Anonymous Obama briefers rankle press

James Rainey analyzes the press coverage on the choice of Supreme Court nominee Soto Mayor. The Obama administration as per tradition had the president introduce the judge Soto Mayor in a closed setting, in a room in the White House named the "Roosevelt Room". There were cameras there and a dozen of reporters. The reporters had to promise not to reveal the two "senior administration officials" giving the briefing. The larger question at hand was not why did the Obama administration choose Soto Mayor, but why was the white house holding the identity of the "senior administration officials". This seems to rile feathers because the white house promised a more transparent and open policy on press release. The response as to why the Obama administration chose this form of privacy is that "staffers should anonymous and remain in the background, so as not to distract from the president and the day's news". This has also been common practice seen in the Clinton and Bush administration. The public and James Rainey are concerned how qualified are the "senior administration officals" and what is the accuracy and quality of the information they are presenting. It was leaked out that the "senior administration officials were David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, and Ron Klain, Vice President Biden's chief of staff and a former Supreme Court clerk. Another question at hand is since the American public does not know their identity or job designation they could be a press aide to a deputy secretary at a federal agency. A common idea in this article is that "Team Obama" should be public with new information and they should set the record straight. When it involves an issue that effects the American people there should be more transparency.

Another train 0f thought is that if information is being censored at this level, what extremes will happen next at these briefings. Maybe journalists will not be allowed in if they are skeptic of the Obama administration in any way. An Obama spokeswoman Obama Jen Psaki's stated the relationship between reporters and staffers at a press office is that ""We provided them with what they asked for and assume the practice is helpful since the requests from the LA Times and countless other papers continue. Washington reporters have long been accepting of anonymous information but this not a reflection of "change". It is concluded at the end of this article that any journalist would be happy to gain access to this briefing rather then peering outside a window. It is unfair to the journalist and the American people that they can not quote "on the record" the source of who they are getting their information from.

The Space Between

Within the space between President Obama and the press is Robert Gibbs. Who is Robert Gibbs? He is a paunchy 39-year-old man that grew up in Alabama known as Bobby. However he is not just the ordinary southern man, he is the current Press Secretary. His parents were librarians who paved the way to his political career by simply just being themselves. They were liberal Democrats in a state that was not.

Gibbs began his path to Press Secretary in 1992 by volunteering for the campaign supporting Bill Clinton. From there he became friends with a man that would ultimately get him into a job working directly with Barak Obama. Jim Jordan who ran John Kerry’s campaign kept Gibbs in mind while in this position and gave him the National Press Secretary job. However, this ended in 2003. Gibbs ended up quitting because Kerry had fired Jim Jordan. This was not the end of the road for Gibbs however. In later months Jordan informed Gibbs that the people running Barak Obama’s Senate campaign (Axelrod & Plouffe) were in search of a communications director, and that was the beginning of Gibbs’s relationship with Obama and his new career.

Obviously now, Gibbs is the Press Secretary, so things worked out well to say the least. However, it does not stop there. There is more than meets the eye. Obama and Gibbs became friends almost instantly. They have always been on the same wavelength in their friendship and in politics.

Gibbs was and is more than supportive in the way in which Obama chooses to run his campaign and administration. Although compared to the “Bush model” the Obama campaign believed in keeping information safe by having a tight knit group of confidants, they all believe that this prevents leaks from happening, and if there are leaks, the situation is easily rectified. Gibbs had no problem backing up Obama on this front and is said to have had punitive actions on people for ‘shady’ reports. Gibbs is self admitting that he may have been much less than gentile with the press during the campaign, however he stand behind his actions, while at the same time saying the he regrets some of the things that he did.

As far as their friendship goes, Obama and Gibbs have a unique dynamic. It is not the normal situation for the president to be so close to his Press Secretary. Obama says that now that they are in the white house nothing will change. Obama will still confide in Gibbs and use him as a soundboard for any array of things.

Obama Makes History with Live Internet Video Chat

President Obama went live on Internet video to answer questions asked by Americans on March 26, 2009. The online live town hall meeting was the first of its kind to be done by an American President. It was declared as "Open for Questions" pertaining to our economy.

