News Cycle

A look at the news, politics and journalism in today’s 24-hour media.

White House Reporters Showing Signs of Early Frustrations With Obama Team

with 3 comments

UPDATE, JAN. 25, 3:25 P.M. EASTERN: Here is an audio clip of the mulligan on the oath of office as provided by CBS via Politico.  Also, I wrote in this post that three news organizations (The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse) were refusing to run the White House-provided photo of the second taking of the oath of office in protest of not allowing them access to the event. One commentator to the post noted that I may have gone a bit too far in equating not running the photo to “a protest.” I will concede the point in that as far as I can tell none of the three agencies used the word “protest” in their discussions with White House officials. In addition — and I’ve supported this position all along — their refusal to run the photo is a legitimate action on their part. These White House events have been traditionally covered by at least a pool photographer, not solely by a White House staff photographer. But by not using the White House-produced photos, they are voicing their displeasure with the process as controlled by the administration, and to me that does signal a protest. Here is AP’s story concerning the flap.  Here is the report from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and here is The New York Times’ report on the incident. Thank you for your comment.

 

There are signs that any honeymoon period between President Barack Obama and the White House press corps is morphing into a first quarrel.

White House reporters at Press Secretary Robert Gibbs briefing expressed their frustrations today at a number of issues that have cropped up in the first hours of the Obama administration. Namely a re-do on the presidential oath that had no pool reporter or video representation, and a question over why ABC got exclusive access to the president after it sponsored one of the inaugural balls.

Michael Calderone of Politico reports tonight:

Veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante was one of the most vocal critics, questioning the White House’s handling of Wednesday night’s second swearing in – which was covered by just a four-reporter print pool that didn’t include a news photographer or TV correspondent.

He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”

“We have a tradition here of covering the president,” said Plante, who is covering his fourth administration.

Gibbs defended the White House’s moves, insisting aides acted in a “way that was upfront and transparent” in allowing the standard pool into the swearing-in. And Obama himself seemed mindful of making a good impression, paying a surprise visit to the White House pressroom a few hours after the briefing.

Transparency was one of Obama’s campaign mantras. But there have been problems in the first few hours of the administration. If the chief justice was invited back to re-administer the oath of office over an abundance of caution, why not allow a pool reporter and video? Only still images from White House photographer Pete Souza were released, and The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse refused to use them in protest.

Wasn’t the idea to show the world that the president said the words in correct order? Not that it legally matters much, but taking the oath again does squelch any loon lawsuits. So why not make it public? Gibbs’ answer to the question why not show the world was “well, I was there.” That doesn’t cut it.

The ABC question is a good one, and the Obama team has to come up with an explanation. Are future interviews going to granted to news organizations that make some kind of financial contribution?

Calderone also points out confusion about background briefings:

Before Gibbs took the podium, reporters were given a background briefing under an agreement to only attribute information to “senior administration officials” — a policy some news organizations object to as a matter of policy.

But when Gibbs let slip the name of one briefer, Greg Craig, a couple times, The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman asked, “Are we allowed to repeat that name?”

During the earliest days of the Clinton administration, such abrupt changes in the traditional press access were often met with harsh criticism from the briefing room pack, most notably, the blocking off of access to the office of then press secretary George Stephanopoulos.

Former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers, who succeeded Stephanopoulos, said in PBS’s “The Clinton Years” that the move “made the press very angry because they lost access to a part of the building that they had had access to.”

“And it didn’t serve us,” she continued. “And it was stupid and didn’t last very long. I can’t remember when the decision was made and the door was finally reopened but it was a complete waste of energy. It alienated people for no purpose. It served nothing. It served no one. And it was a rookie, rookie mistake.”

Myers said Thursday that the Obama’s decision to bar widespread access to the re-do of the oath wasn’t in the same category as shutting access to the press office, but wouldn’t help in relations with the media.

The Bush White House would normally post transcripts to press briefings here. The whitehouse.gov site now has a few PR links, including the pdfs of the executive orders and a partial list of appointees (here is a more complete list), but no sign of where to get the official transcripts. CQPolitics.com is publishing the transcripts. It’s not a good sign early on if the Bush White House was more transparent than Obama’s. Ellen Moran, director of communications, and Gibbs have a bit of a learning curve ahead of him.

Advertisements

Written by newscycle

January 23, 2009 at 12:14 am

Posted in Uncategorized

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I can see the other side of the issue, but I thought not having a photograph of the second swearing in was a good idea; it’s what i would have done. There’s nothing wrong with being thorough and a stickler for detail, but the traditional and symbolic value of the first swearing in is what counts, and Obama didn’t want to emphasize that. I guess there are some people who won’t be satisfied with anything less than turning the oval office into Jennicam, but Obama has probably already had more press conferences since the election than Bush did during either one of his terms.

    blackbelt_jones

    January 23, 2009 at 11:39 am

  2. Also, I think it’s all well and good not to use white house handouts as a matter of poliicy, but you’re going to have to show me some documentation in order to convince me that not running the photo equals “refusing to run the photo in protest.” Do you have any statements to that effect?

    blackbelt_jones

    January 23, 2009 at 10:24 pm

  3. […] yesterday in the Columbia Journalism Review. These are the same concerns I voiced in earlier posts here and here. It’s 3 p.m. and the phone in the White House press secretary’s office is ringing. It […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: