The Press Corps Versus The White House, Part Two
Was yesterday’s health care town hall meeting with President Obama overly staged, as some reporters now argue?
This question is the latest at the core of an emerging argument between the press and this White House — a debate over whether violating established press corps protocol is justified for what the White House believes are worthy and innovative ends. That was the core disagreement over that now-legendary “staged” question from an Iranian. Now the argument has erupted over the town hall meeting.
CBS News’ Chip Reid took the lead yesterday morning, insisting to press sec Robert Gibbs that the upcoming town hall would be “tightly controlled” because the White House chose audience-submitted questions in advance, in violation of the freewheeling nature we expect from town halls. Gibbs asked reporters to withhold judgment until they heard the questions.
Well, now we’ve seen the town hall meeting. And even if they were chosen in advance, the White House argues, there’s no way you can claim that the questions weren’t tough ones.
There were tough questions about why he isn’t taking the single payer route, about small business owners who can’t absorb health care costs for workers, about the taxing of health benefits, and about how to incorporate state-based solutions that have proven to work. The White House points out that Obama didn’t know the questions in advance.
So the basic argument between the press corps and the White House breaks down like this. The White House insists that worthy ends — getting Obama to answer good questions, whether on Iran or on health care — justifies the breach of established protocol. The press corps insists that these ends don’t justify the means, that anything smacking of pre-arrangement or staging is unacceptable, no matter what the goal.
Given that this White House is not going to drop its search for new ways to communicate with the public, sometimes around the media, the argument isn’t going away anytime soon.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Is this the MSM press fighting back because they are not being used as the only avenue to get information out. Is this their way of fighting back? I’d say the admin keep on doing what it’s doing. The MSM would rather cover MJ’s will, Sanfords bravery for coming out first and why stimulus returns weren’t instantaneous.
So long as the media lets us know in its reporting on the Town Halls that they are staged events then I don’t see a problem. I recall that the NY Times et al were very dismissive of Bush’s social security town halls because of their staged nature – I only expect the same from them now. And so much for tough questions – how about some answers? We still ain’t getting ‘em. It’s pretty pathetic when you just “happen” to “coincidentally” take questions from the SEIU, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America. “We are supposed to adopt Obamacare because he allows some teary woman (a pre-selected teary woman at that) cry on his shoulder?” http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/72061
If this is tightly-controlled, what would GWB’s public campaign appearances and “town halls” be considered by the msm?
Except that the Huffington Post non-troversy wasn’t really about protocol. It was about the Washington Post, and Dana Milbank in particular, feeling insecure about the fact that newer, more liberal news outlets had provided better coverage of the events in Iran than the traditional media establishment. Hence the attempt to generate a phony controversy, complete with phony moralizing about “journalistic ethics”. (Moralizing that, by the way, looks especially hypocritical in light of today’s revelations about the Washington Post.)
This town hall kerfluffle is the same thing.
What part of Change does the WH press corps not understand? Media is changing. It is time to start new traditions and involve more of the people. Welcome to the 21st Century.
And it’s a worthy argument, so why wasn’t the press consumed with this question when Shrub was in the White House?
Of course not sbj. We know you don’t give a sh*t about anybody but yourself. Thats inherent in being a conservative/Republican isn’t it?
Now on topic, the truth is Chip Reid and even Helen Thomas feel threatened that the people now have a pipeline directly to the President without their filter. Its the same reason why they hate blogs. They feel like they are the ONLY ones who can do the job of asking tough, relevant questions. Now with Ms Thomas I believe it might be a generational thing. I highly doubt she uses a lot of email. But with the other slappys its all about protecting their own turf. And I was SO happy to see Gibbs making fun of those clowns.
Seems to me that the “staged” nature of this week’s Obama town hall was, in some way, a response to what most progressives and the WH surely must have felt was a right-wing ambush during last week’s ABC town hall. I must have missed Chip Reid’s questions about the staged nature of the ABC town hall…
“The people now have a pipeline directly to the President without their filter?” Cue Twilight Zone music – the first of these you tube new media events (whatever you want to call it) truly represented a pipeline – the people themselves voted on the questions to be asked. Now, after a few too many pot-related questions, the admin selects the questions. If Obama is such a smart fellow then why can’t he take questions from the average Joe – why does he have to select the audience members? SG – I take great offense at your remark, claiming that I don’t give a **** about anybody but myself. You are a meanie-butt.
Stage managed events, despite any claim of good intentions, come across as propaganda. My question is why the johnny-come-lately press indignation now, when Bush the Lesser got away with more staged events and audiences and ‘press management’? The answer must lie with the ‘conservative/corporate’ control of the media.
To claim that the press did not complain about Bush’s stage managing is yet another rewrite of history . . .
I’m sick of the MSM complaining about this type of nonsense. I watched the press conference with the “non-troversy,” and while the MSM were too busy asking questions about his smoking habits, we got a serious question from an independent media outlet. Maybe if they stopped whining and actually started reporting something, this wouldn’t be so much of a problem.
Just because a guy we like is in office is no reason to hold him to different standards than Bush. We didn’t approve of Bush’s staged events and we shouldn’t approve of Obama’s. And yes, the press totally gave BushCo a pass on this, but still.
You know, take the beam out of your own eye first and all that…
Mike in SLO. Uhmmm Bush wrote the questions for them. Major difference. You know if you were an enterprising person you too could go on facebook or send an email and try to get one of your own questions answered.
People attacking this is all just attempts to muddy the WH’s messaging. Nothing more, nothing less. Get people talking about something else and you’ve won. I feel like I’m in HS watching people complain about trivial garbage some times. What’s wrong with staying on topic?
Did “Jeff Gannon” of Talon News Agency get to ask a question?
