sake! There was just a major Oil Spill! There was just a rally with 'Crazy Guy & Screechy Gal'- who most moderates do not like or trust! And it just became irrefutable- we just had our hottest summer on record- after record setting blizzards!
These things DAMAGE the Republican Party! But no one in the media is ever allowed to represent the interests of the Democrats?
Mr. Polman forgets about the Party of Drill, Baby, Drill? Or that global warming is the "biggest fraud ever perputrated on mankind"? Or unfettered corporate deregulation? Or Enron? Or Creationism? Or Tom Delay? Or Pat Tillman?
A blogger commenting on politics with the Republican Party that never faces damage – but the Dem.s always do? Unfair. Biased. Fired!
Someone like Chris Satullo would have been fine in this slot- but pull the Polman! And then pull out the pink slip and severance package- attack my politics and I attack you Mr. Polman.
I feel your pain, Jim. No sympathy for it, but I do feel your pain. Take my advice and be sure to be away on a long and relaxing vacation come early November, for I fear your pain will be quite intense if you're not.
It should be interesting to see if Still Independent comes along to tell you the difference between climate and weather
* sigh * – much as with you, an explanation would be pointless
Climate is an extended pattern of weather conditions, you know, like three cold days in a row.
The wingnuts must be speechless. This is 2nd day in a row I've literally had to check what site I was on for fear someone hijacked my bookmark. Not disagreeing with what you are saying or complaining, just not used to seeing you come down on the dems like that.
I appreciate your mentioning the number of press conferences Obama has given relative to Bush and Clinton–that really serves to highlight how closed his administration has been in this regard. In many ways, this demonstrates a more common trend in politics, which is the practice of shunning direct Q&A with the press. Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle and others have really adopted this approach as well. Why is that? Why are they afraid to talk directly with the Press? On the one hand, the politicians are partially at fault for not stepping up to talk with the Press, but I also wonder if the Press is partly to blame because of the nature of their questions and focus. As you point out, the "ethics of aggression" undermine the ability of the press and Politicians to interact. In the end, though, I really think it is up to Obama to do his part and hold more press conferences.
Don't worry, Mr. Polman. As soon as someone can build a super sophisticated "Ask Google" policy search engine and integrate it into a small, portable and inconspicuous TelePromter then President Obama will become much more responsive to the press.
Yeah, yeah! Then he can show his Kenyan birth certificate to all his Muslim comrades! Then he and the Black Panthers can conspire to set up death panels! Like Hitler! And also Stalin! While helping Al Qaeda to plot the end of capitalism! (Did I leave out any other tired retread themes?)
OK, oh clever one. What's your explanation for why Obama keeps his interactions with the press firmly scripted and seemingly tries to avoid any off the cuff interactions?
Spot on. Obama, the candidate of eloquent speech making with promises of transparency has turned out to be be, gasp, Ronald Reagan. RR was a beautiful speaker who couldn't muster an original thought on his own but he had great speech writers and surrounded himself with effective advisers. Without scripting Obama seems lost and as DP points out, ends up saying something ill advised, somewhat like his vice president. I'm one of those cherished independent voters and come election time, unless he can pull a rabbit out of his hat (economic turnaround, middle east breakthrough, etc.) it's all over but the singing. Unfortunately, given the tea party and republican candidate baggage the choices on the other side of the isle are no great shakes either. My guess is that voters will go for balance over substance meaning the democrats are toast in favor of balance as opposed to republicans offering superior candidates. At least that's what I'm going to do, send a signal that the direction is all wrong. I'm willing to live with my vote regardless of the lunacy the republicans have to offer. The democrats haven't got anything better to offer and the only effective way to protest is through voting. I miss Alan Greenspan…
So Health Care Reform, Wall Street Reform and an attempt at a Climate Change Bill is nothing to offer? Great- Big insurance will bleed your money dry,let you expire, and Wall Street needs further deregulation? [A la Greenspan- Ayn Rand's darling.]That's your idea of effective protest vote? I think you need to talk to someone who disagrees with you sometime.
Jim,
I'd be happy to talk to you, are you available? Paper reforms don't cut it for me, I want real reform. I just think the reforms you mentioned above are half baked and may be worse in the long run. I don't blame Obama, most of the problem is having to compromise with the party of "no" across the isle. Solutions that *may* a) marginally fix the problem and b) make things worse in the long run are really not solutions. Wall Street oversight has been in place for a long time but the previous administration and the one before that chose not to oversee because times were good. People demand reform when things go bad. Because the previous administration spent all our money overseas, when the sh*t hit the fan our bank account was filled with a bunch of IOU's. I understand that as president you have to be able to communicate with the masses but the masses demand action when things go wrong. You can't say to them "We already have the regulations we need, what we need is enforcement" because then everyone, rightly, asks "well, then how did this happen in the first place if the oversight is already in place?" There is no answer to that question that makes an administration look good. Meaningful reform is what I'm looking for, reform for the sake of reform is not. Healthcare? A step in the right direction but the problem is about *money*, not access. Everyone could have access to healthcare if it wasn't so expensive. Drug companies, insurance companies, lawyers and doctors do NOT want to rock the largess boat. There are many physicians in my family and I was on the cusp of becoming one so I'm very familiar with the way the system works. Climate change bill? Guess who's fighiting that? Energy, auto, agriculture, etc. That leaves me, the little guy with a swing vote, wondering who's in it for me. Certainly not the Koch brothers. My whole post was about Obama and what he said he was going to do versus what he's actually doing. My disappointment in his administration is because he's just like all the others before him; promises, promises, promises…
Warrick- you said " I don't blame Obama, most of the problem is having to compromise with the party of "no" across the isle."………….. Seriously, the only people who believe that are the kool-aid drinkers on the far left. You control all of government and you're blaming the other side? You sir are delusional