Rogers assured viewers that the Obamas are “real people.” She said that the first lady “maybe likes food a little bit more” and the president “would be satisfied just to have a salad and a boiled egg.”
Details of the Obamas’ food choices cater more transparently to the press and public’s First-Family-voyeurism impulses, but the two interviews—with Rogers and with Kelleher—have something of the same effect: they help to refine Obama’s public image, which to some extent also helps him to do his job. (Or as the LAT story notes, “Analysts believe that the Obamas’ image management has so far contributed to the president’s standing as he pushes an ambitious agenda.”)
Now, every White House engages in this sort of image management. It doesn’t mean that the mailman story isn’t valid; in fact, it’s heartwarming and rather well written. But readers and reporters ought to recognize that it is as much an example of image building as was the sit-down interview with Desiree Rogers about the “real people” Obamas. It could, in other words, perhaps afford to be a little more aware of being a cog in the White House’s smooth public relations wheel, and a little less wide-eyed about the president’s looped initials. Everything in Washington is done for a political end, and even reporting on the White House mailman needs to make a concession to that fact.
To Jane Kim:
Thanks. In past administrations, when the mainstream press appeared to be used to advance PR campaigns by the White House, peers took them to task. Everything coming out of the White House was properly seen as calculated for political impact. Obama has perfect pitch when it comes to playing the press like a piano; while popular, his approval ratings are not out of line at this point in his presidency compared with past administrations. One is left with the usual conclusion about the outlook of 'the press' vs. that of the public at large.
This is dangerous, because it suggests Obama be emboldened to try to get away with more in the way of unpopular political measures than his predecessors. His personal ratings are good; approval of specific decisions, not so good. I think Clinton's hubris and setbacks came from a similar feeling on his part, too, after he clearly had most journalists on his side during the 1992 campaign. To that extent, Clinton was ill-served by a press that was not skeptical and detached enough.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 01:43 PM