Did the WaPo get to ask any questions that lobbyists really want to know?
Maybe the MSM stenographers are worried they’re gonna hafta actually think about whether their questions are too lame? And this from Chip Reid, who’s had occasion to bring ridicule upon himself for manifest weakitude?
I don’t have a problem with the questions that were asked. They were “real” questions. I’m tired of the press filtered questions, they are always about the same nonsense that the public does not care about.
@swat68 Exactly. The WHPC is more concerned with political fights and 24-hour news cycles than asking substantive questions about policy. The majority of their questions are asking for rebuttals to attacks from the opposition, something that the Obama WH mostly tries to avoid (as they should, given the near irrelavance of the GOP).
I guess MSM will use any excuse to not cover the actual issue. It’s all about them, not the issues important to ordinary Americans. If they didn’t create a non-issue to focus on, they would have to do stuff like research. Then they would have to redirect money from Wall St. to pay for journalism.
wtf is wrong with msm in this country? I’m sure if the White House had let Major Garett of FauxNews ask a pressing question during the health care town hall about what the President’s feeling were in regards to the Michael Jackson health care issues, this wouldn’t be a problem in the least…
We are attacking a group of the Entitled. The MSM Village types are annoyed that they are losing their ability to drive the news cycle. Response: go into high indignation mode. They are having to amend their daily playbook.
Perhap they can arrange special dinners as a new line.
I think the WH should change the daily pressers and grab a random 20 people from outside the WH four days a week and give the press 1 day a week. Try it out for a month or so.
If this was a George Bush event there wouldn’t be any press allowed and all attendees would be screened prior to entrance. No wait a minute, George Bush wouldn’t even be having a Town Hall on health care because in the Republican Fantasy World, there is nothing to reform.
@Chris: Dude, it was a hand-picked audience. The online-submitted questions were pre-screened and selected by Obama’s staff.
The traditional press corp asks about A-Rod and smoking. If they hadn’t made themselves so irrelevant we wouldn’t be at this point.
And I was reading that the AP reporter traditionally get the very first question at these things. I think the AP Reporter gets as much of a head’s up as Pitney ever did.
As long as the press (hello Chuck Todd? Chip Reid?) keeps asking shallow questions that treat politics/government as a sporting event, you can hardly blame Obama. Bush needed to be protected because there was only so much he could be prepped on. Obama wants to be sure information gets out there. There is a difference.
folks, I think we are missing sbj’s counterpoint in all this…”Obama sucks, stop drinking the kool-aid libtards, if Bush did this blah blah blah”…
Ahh the pampered princes of the MSM are having a hissy fit
because they’re been shown up publicly . How dare some interloper come in and actually ask tough questions. Don’t people realize if it doesn’t come from the MSM,it doesn’t count?
@williamC: At last! Someone finally gets it!
Why wouldn’t they “pre-screen” the questions from You Tube to find good ones that people rated highly? I could think of no bigger waste of time than asking the president a bunch of questions from wingers don’t intend on bringing anything positive to the debate:
“Why are you such a Socialist?”
If Republicans wanted to be taken seriously in the health care debate, they might drop the the Beevis, Butthead, and Boehner routine.
And I watched the ABC Health Care program. Are you going to deny that ABC “pre-screened” the questions to satisfy the haters? If not, how did wingers like a CEO of an insurance industry and the President of the AMA manage to get tickets and get their questions chosen ahead of 170 other people who were at the thing and hoping to ask a question?
sbj, you and I are on the same side in this one, and your comment at 334 is correct. I am not disputing those facts that you present. You and Helen Thomas and I are on the same page; the Obama White House is managing the media, and only the righties seem concerned about it. The problem for you is that no one here cares about the feelings of the right wing noise machine or the MSM reporters; one group is filled with crazed ravenous dogs, out for blood because every great idea they have had in the past 20 years has turned out to be a failure when put into practice and the other played the part of sycophantic lapdogs for 6.5 years, cheerlead us into war without cause or reason and then muddied the water when the economy fell apart with their he said/she said way of doing business that left us without a clear explanation of what caused what.
The MSM is not liberal, the MSM is stupid, and conservatives have started drinking their own kool-aid in believing that liberal and stupid are one-in-the-same.
Trust me, if the President screws up, you’ll all be happy; we will be devastated, and its a win-win for you…
@williamc: Have a great Independence Day! I think it’s possible for Obama to have a successful presidency and for conservatives to be satisfied with much of it. I want some of Obama’s bad ideas to fail – but I want success for my country.
You too have a happy America’s Bday sbj. I too want some of the President’s bad ideas to fail (Bipartisan Outreach, saving the Multinational Banks, DADT/DOMA waiting), but I want all Americans to succeed, like Adams and Jefferson, we can agree on the broad outlines of agreement
The media is one to complain about staging
Every single one of the poltical media talk shows including Hardball, Hannity, Larry King, Lou Dobbs O’Reilly, Reliable Sources, MTP, This Week, Maddow and Olbermann all prep the interviewees about the content of the questiuons they are about to asked during the segment. Am I to assume all these shows are “staged” b/c the interviewee knows the general context of the questions before hand??? Puh-leeze this is nonsense and they know it.
During the Bush era when people were detained and ARRESTED for showing up to town halls with innocuous clothing I didn’t hear a peep about “staging” from the media.
The media needs to stop complaining and do its job which is J-O-U-R-N-A-L-I-S-M not stenography and the mindless regurgitation of childish village gossip and hackenyed narratives.
They were some pretty tough questions. But they’re not the sort of “gotcha” questions Beltway journalists associate with “tough.” They’re meant to extract policy information, whereas Beltway journalists are typically only interested in extracting political information. What’s the President to do, when the press does an awful job at covering policy? How else are people supposed to get pertinent information?