Over 100,000 questions were submitted and our president was to answer the most popular questions live. After 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions was: "Would legalizing marijuana stimulate our economy if the government regulated and taxed the drug?"

President Obama replied with a joke questioning “I don’t know what this says about the online audience.” The people sitting in the East Room of the White House which were nurses, teachers, and small-business people, laughed and thought it was funny. His response; “The answer is no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow the economy.”

This question later took up time during the daily White House press briefing, where the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, “Suggested that advocates for legalizing marijuana had mounted a drive to rack up votes for the question.”

One of the advocates was the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml) who urged supporters to “let the president know that millions of American voters believe that the time has come to tax and regulate marijuana. Charleston Norml is the creator and promoter of reforming marijuana laws within the state of South Carolina.

The marijuana query was at the top of the list and it provided one of the livelier moments in the forum during the 70-minute event.

According to Sheryl Gay Stolberg from the New York Times, she states that a sliver of news was disclosed and it was that president Obama intended to announce in the next couple of days what kind of help his administration would give the auto industry.

This first time online town hall meeting occured around lunchtime on a Thursday and the point of this was to open up the White House to the American people. Many quesitons arose regarding eductation, the mortgage crisis, job outsourcing, national service and others. Many twittered that it was cool. But did people really feel like they had a voice? Did they feel their questions were answered satisfactorily? Did it make people feel more confident in where the economy and the country are going? Overall it seemed like the large response just proved that people want to feel like they are a part of something and care about whats going on, but that is the extend to which it is displayed.

The president felt it gave him a chance to see what Americans across the country care about and at the same time by pass the media.

Blacklist in the White House

The duty of a journalist is to receive and report facts in a un-bias, objective manner in order to inform the public on the events in the world. Though the job may be difficult at times for most reporters, its extremely arduous for White House journalists. In White House journalism you must find the balance of reporting hard facts without being too harsh on the president and his cabinet in fear of being blacklisted and debarred from information and privileges.

Though there may not be a physical list of names, White House officials are known for showing favoritism to correspondents who release favorable articles about the president. An example of this is the differences in treatment between the two Washington Post correspondents Bob Woodward and Dana Milbank during the Bush administration.

Woodward is know for his pieces, such as “10 Days in September”, that portray President Bush in a positive light and because of his record he was given special privileges over his fellow reporter at the Post which included exclusive interviews, chronology and anecdotes. Milbank on the other hand has written a number of stories that have made it difficult for the president and embarrassed his aids, such as his Salvation Army account and the secret energy-task-force meetings feature, to the point where they registered complaints to his editors, regularly criticized his stories, and were uncooperative with ordinary requests.

One White House correspondent states, “Basically, if you write something [negative]... the message goes out that so-and-so's on the blacklist -- in some cases for that day, in some cases for that week.” Journalist do expect some flak from the White House as a result of an unflattering stories but some believe that officials are oversensitive to minute-details. "Everyone expects them to be vigilant, to protect their boss -- that goes with the territory,” one correspondent states. "But there's an over-the-top quality here." Even a minor tint issue in the president picture can have a White House staff photographer calling to complain. And ever since 9-11, the staff has become even more defensive.

Since the tragedy and the war, White House officials view difficult questions as being un-American and negative stories as subversive, no matter how accurate the account. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has gone through astounding measures to restrain media coverage of the war. The Washington Post’s ten-year pentagon circuit veteran Thomas Ricks stated, "This is by far the worst the situation's ever been. Rumsfeld has explicitly said to me he would like to send some of the people who leak to me to jail." As a result of Ricks unfavorable stories he had been prohibited from attending a trip to cover a special-force operation, which U.S. reporters were allowed to attend. When he ask why he was denied access, a press affairs officer explained “We don't like your stories, and we don't like the questions you've been asking."

Due to this outward blacklisting of journalist, reporters are placed in an uncompromising position where they can either produce fluff stories about how great the government is or report the facts. Fortunately most writers prefer to keep their integrity and perform the uneasy task of journalism honorably and provide the people of our egalitarian society with real news.

Beat the Press: Does the White House Have a Blacklist?

