NY Times Bashes Obama’s HuffPo Question As “Staged,” But Hailed Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” Moment
The New York Times has now weighed in on the battle over President Obama’s question from a Huffington Post reporter, and Times writer Kate Phillips, like other reporters, is troubled because it allegedly shows the administration “finagled” and tried to “stage and control” its “message”:
The problem … is that he was cherry-picked, with a call-upon hours and hours beforehand, and handed a status that no one among the so-called elite of the press corps receives on any given day…the perception of a favored one who got exceptionally advance notice may send signals — far and wide — as to what lengths the administration will go to stage and control the message the president wants to send.
It’s worth pointing out that a White House’s efforts to stage and control its message hasn’t always proven all that shocking to the normally-jaded Beltway press. John Harris and Mark Halperin wrote a whole book partly devoted to the idea that not losing control of your message is a cardinal virtue. And just for kicks, lets compare The Times’s reaction above with its worshipful 2003 coverage of another well-known exercise in presidential stagecraft:
Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights
George W. Bush’s “Top Gun” landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history. But it was only the latest example of how the Bush administration, going far beyond the foundations in stagecraft set by the Reagan White House, is using the powers of television and technology to promote a presidency like never before.
Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design….
“They understand the visual as well as anybody ever has,” said Michael K. Deaver, Ronald Reagan’s chief image maker. “They watched what we did, they watched the mistakes of Bush I, they watched how Clinton kind of stumbled into it, and they’ve taken it to an art form.”
To be fair, Phillips isn’t responsible for what the paper wrote in 2003. But the contrast between the media’s overall immediate reaction to “mission accomplished” and its current angst is instructive. Is it really a coincidence that the same “staged” event that’s provoking so much media outrage also happens to be one that took status-conscious journalists down a few pegs at a time of great uncertainty in their profession?
What’s more, the complaint that White House “staging” is inherently wrong is just bogus. Politicians stage events all the time for all kinds of reasons. The real question should be this: Was the reason for the White House’s managed question a defensible one? Yes, it helped Obama by making him look supportive of Iranian protesters. But it also allowed an ordinary Iranian to ask a tough question of the leader of the free world. Whatever “status” was granted Nico Pitney was also accorded the Iranian questioner. Can anyone seriously argue that this goal didn’t justify this relatively minor breach of Beltway press protocol?
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I don’t know how one argues that the Pitney question was stagecraft without arguing that Obama’s answer was particularly memorable or brilliant. On the otherhand, the “Mission Accomplished” moment was a disaster, not because it was staged, but because it became symbolic of arrogance and a lack of understanding the situation in Iraq.
I went to the full story to make sure and my hunch was right. Greg so far Mark Knoller, Dana Milibank and now the NYTimes have all weighed in on this issue and called out the White House. I am sure there may be others and you may want to track them down. Because those three critiques have one thing in common, none of them actually include the question Nico Pitney asked. Its more than curious that in 3 separate stories about a “media plant” the actual question he ended up asking, which in my mind was one of the toughest if not the toughest, is ever pointed out.
Its almost like they know that if they show the reader that the question was far from a softball that nobody will even give a sh*t about their hurt feelings.
But surely that isn’t the case….is it?
I serioiusly think it would do some good to round them all up and see if any of them include the text of the question inside the criticism.
Still can’t get paragraph breaks I guess. I am wondering if it matters what system you are on.
SG — that’s weird. I think
some of us
are getting
paragraph breaks
anyone else?
I’ll try the paragraph breaks.
.
Here’s another one.
.
And another one.
Obviously not working. I’m on IE7.
Maybe the NYT can include the Bushies’ male prostitute “inserted” to ask softball questions (and maybe do other soft things with balls?).
Sounds like jealousy over lost status to me.
I wonder if the same people who complained about the president not doing enough for the protesters are the same people complaining about his attempt to address them in this way.
Nico Pitney has been doing the only reporting possible from Iran, along with Sullivan. Nico Pitney has a direct line to actual Iranians in the protests.
He was asked to bring a question from an actual Iranian involved in what is going on. I really don’t see the problem here. If Milbank has Iranian sources, HE could have been asked.
The internet and citizen journalism is where the world is headed and the President understands this.
