Press Critical of "Most Open Administration in US History"

[Pangloss]

Interesting (and quite lengthy) article in Politico on Wednesday about anger and frustration amongst reporters covering the Obama administration.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36454.html

 

Some interesting numbers:

 

Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

 

The numbers speak for themselves: During his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q & A sessions — an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University professor Martha Kumar.

 

Ouch. On the other hand:

 

White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.

 

But apparently it's not just about the numbers. Asking the wrong questions can get you into a lot of trouble.

 

The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

 

Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

 

And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper — The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.

 

Playing favorites with the New York Times certainly seems familiar. Kinda like Bush playing favorites with Fox News Channel.

 

But IMO a lot of this reads like sour grapes and petty grievances, but it's an interesting piece and it illustrates an ongoing problem that a lot of administrations have had. Ann Compton of ABC News shows why this can be such an issue:

 

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration is under attack, wait till there’s a scandal, wait till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

 

What do you all think?

[toastywombel]

The basic rule one can get from this, Incumbents don't like bad press, and the press is always hardest on the incumbent.

Good post btw, I was not aware of some of these numbers.

 

Although I would like to note that it seems, at least to me, that Obama is a much more visible president that Bush was. Maybe that is reflected in the fact that Obama has given more interviews. Good post though.

[ParanoiA]

To me, it's much ado about nothing. Obama is plenty visible. I also like his speeches where he ridicules the press and the finicky mainstream political BS. I know he's also a part of some of that, but I enjoy seeing presidents comfortable being a little more animated and candid. Seems more real to me.

[jryan]

Remember that early last year Helen Thomas tore into Gibbs over the way that the Obama Administration handles town hall meetings. It was a rather revealing bit of back and forth as to what the reporters have to deal with on a daily basis.

 

While Obama does more one on one interviews it should be noted that these are mostly controlled interviews rather than the extemporaneous Q&As that are the bread and butter of White House reporters.

 

Thomas' complaint was that Obama was having all reporters submit questions in advance, and then call on the reporters with questions he wanted to answer. Also remember that when Obama was called out for referring to a list before calling of reporters -- accused of picking favorites -- it was defended by the administration as him getting to know everyone's name. Turns out he was just referring to the sheet of approved questions. The press Q&As became a mockery of their original intent... which is probably why he doesn't do so many of them anymore.

 

Edit: Also, here is the video

 

Edit 2: Now that I found the video I realize it was about town hall meetings, but still applicable.

Edited April 29, 2010 by jryan

[swansont]

The press may be critical, but internet-savvy citizens find the government more open because of the information available on the web

 

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/04/pew-americans-dig-government-websites-but-not-the-government.ars

 

[W]hat is perhaps most interesting about the Pew report is that respondents who went online or interacted with the government online tended to have more positive attitudes towards Capitol Hill and the White House. Forty-three percent of government data users reported seeing the federal government as "more open & accountable" than it was two years ago. Thirty-three percent of online users who didn't interact with government sites still reported the same assessment.

[jryan]

The press may be critical, but internet-savvy citizens find the government more open because of the information available on the web

 

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/04/pew-americans-dig-government-websites-but-not-the-government.ars

 

[W]hat is perhaps most interesting about the Pew report is that respondents who went online or interacted with the government online tended to have more positive attitudes towards Capitol Hill and the White House. Forty-three percent of government data users reported seeing the federal government as "more open & accountable" than it was two years ago. Thirty-three percent of online users who didn't interact with government sites still reported the same assessment.

 

That's not a comfortable trade off as the public has no real resource to challenge the administration on the information it provides outside of the press. If the press is not there to corroborate the administration's narrative then what value does the Government provided information really have?

[swansont]

That's not a comfortable trade off as the public has no real resource to challenge the administration on the information it provides outside of the press. If the press is not there to corroborate the administration's narrative then what value does the Government provided information really have?

 

Why would the press be unable to corroborate or object to information provided on a web site?

[jryan]

Why would the press be unable to corroborate or object to information provided on a web site?

 

I'm sure they could investigate independently without speaking to the president or the press secretary. I'm sure many do (and they probably work for News Corp )... but you are not really measuring the same thing. But even that would only be investigations into data that the Administration sees fit to mention on Government Websites... which you know is not the entirety of the purpose of the press.

 

It is also the definition of controlling the debate.

