In a remarkable show of consensus, news outlets from The O’Reilly Factor to NPR all landed on one word—professorial—to describe Barack Obama’s demeanor at Tuesday’s press conference.
The sentiment initially lingered as The New York Times assessed Obama’s performance at yesterday’s town hall (emphasis mine throughout): “Mr. Obama, adopting the teacher-like tone he used during Tuesday’s press conference, launched into a lengthy explanation…”
Wednesday, writing in the Times, Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney went for the surface assessment in their lede:
For just under an hour on Tuesday night, Americans saw not the fiery and inspirational speaker who riveted the nation in his address to Congress last month, or the conversational president who warmly engaged Americans in talks across the country, or even the jaunty and jokey president who turned up on Jay Leno.
Instead, in his second prime-time news conference from the White House, it was Barack Obama the lecturer, a familiar character from early in the campaign. Placid and unsmiling, he was the professor in chief, offering familiar arguments in long paragraphs — often introduced with the phrase, “as I said before” — sounding like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell.
USA Today also paused to note Obama’s bearing: “The president’s tone was a mix of the populist — “I’m as angry as anybody about those bonuses,” he said at one point, albeit with a calm demeanor — and the professor.”
And, on CNN, Anderson Cooper also tried to assess the president’s elusive nature: “We’ve seen one candidate Obama and two President Obamas… During the campaign sweetness, light and hope, and the first press conference very pessimistic, and last night taking the middle ground, sort of like the somewhat positive, but at the same time very cautious, trying to look like the steady hand in the tiller, almost sounding professorial at times.”
The depiction of Obama as “the professor” is nothing new and, is based in, you know, fact, since he actually was a professor at University of Chicago.
But as written, or spoken, these references aren’t designed to evoke Obama’s years at the lectern. The references are derogatory. His professorial demeanor isn’t meant to be interpreted as “that cool professor who said really interesting, stimulating things, who took an interest in his students,” but rather as “that boring professor who goes on and on, without understanding his audience and what they care about.”
Which may or may not be a fair assessment, but it’s a hardly objective take. Given that only a certain percentage of people reading the next day’s presser recap actually watched the event themselves, it seems wasteful to let policy details play second fiddle to subjective details like demeanor.
These articles’ implicit assumption—that the presidents’ (and his cabinet’s) job is, primarily, to strike the right tone—offers a poor rubric by which to evaluate his success as a leader. Yes, his public persona is an important consideration, but shouldn’t the focus be on the substance of his policies actions, not the aura that he projects or the content of his speeches?
One reason why post-presser reports are short on substantive analysis may be that press conferences rarely generate actual news. If the president says nothing new about his economic plans, then why treat his recycled sound bites as new, right?
But, looking at the substance of presser write-ups, it becomes clear that the White House press conference has become a see-and-be-seen event, rather than an actual news-gathering exercise. And if that’s the case, then the answer is sort of obvious: if there’s no news, there’s no story. Press conferences might be good places to gather context quotes for later reporting, but if nothing new happens there and then, just don’t write it.
Just to be clear, a press conference or a speech isn’t a news event, and treating them as such is misguided. Actions speak louder than words. Not what he said. Not how he said it. What he did. That should be the story.
I wouldn't call it a "remarkable show of consensus" but rather the most current example of Beltway Groupthink. The national press is nothing if not Pack Journalism, feeding off each other. I didn't read an original thought in all the coverage of the presser OR the Internet Town Hall. Politico writes, Drudge links it, Baker et al run with it.
By the way, what did you think of Ed Henry's piece Behind the scenes: Ed Henry's take on exchange with Obama - CNN.com where he tries to spin criticism of his sneering, adolescent behavior into "Did you see how I stopped the Presidents fist with my face????!!!!!!"
Interesting here:
#1 Posted by Tom Traubert, CJR on Fri 27 Mar 2009 at 12:03 PM
This is another good example of lazy journalists/analyists/commentators pandering to the "entertain me now" crowd. If the president had been more like he was on Leno, the stories would have been just as critical from the other direction. Clearly, it's much easier to write about style and symbols than about substance and policy.
#2 Posted by Robert Blade, CJR on Fri 27 Mar 2009 at 07:43 PM
Media Matters links to this piece but observes that the political press is actually incapable of writing about policy, is incapable of writing about anything of substance, and further, that it is their actual job to write about this fluff and nonsense. This IS what they are paid handsomely to do.
Eric Boehlert says "Sadly though, I think that misses the larger truth about our Beltway press corps. What we're seeing now with the press obsession with style and "tone," and gotcha nonsense represents all that the Beltway media are capable of. There is no "back to work" option because the press doesn't do public policy. Period."
I think that's right. I haven't seen anything in the past 20 years to make me think otherwise. We need to look elsewhere if we expect a better product.
#3 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 01:26 PM
I think the journalists are doing American people deservice. Is our media republican owned?
#4 Posted by emily, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 09:36 PM
As a rhetorician, my concern is less that the press corps is concerned with spoken style and more that their analysis of style is terrible.
Style can tell us about the character of actions being taken. It is a stance toward the questioners, a way of modulating the relationship between speaker and audience. If reporters truly believe that style is the story, then they have an obligation to research style in political rhetoric. There is certainly no shortage of experts and scholarship on the question. But why learn about something when you can just armchair quarterback?
Additionally and in a related note, I am well-familiar with Obama's press conference tone because it is one I have used often myself. It's the sound of disappointment in your professor's voice when she realizes no one has done the reading for the class and that the discussion she has planned is going to crash and burn. It seems that the press corps in general don't do their homework, and that the bemused professor will keep being disappointed.
#5 Posted by cate, CJR on Sun 29 Mar 2009 at 10:08 AM