Have you ever wondered why impressions are so important, it's easy to understand that making a bad impression on someone can lead to devastating consequences. In the article "Beat the press: Does the White House have a Blacklist", Nicholas Condessore explains a growing habit within the White House. It has always been a tactic of government officials to show favoritism towards individuals connected to the media that depict the government in a positive light. This practice leaves many hard hitting reporters in the shadows fending for themselves and usually trying to piece together stories with minimal information. Condessore makes the comparison between a well liked White House reporter, Bob Woodward who writes positive reviews of white house activities and Dana Milbank who according to white house officials writes negative reviews of the government.
Whether or not her reviews are negatively written is open to interpretation, a reporter could write an objective hard hitting piece that simply influences negative opinions by the public but the piece itself is written with factual information does that make it an intentionally negative piece? The article states that Milbank was treated poorly by government officials; because she was viewed as a negative reporter vital information was withheld from her and handed to other reporters who fit the mold of an acceptable agent of the press. This type of professional favoritism or new aged blacklisting seems to be a tactic of the government to put limitations on the press thus controlling media. Withholding information from the press or giving the press information that the White House deems suitable for them to report on is essentially killing the field of journalism because it diminishes the aspect of truth in the media. The truth will not always bring forth positive public opinion but it is the right of the public to be given the opportunity to formulate an opinion based on factual information. Facts are facts and when the public is given those facts they are able to form opinions that change the happenings of their society. Putting restraints on media personnel and giving more access to positive reports on government activities will form a feeling of mistrust among the media towards the government and when the media does not trust the government more publications criticizing the government will be put into mass circulation.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.

-Thomas Jefferson

Sunday Morning News

Each week, five Sunday news show producers eagerly work to get the right guest or the best guest on their show. Hundreds of phone calls, and many favors are to be called in order to insure that your show has the top guests to discuss the top issues. The producers cannot book someone to early in the week, so that they do not get stuck with an irrelevant guest, by they must also not wait to long in order to insure that the competing news show does not book the wanted guest. The five main shows that are on Sundays, Fox News Sunday, ABC’s This week, CBS’s Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press, and CNN’s Late Edition, are all competing for the who’s who of guests, to have commentary on the issues in the news that week.

The Most sought after guests are White House officials, preferably senior officials, which are appointed by the assistant White House Press Secretary, Adam Levine. He decides who is “offered” to the news station and who goes to which news station. He states that the officials get rotated to all the five stations, but many argue how strictly and fairly they get rotated. Although they say and try to keep a rotation of guests they do keep in mind the networks ratings and which station will be more advantages to them and the issues they want to promote. “I’m sure they think about ratings and where guests will be seen by the most viewers.” says Meet the Press’s Fischer, about the Bush White House press administration.

The White House has full control on who goes out to speak on the news stations and at what station. No matter how connected a news producer may be, no favors can get them the guest that they want when they want, but they are at the mercy of the White House decision's. The White house “rotation system” as it is called is completely controlled by the White House, and it serves their purpose and needs.

It is evident that the booking guests is not on a fair, and sharing of guests ideal and that those reporters that are better connected or on higher rating shows will get the desired guest more often than other news shows. Although the White House is not always strict with the rotation of their representatives, this all depends on the administration and the issues at hand. The issues impact how the White House deals with the news programs, more sensitive issues are controlled more, and other issues need more promotion and debate. During the Clinton scandal, there were less White House representatives offered to the news shows. In contrast to the Bush administration, which after September 11, offered more officials to the news shows, in order to get the messages about the war spoken on and debated as the White House wanted.

Due to the competition for booking guests, White house officials tend to do more than one show on Sunday news, having a guest do only one show on one net work is rare. The White House likes this, because it serves them better, having the person they want speak on issues to many different audiences, buy being booked by different news shows.

Bush The Controller?

According to this USA Today article from 2003 we learn of a potential plan by George W. Bush and his administration to put heavy limitations on the press during their questioning session in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The article reads, Thursday's event was designed to control the media and make Bush look strong — "not someone who is rushing to war like some wild yahoo." However, is that statement eluding to what is really happening? Is the control meant to cover up and protect our president who is trying to protect his image and divert the attention of the American public from what is really happening?