So here us old time Atriots were sternly lectured by the mysterious WH’ho that the WHPC is all like “live and let live” which is why nobody thought to object to male escort (and TRUE WH’ho) JimmyJeff Gannon/Guckert’s strange presence and stranger questions back when. Tena probably remembers. Now that it’s a Democrat, the same people are all like hissy fits and fainting couches because a BLOGGER gets to ask a question. I call bullsh!t. Supercilious entitled jerkoffs, the WHPC.
.
I’ll bet it is effective, too, and liberal bloggers will no longer get to ask questions, lest these prissy prima donnas get their lace panties in a wad again.
I’m getting no paragraphs either, Greg.
Sounds to me like Milbank and now NYT are the bullies in the back of the class shooting spit balls at the smart guy up front asking and answering all the tough questions. Someone needs to tell Milbank he’s really not funny, at all.
It looks to me like the old media is scared sh*tless of the new media’s growing prominence. And let’s be painfully honest here, Pitney & HuffPo were way out in front of the story from the get-go and they never relented. You could tell the trad media was scrambling to keep up, but their format limitations and overall indifference/ethnocentrist approach to world events have hamstrung them in the 21st century.
This is nothing more than a cynical and childish attempt to tell the underdog that it should know it’s place.
Says more about the Times than anything else. I laugh!
Milbank, the quote fabricator, is very bitter that his book did so poorly. Even his peers thought it was awful. It was about as funny as that ridiculous video he and Cilizza made in smoking jackets. Inane and idiotic. It’s a shame too, because Milbank USED to be a pretty good WH reporter when he was straight. He must have had one heck of an editor, in retrospect. He needs to run his stuff by someone honest enough to tell him that his stuff is embarrasingly unfunny.
I remember WH’ho getting pissy when I mentioned that posts and stories about who had keys to the executive washroom was a sad waste of a White House press pass. In fact I remember a long post about how I was just an ignorant nobody who didn’t have any idea about what real journalism on the front lines of the WH beat was like and how tough they were to the admin. I don’t know who he was but I new then he was a posing hack.
If it had been “staged” we would have got a decent answer from the President.
These people are vile. They’re behaving like immature frat boys needling the poor kid who lives in a dorm. Why or why is it so terrible for somebody outside their approved circle of chums to get to ask a question? And really, the question from HuffPost was worlds better than the drivel from ABC, NBC, and Fox.
I think the press had a hissy fit because a mere blogger was given such a prominent slot. The proper order of things is to give questions to the wire services and the networks, in order of rank.
On the other hand, the press didn’t object much to “Jeff Gannon”, so I guess breaking the rules is OK if you’re a Republican. “Maverick.” (wink)
“So here us old time Atriots were sternly lectured by the mysterious WH’ho”
I was personally castigated by WH’ho in email one time. It was bizarre.
Obama tried to “stage and control” his message? He has the ability to do that wherever and whenever he wants. The man delivered an opening statement at this very press conference. The response to Pitney’s question was certainly not his only opportunity to convey those thoughts.
This complaint makes absolutely no sense. The comparison to Gannon is equally lame. At no point did Pitney editorialize or cheerlead for the administration.
Although different people at the New York Times wrote the two different things in 203 and 2009, there still is no contradiction. They could indeed be written by the same person or be in the same frame of thought.When Kate Phillips wrote about the Huffington Post question, she wasn’t complaining about stagecraft, she was complaining about something being phony in a press conference. Press conferences are dear to the heart of the New York Times, and they feel that press conferences, above all, should be what they appear to be. Planted questions are a big no-no. That’s ntohing like an openly staged event.
Otherwise – if someone who calls himself or herself a reporter lends himself or herself to something like this,\
a planted question, it is a kind of reflection on the New York Times as well, and also reduces the chances for getting a real press conference, with tough questions, which they want, at least in theory..
As many have already said, this is just the MSM being offended and pissed off at blogger journalism (and the Huffington Post in particular) because blogs actually do the job journalists are supposed to do.
It’s so hypocritical of the press corps to get into coniptions over this, yet praise Bush and his “glorious” Mission Accomplished ****. Bush did tons of staged photo-ops during his tenure, and the MSM rolled over all the time and marveled at his ability to “stay on message” and “resolution”.
Obama, though, is a hack and a horrible President because of a “staged” guestion. Go Cheney yourself, American MSM.
The press was pretty quiet when a male prostitute somehow got access to the White House press corps and asked Bush softball, staged questions. Guess that’s OK.
