Talking to working reporters is not the only way to communicate with the people. The Obama administration seems to be embracing direct delivery of its messages via the whitehouse.gov website and YouTube. They seem to be saying “We don’t need the press to communicate our messages to the people. We can talk to the people ourselves.”
That’s entirely appropriate. But it doesn’t mean that the press should be cut out of the loop—for one thing, most Americans still get their news via traditional sources. So far the Obama administration appears to be treating its political opponents with more grace, and smarts, than journalists.
As of now the Obama press office is effectively, if perhaps unintentionally, working against President Obama’s campaign promises of change and transparency. Will that change? Will the disdain of the Bush years give way to open government that understands, and appreciates, society’s watchdogs?
We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I’m still waiting for Gibbs, or someone with authority to speak on the record, to call me back for that interview I wanted to start with—and now for a second one about how the White House press office operates. You can reach me at 585-230-0558.
Update, February 1: Transcripts of the daily briefings are now up at the new whitehouse.gov Web site. Despite another nudge on Friday, the White House press office has yet to get back to David Cay Johnston.
- 1
- 2
The answer to 'Who's undercutting Obama' would correctly be: His own ego.
This man was propelled into the highest office in the land with the help of journalists like yourself, refusing to answer any non-scripted questions (Who does your hair? and What kind of dog will you be getting? seem to have been the most popular) or hold open press conferences, for the entire 3 years that he ran for President.
And you are surprised that none of this has changed? You are either very naive or very stupid.
The is the President Obama that you helped to create. Enjoy him.
Posted by Susan Utzinger on Thu 29 Jan 2009 at 07:20 PM
At one time the American press was composed of a tribe of grizzled, cynical and wise journalists who understood human nature and the corrupting influence of power. They did not approach their job with the idea that THEY could pick good guys and bad guys and influence the outcome of elections. What political bias existed tended to be isolated to the editorial pages.
Today's "journalists" seem to think it is their obligation to pick who they want in power and sell them to the everyday citizen because they apparently think their own judgment is superior to that of the everyday American - nothing more than sheer elitism.
The 90% of journalists, who are died in the wool liberals, have optimistically idealized the capability and personna of this new President, Obama and believe and have convinced many others that this man is some kind of post-racial, brilliant thinker who will solve all of the country's problems created by that arch-villain, George W Bush. In short they actually drank the kool-aid of "change", "hope", and all the other non-specific, meaningless rhetoric so elegantly spewed to the receptive crowds in a star-studded emotional environment of moral renaissance.
This is EXACTLY when journalists should have been critiquing Obama and asking the hard questions; they should have assumed that, based on his lack of visible achievement, his terrible past associations, his rising through the ranks of the most corrupt Democratic political machine in the country, and his sweet heart property deal with Resko, a HUGE red flag was being raised.
Unfortunately, the press chose to be color blind and ignore the danger signs.
What did all these "journalists" do? They rolled over, and presented their belly's to be scratched by this master of oratory who could punch their pleasure button without ever saying exactly what he would do differently. Liberal journalists and pundits talked about the thrill running up their leg, the thrill they experienced and some even resorted to tears - Edward R Murrow must have been rolling over in his grave!
So now the American people will be witness to a naive press who will slowly realize that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. And no doubt as the honeymoon subsides some among your tribe will begin to get serious about investigating and asking questions about issues that they SHOULD have pursued rigorously BEFORE the man was elected President. How sad.
But the American public has become more and more aware that the job of today's press is manipulation of public opinion rather than objectively reporting the news, the popularity of the press will continue its long slide into oblivion. Apparently the urge to create the ideal society overpowers the discipline required to report the world the way it is.
In my mind, the line between the 4th estate and a 5th column has never been so murky.
Posted by Niles Johanson on Thu 29 Jan 2009 at 08:45 PM
I appreciate Niles's and Susan's fervor, but they fail to address fairly the foibles of journalists and media outlets, about which reasons i will not speculate. I will say, though, that media bias has been shown time and time again to be towards what they think makes the best story. If you want to be angry at the media about rolling over, how about all of 2002 when every media outlet refused to criticize GWB? Those were the days, eh?
Posted by rone on Thu 29 Jan 2009 at 10:51 PM
Rone is correct that in 2002 GWB enjoyed the largesse of a somewhat intimidated press as a result of his popularity following 9-11. This I believe was the result of the press's awareness that he enjoyed a high level of popularity following the events of that tragic day and I suspect that many of the press also respected his initial firm response to those events.
But it didn't take long for that semblence of unity to dissolve and for them to start ripping him apart.
However, the fair point of comparison should be how the press handled GWB before his election as compared to how it treated BHO before the election. The thrust of my argument being that the press plays favorites and tries to influence the outcome of democratic elections towards the liberal candidate.
My recollection is that every piddling thing GWB had ever done in his youth was intensely investigated by the press in an attempt to make him appear less palatable to the public - the whole frenzy being topped off by "Democratic" Dan's smear story based on a memo purportedly from National Reserve files but shown to be a forgery by savvy members of the blogisphere.
By comparison, the "investigative" journalism performed by the media on BHO never approached anything like the interest or doggedness employed against GWB. The investigative journalism on BHO was half-hearted and, at best, tokenism. Most of the story leads came from the opposition, and the conservative websites and bloggers - the press only responded to a point so as not to appear that their lips were not permanently attached to BHO's backside.