Of course, we all want to see a President that portrays an image of confidence and knowledge. We want to feel secure, knowing that this individual holds the best interests of our country at heart and will make steady, intelligent decisions based on facts. In the months leading up to the Iraq war in 2003, Bush made two unprecedented moves that could signal the way he and his administration plan to handle — some say intimidate — the media during wartime. The article chronicles the following: First, rather than filing in as usual, reporters were summoned into the East Room in pairs, "as if we were in grammar school and were being called on the line for something," CBS' Bill Plante says. Then, after opening remarks, Bush called on reporters from a predetermined list assembled by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

In the Bush administrations defense, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer contends “There can be no more solemn responsibility of a president than, if he makes the decision to go to war, to take questions about why, to let the public hear what he hears, to see how he thinks, to explain what conclusions he would have reached as commander-in-chief before he puts our men and women in a position where they could lose their lives.” Veteran members of the press state they hadn't seen such a stifling atmosphere since the 1980s, when President Reagan called on reporters using a seating chart.

Some say that whenever a President holds a press conference it is a relatively controlled setting and that this particular instance is nothing to get “worked up about.” However, I believe this is just an instance of fear on the part of the Bush administration. Fear of looking like a fool in front of the world when they are asked certain questions. The USA Today article makes a great point: "There are inherent limits on how aggressive you can be to the president of the United States on the brink of war in prime time when good questions are asked but not answered," Rosensteil says.

FOX NEWS OLD NEWS???

The days of Fox News being the main channel of the White House seem to be coming to a close after being the preferred channel for the Bush administration. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, Fox's coverage of politics seems heavily in favor of the Republican Party, with Murdoch being a very vocal Right Winger himself. This favoritism towards the Republicans leads many to believe that this network was best to cover Bush, considering it showed him in the most favorable light. As the picture indicates, during the elections, there were a lot of slanderous comments, ads, and news segments made towards Obama, and it will be hard for them to now be seemingly supportive of the president elect.

Being Bush's main channel during his presidency, Fox has been able to take a lead in ratings over CNN and MSNBC for the past 7 years heading into the Obama administration. Being such a heavily Right Winged channel, there is some concern on the network's end that the other companies can catch up, considering how anti-Obama as the station has been during the presidential campaign.

Although they are not completely overhauling their lineups, they are planning to make some adjustments to their shows, similarly like they did during Bill Clinton's stay in office. Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, and newly added Glen Beck (also Right Wing), all have new contracts that will last 4 years, through Obama's first elected term in office.

Fox claims their ratings shouldn't drop because they provide "the news in a fair and balanced way and put on a very good product." People and movies such as "Outfoxed" show that nothing could be further from the truth. Murdoch and Fox have been exposed for showing heavy favoritism for the Republicans in their shows. "Some people say" is one tactic they have used in the past to put their biased thoughts and notions out there without really having any legitimate credibility to back their stance. Another cheap tactic the channel has adopted has been during political discussions, they will put a stronger Republican speaker up against a weak and shabby looking Democrat who is usually not as well versed and up to par on political topics as their counter part. This leads viewers to discredit the Democratic in favor of the more knowledgeable, good for America Republican.

The station is claiming they will give Obama objective coverage. They are attempting to make it seem that they are not anti-Obama, but rather that other stations are just pro-Obama for ratings. Their executive vice president for news editorials says that other hosts are guilty of praising Obama to much.

In the end, it's all coming down to the company making sure it doesn't lose too much money in advertising. In 2008, their biggest target audience (25-54) saw the gap closing in terms of viewing. Fox's audience was only 12% bigger than CNN, the closest the competition has been in 7 years. Fox had dominated the other stations in previous years, and the gap probably will get closer in the upcoming years.

The network will definitely lose viewers, but it may not be as drastic of a drop as some anticipate. To their advantage, as Eric Alterman (media columnist for The Nation magazine) put it, it will be much simpler to cover Obama "than to defend a failed war and a failed president." At the present time, the Nielsen Ratings shows Fox still in front of other channels.

WEDNESDAY APRIL 28, 2010

25-54 Total Day

FNC –293,000 viewers
CNN –122,000 viewers
MSNBC –136,000 viewers
CNBC – 62,000 viewers
HLN – 143,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time

FNC – 537,000 viewers
CNN – 164,000 viewers
MSNBC –242,000 viewers
CNBC – 101,000 viewers
HLN – 261,000 viewers