Seems like both arguments have merit. Where the hell was the MSM when Bush was concocting his phony press conferences? And why in the hell is Obama doing the same? I don’t see any reason to brag about the fact that Democrats are as dishonest as Republicans. I guess we can chalk it up to the new transparency we’ve been hearing so much about.
@Sammy Finkelman
Again, slowly, THIS WASN’T A PLANTED QUESTION. Obama, like Bush, has a list of people he intends to call on. He called on Pitney. Try to keep up, willya?
Wow. I agree with the NY Times – will wonders never cease. Comparing this to the mission accomplished incident is a real reach. If anyone bothers to read the linked article the point seems very clear: “That is what has gotten lost in all the old vs. new media antagonisms. It’s not about Mr. Pitney’s work or for that matter, the question he asked. It’s about how the administration finagled the position in which he became an actor for the president’s agenda.” (And although the article does not provide the specific question asked they do address it by noting that Obama did not answer the question.)
That’s pure hogwash, sbj. It’s about privileged jerkoffs getting their panties in a wad. Their feathers were ruffled because the megalomaniac TV people didn’t get their superficial inane questions in the order that they wanted. The “actor for the president’s agenda” rings pretty false when you look at how deferential they were to the bushies. Dana Perino and other Bush press secs routinely informed each reporter WELL ahead of time when they would get a question from Bush at a press conference. Sometimes a day or more ahead of time and while traveling it was even more than that. Perino would actually issue an invitation to reporters to ask a question. The reporters all knew about this “call-on” list and neither complained about it nor thought there was anything wrong with it. Please issue a clarification to reflect this fact.
Comparing this with an incident from the Bush administration? How silly. There’s apparently nothing you guys won’t do to defend Obama.
You’ll recall that between “Mission Accomplished” and Obama the Times formally apologized to the public for not being skeptical and watchful enough of the Administration. They are just following their own admonitions now.
@James: I don’t know if what you say is true. I Yahoo’d and could find no references to a Perino “call-on” list so please provide references as I find it interesting. (Even as you descfibe it it does not sound analogous.) The NY Times article indicates that what happened with this fellow was unusual – perhaps you should ask them for a clarification as I was only quoting from the paper.
I think, from now on, Obama should give Nico the first question in every subsequent briefing or conference, just as a big “eff ewe” to the jerks who spazzed out over this. I’m as sceptical of the “blog revolution” as anyone, but when journalists act like jealous pricks they shouldn’t get a pass for it. I certainly don’t.
hey guys-really, really sorry re the para breaks and all the tech trouble in general. we ARE on it. it’s just a little harder to fix than everyone anticipated. has something to with a blog being integrated into a wiki site. too complex for my non-techie head.
but hopefully, the “posting too fast” issue is over.
bear with us…we really appreciate it.
-Rachel (editor, whorunsgov.com)
And why in the hell is Obama doing the same?
He isn’t. Does that help?
I guess it would help if you knew that it wasn’t a softball question, which is what Bush used that ***** for.
I remember the “call-on” lists very well, indeed, back in the old days of Eschaton. A photographer had gotten a shot of Bush at the lectern, from an agle behind Bush. The paper Bush was reading could be seen in the shot. Upon having that piece of paper digitally enlarged, it was quite easy to read the names of reporters, in the order in which they would be called-on. It’s important to note that GWB was not WRITING during the press conference (in other words, he was NOT making a simultaneous note of the questioners for future study/review [ha! AS IF he cared!] — he was READING the prepared paper.) This item should be in someone’s archives, but I don’t have time now to go digging. I think Tena would remember [-- hi Tena, long time no see!!! Hope you are well!]
So sorry — the word “agle” is a typo. Should be “ANGLE.”
Another point which needs to be emphasized. President Obama announced to the world what he was doing in asking Nico to give him a question from his (Nico’s) Iranian contacts. And the Iranian’s question was no softball made to fluff the Pres.
I don’t remember George W. Bush announcing out loud to God and the world that the next question(s) would be coming from his good pal Jimmy/Jeff, who had spent numerous overnights staying at the White House during times when no press conference was/had been/would be taking place. Nor were Jimmy/Jeff’s questions in any way remotely challenging. They were ALL fluffers. Nor was the Bush administration ever challenged by main-stream press to explain Jimmy/Jeff’s numerous overnight stays (documented by the Secret Service) at the White House.