 

I wouldn't consider an Administration to be transparent because tax forms are easier to access online, for instance, or because they have a propaganda site promoting their latest bill proposals.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would consider asking the President (or other politicians) questions to be one of the least reliable sources of information. Especially if said politician has made clear where he stands on the various issues and what he plans to do --whatever else they say isn't information, and needs to be verified independently. Of course there is still the ability of reporters to try to shift policy by focusing on the popular or unpopular aspects of a policy, or focusing on a gaff. But this is not journalism, it is politics.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I wouldn't consider an Administration to be transparent because tax forms are easier to access online, for instance, or because they have a propaganda site promoting their latest bill proposals.

What about this?

 

http://www.data.gov/open

 

Federal agencies are putting more and more of their data online.

[jryan]

What about this?

 

http://www.data.gov/open

 

Federal agencies are putting more and more of their data online.

 

 

That's not the point, though. What we are dealing with here is how the White House handles questions about the data they provided, or didn't provide.

 

Maybe an example would help explain my point:

 

If the Bush presidency had a website filled with justifications for attacking Iraq, but omitted all the evidence for NOT to attack Iraq, and they also screened press day questions to limit anti-invasion questions, would that be considered a transparent presidency? I would say no it's not transparent even if the data on the official page was all true... and even if the president was on talk shows every other day answering questions form a pre-approved lists.

Edited April 29, 2010 by jryan

[swansont]

That's not the point, though. What we are dealing with here is how the White House handles questions about the data they provided, or didn't provide.

 

Maybe an example would help explain my point:

 

If the Bush presidency had a website filled with justifications for attacking Iraq, but omitted all the evidence for NOT to attack Iraq, and they also screened press day questions to limit anti-invasion questions, would that be considered a transparent presidency? I would say no it's not transparent even if the data on the official page was all true... and even if the president was on talk shows every other day answering questions form a pre-approved lists.

 

I think that it's more about the press's reaction to how the White House is handling things. They are complaining about less access to the president, and equating it with "openness." But is it? Was the pledge to be more open made to the press, or to everyone?

 

Alternate headline: Information Made Available Online, Reporters Get Pissy at Being Bypassed

[jryan]

I think that it's more about the press's reaction to how the White House is handling things. They are complaining about less access to the president, and equating it with "openness." But is it? Was the pledge to be more open made to the press, or to everyone?

 

Alternate headline: Information Made Available Online, Reporters Get Pissy at Being Bypassed

 

You're missing the point I think. Are you comfortable with letting the Administration, any Administration, take such control of over what information gets out to the people?

 

It seems to me you are putting a dangerous amount of trust in the Executive branch.

[swansont]

You're missing the point I think. Are you comfortable with letting the Administration, any Administration, take such control of over what information gets out to the people?

 

It seems to me you are putting a dangerous amount of trust in the Executive branch.

 

How is the control changed by anything here? I don't see the difference between government information coming from a person or a website — it's still the same source. The press does not constitute an independent source of information. They are a conduit, except they are no longer the sole conduit.

 

Furthermore, they lose control by not being the sole conduit. Information can be made available that the MSM deems "not newsworthy" because they are interested in ratings, and so is not available to the average person, or that someone might miss because they didn't see the news that day. But they control they exert is always less than the control the administration had in choosing what information to make public.

 

I still see part of this as the media whining because they are no longer an indispensable part of the information distribution system. "Media access" and "openness" are not synonyms.

[Mr Skeptic]

Alternate headline: Information Made Available Online, Reporters Get Pissy at Being Bypassed

 

Heh. There's probably a lot of truth to that.

 

However, they also lose the ability to ask the president tough questions which might make him look bad not answering (or just for being asked). They lose the occasional slip of the tongue. So there is a little more information that might be gleaned by pestering the man directly.

[jryan]

How is the control changed by anything here? I don't see the difference between government information coming from a person or a website — it's still the same source. The press does not constitute an independent source of information. They are a conduit, except they are no longer the sole conduit.

 

So would a president covering-up an inconvenient inquiry finding while reporting the exact opposite on his personally controlled website be a transparent act?

 

I am saying that specifically controlling the information that goes to the press and limiting there ability to ask tough questions simply opens an enormous pathway to abuse for any administration.

 

 

 

Furthermore, they lose control by not being the sole conduit. Information can be made available that the MSM deems "not newsworthy" because they are interested in ratings, and so is not available to the average person, or that someone might miss because they didn't see the news that day. But they control they exert is always less than the control the administration had in choosing what information to make public.

 

If he provided the information online while not severely limiting traditional access then you would have a point. But that is not what this administration is doing. This administration is reducing traditional media access while publishing "data" which is really their side to every story.

 

I still see part of this as the media whining because they are no longer an indispensable part of the information distribution system. "Media access" and "openness" are not synonyms.

 

They are indispensable, Swansont. How would you know when the government provided information is not correct? The are the definition of the bias reporter. The media is essential because, biased or not, it is at least somewhat loyal to the story, and it gives varying details that the administration alone would not release willingly.

[Pangloss]

I think swansont raises an interesting point, and jryan raises an interesting concern about that point. Putting more information on the Web for citizens to read is a great thing, and certainly indicative of "transparency". But the Web is a one-way, highly controlled "conduit", and it's also important to be able to challenge the authenticity, depth and breadth of that information, which means we still need that press interaction.

 

Oh well, nobody said it was supposed to be easy. Every administration has to learn certain lessons the hard way.

[swansont]

So would a president covering-up an inconvenient inquiry finding while reporting the exact opposite on his personally controlled website be a transparent act?

 

I am saying that specifically controlling the information that goes to the press and limiting there ability to ask tough questions simply opens an enormous pathway to abuse for any administration.

 

Again, I see no difference between lying in a press conference and lying on a website. But that's a separate issue, IMO. It's not like press access ensures truthfulness. And I doubt the president personally controls the White House website, and there are plenty of government websites he cannot personally control.

 

 

If he provided the information online while not severely limiting traditional access then you would have a point. But that is not what this administration is doing. This administration is reducing traditional media access while publishing "data" which is really their side to every story.

 

They give their side of the story in press releases and briefings and press conferences.

 

I will reiterate. My position is that media access and openness are not synonymous. You have not provided examples to contradict this.

 

They are indispensable, Swansont. How would you know when the government provided information is not correct? The are the definition of the bias reporter. The media is essential because, biased or not, it is at least somewhat loyal to the story, and it gives varying details that the administration alone would not release willingly.

 

Poor word choice on my part. The MSM no longer have a monopoly on being the conduit for information.

[Pangloss]

Surely media access is an important component of openness, swansont.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that this forum is fairly open and transparent. Even though there's not too many journalists interviewing our members.

[swansont]

Surely media access is an important component of openness, swansont.

 

syn·o·nym

\ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\

1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses

[Pangloss]

Okay, okay, I'll stop calling you Shirley!

[bascule]

Personally I kind of like having an administration with hyperfocus on the Internet and social media that is having issues dealing with old media. Not that that excuses Obama's behavior

[The Bear's Key]

What about this?

 

http://www.data.gov/open

 

Federal agencies are putting more and more of their data online.

Great point.

 

I applaud the effort, but they need a way to sift through the info very quickly, but with extraordinary cross-referencing tools and innovative ways to organize the data for a variety of research needs.

 

And in a way it's being done...

 

http://www.data.gov/about

Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government.

........

Public participation and collaboration will be key to the success of Data.gov. Data.gov enables the public to participate in government by providing downloadable Federal datasets to build applications, conduct analyses, and perform research. Data.gov will continue to improve based on feedback, comments, and recommendations from the public and therefore we encourage individuals to suggest datasets they'd like to see, rate and comment on current datasets, and suggest ways to improve the site.

.....

A primary goal of Data.gov is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications). Data.gov strives to make government more transparent and is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.

 

http://datagov.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?discussionID=9474'>http://datagov.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?discussionID=9474

Data.gov’s potential depends on a clear strategic intent. The Draft Data.gov CONOPS’ vision includes key principles, target audience, value to the public and government, and measures of success. Post your best ideas on strategic intent here.

 

 

http://datagov.ideascale.com

We opened this discussion to encourage the community to share creative ideas and help us evolve Data.gov.

.....

If you are just visiting the site for the first time, we urge you to take a look at our Plan, the Draft Concept of Operations, read through the ideas already posted to the site, contribute new ideas and comments, and to vote for your favorite ideas.

 

 

I am saying that specifically controlling the information that goes to the press and limiting there ability to ask tough questions simply opens an enormous pathway to abuse for any administration.

Great point too. Reporters should be given the chance to ask uncomfortable questions -- directly.

 

Just remember, though....the last administration might've had the "Press-ence", yet they found loopholes to avoiding the tough questions. Also, the press had remained silent far too long vs the Bush Administration's misdeeds.

 

Not only that, don't forget 1) journalists were bribed to promote certain laws and 2) the Bush team's propagandas were aired to the public, deceptively, as "news".