Those who in any way compare Nico’s question to the way the Bush administration handled press conferences are either deeply deluded, wilfully ignorant, or still in love with the world of the Bushies.
i think more than anything the white house was trying to give credit pitney and the huffington post for being very ahead of everybody else on this story. pitney has been blogging essentially 30 hours a day since this started. so the WH giving him some credit was appropriate. i think these journalists are nervous about the state of their industry and are threatened by the power of the so called “blogosphere” especially in terms of the Iran story. all aside, props to pitney for doing an A+ job.
Hear, hear, Mrs KB, I have been thinking the same thing: Obama *announced* that he and Nico had discussed a question in advance of the presser. There was zero attempt to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes, as there was with Gannon-Guckert, Male Prostitute. That makes this different not in degree but in kind.
And it is really something to think of all the journalists in that room asking questions that stressed a need for the President to take a more active approach to Iran — and completely missing the fact that he did so, right there, in front of them all.
@sbj,
I know about call-on lists because I have a friend in the bidness who did a stint at the White House. This friend was offered a question to Bush a week before the presser in question, because the event was relevant to my friend’s expertise. So we had the discussion and my friend was like “meh” it happens all the time, no biggie. Obviously, I have no link for that. But the excellent journo Peter Baker, who did WH duty for the Washington Post, writes an interesting bit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26baker.html
.
Baker makes a good point, that due to the extreme narcissism of the WHPC, the flap has taken the focus away from the content of the question, which the mainstream media refuse to reprint..
Personally I think it is more because the WHPC is miffed because Obama wouldn’t suck up to them. “You guys are on 24-hour news cycle. I’m not.” That hurt their widdle feelings, so they have to throw a widdle tantrum. That’s what’s going on here.
Obama did not know what the question was going to be so how could it have been staged? Interestingly a story on the world last night referred to Pitney as a representative and not a reporter of huffpost
Press adopts “Tantrum” business model; spoiled children everywhere rejoice
In a effort to bolster a dwindling audience and sagging profits, the White House press corps news conglomerates have unveiled their new business strategy: “Hold Our Breath Till We Die And Then You’ll Be Sorry.”
When asked about the drastic about face, an unnamed Associated Press spokesman said “We have all witnessed the success of this tactic during trips to the mall and it is our opinion that this is the most effective route for us at this time. Additionally, it has been well reported that the primary consumers of print and television media are aging, and we see this as a great way to introduce ourselves to the coveted 2-16 demographic.”
When asked about the possibility of this new model alienating the established media consumer, he said “We all know that if the seniors stop breathing, it’s not because of a hissy fit.”
The response of youngsters to this unexpected victory was one of triumph.
Caston Nichols, age 6, said this of the turn of events, “I said TWO scoops of ice cream! You’re so stupid. I hate you Grandma.”
Caston’s mother, Rebecca Nichols, insists that she has always known that her son was special and would be influential, but admitted that this victory came as somewhat of a shock.
“Oh, he’s my angel…Caston, put that down. We have always known that with his brilliance he would be a…Caston, honey, no…a great success in life. In fact, when he asked us to apply for bailout money and I said ‘not until you finish your pizza,’ we just HAD to fill out the paperwork so that he wouldn’t throw another cat through the plate glass window.”
If the White House Press Corps, through 8 years of the most criminal adminstration in living memeory, had bothered to ask ONE pertinent question or taken ONE seriously investigative line of enquiry, or even delivered ONE killer follow up question, then there would be little need for outsiders to do their work for them. As it stands, the WHPC have shown themselves to be utterly supine in the face of authority, overawed by the trappings of high office and seemingly incapable of curiosity for the relevent things.
They suck up all the glad-handling and “access” and bon-homie that the Whitehouse can muster, they hold hands with their supposed adversaries at embarrassing annual bashes and ultimately they have exchanged credibility for comfort and vanity. In short, the WHPC deserted their countrymen and their proffession when they were most acutely needed and they all need to be flushed away. Except Helen Thomas.
Dear MSM: Please, whine less. Report more. Thanks.
I was struck by Chuch Todd’s expression when the President called on the HuffPost reported. If you watched on CSPAN, you would see Chuck Todd immediately grimace and throw his head into his hand. I was amazed. It was transparent that he was enraged about the HuffPost being #2 in line. Then Obama later tells him, “You’re on a 24-hour news cycle; I’m not. That’s the difference.”