In truth, much of Obama's past is shrouded in mystery. For example, the ongoing question about his birth place remain unanswered because of his stubborn unwillingness to produce his real birth certificate. Even Pravda (on-line) now questions his legitimacy and whether the United States is really a nation based on the rule of law or the rule of man. While I don't respect Pravda's motive for asking the question (to diminish the US in the eyes of the world), at least they have the guts to put that credible issue on the table. Of course there would be no opportunity to diminish this nation's credibility if the President would just produce his real CoLB and take the issue off the table.
So while the press has no problem attempting to hang GWB with a forged memo it seems to be in absentia when it comes to asking BHO to produce a real document to confirm his constitutional qualification for the presidency.
The press clearly practices asymmetric journalism in order to get their favorite candidate elected.
Posted by Niles on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:52 AM
I don't think that I understand the basis of the article's question. In order to undercut someone, there has to be some substance to undercut. There is no "deep background". There are no questions to be answered by this administration, because there is no substance to this administration. You didn't bother to press for tough questions the past three years, so don't expect any answers the next four.
Posted by Pablo Panadero on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 07:00 AM
Remembering the thousands of times that the media uncritically regurgitated White House propaganda proffered by "unnamed sources," I'm having a little trouble understanding the substance of your complaint here. This administration is coming into office at a time of extreme turmoil far beyond any administration in recent history. And it's entirely possible the outgoing admin, crashed the communications system, deliberately or inadvertently, making it more difficult to manage incoming calls.
And surely you realize that publishing the phone number for the press office is likely to generate a huge wave of calls from every nutcase with a complaint, who will pretend to be a journalist. A cynical person might think you were trying to make the transition even more difficult. Which I guess would be good for some trivial 'gotcha' piece like this. For the good of a smooth transition, not so much.
And what was this earthshaking story that you're so offended they wouldn't give their undivided attention to? Frankly, "how the Obama press secretary’s office is operating and what its tone will be" is only important to the media. Trust me on this. The average Jake on the street doesn't give a flying leap about it.
Posted by Libby Spencer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 08:10 AM
And the conflict plays out again. Supporters of Bush inidignantly insist the press went soft on Obama; supporters of Obama are indignant that the press would question anything his administration does. And meanwhile, the point that started all this discussion gets lost in the noise and furor -- that a press office should know how to deal with the press, and people who are paid to be spokesmen and spokeswomen for the president should, actually, be able to speak (yes, on the record), for the president.
If there's scorn to be heaped on the press, it's that they've too often in the past let government officials go routinely off the record.
Posted by Teresa Bonner on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 08:37 AM
You acted like trained seals during the campaign and now you are surprised that the Obamans won't give you the ball? They were arrogant and secretive during the campaign, and they continue to be so. Now it is your job to expose them, and not in CJR but in the actual press that the public sees.
Perhaps unintentional? You've just demonstrated very clearly that it is all intentional. They will not disclose anything. Remember, during the campaign they lied to you. They tricked you on an airplane about where you were going. Why do you think they will change now?
Posted by Stantonium on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 09:02 AM
Wow. These are some harsh criticisms (in the comments that is) for one week into the job. Susan needs a paper bag to breath into. Really. Let's let the guy, and his press office (about which this article was about after all), have a little breathing room.
They were left with some remarkably large issues to face, and the fact that some junior folks in the press office haven't figured out how the press game works yet is not at the top of the list.
We DO need to ignore Rush, who wants this president to fail, and all hope that he succeeds. Too much is at stake for all of us.
Posted by Andy Colyer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 09:52 AM
Andy:
Why should I hope for this President to succeed when he pursues an agenda that I find myself violently opposed to? I'm not the slightest bit sorry that I hope he fails to achieve most of his goals. When his goals are in alignment with my own, which I expect to be about as rare as a lottery win, then I'll hope he succeeds. But I will continue to oppose his attempts to mold this country into a European style socialist state, advance the cause of abortion, restrict personal freedoms, and shut down opposition debate.
In a week puncuated with alternate examples of sheer terror (the bloated pork-stuffed "bailout" bill) and slapstick comedy (his attempt to walk through a window) the most important reaction to the first week of Obama in office is "This man has no idea how to be President." His direct attack on a talk show personality is extremely revealing, not only about who he perceives his enemies to be, but how he attempts to deal with his problems, by lecturing his opposition in a arrogant manner.
You helped elect this man. You helped create this situation. The initial indications are that every fear expressed by conservatives that Obama would bring about a massive restructuring of government around socialist ideals with massive growth in government, selective funding of hard-left liberal programs, disdain for any opposition and a sense of messianic destiny all, so far, appear to have been directly on target.
Posted by CosmicConservative on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:36 AM
Is anyone surprised? The media has acted like lapdogs for Obama since he began his campaign. He will not permit "journalists" to escape that role. The infallible Obama is the creation of the lapdog media. You will not be allowed to change that now.
Posted by Ken Hahn on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:40 AM
While the Bush admin. faced a barrage of hostile and skeptical questions daily and endlessly, with exeeding grace.
I, too, hope Obama fails utterly and miserably.
Posted by Peg C. on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:41 AM
I just have to love the charming naivete in the assumption that there is anything in Barack Obama to undercut.
Hey! Did you know he likes _cheeseburgers!_ It's true! The news said so.
Posted by richard mcenroe on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:41 AM
Here is Ben Labolt, second from left in the picture, the doofus in the white shirt.
He's all there except for the big red "L" on his forehead. I guess that came later.
Posted by Paul A'Barge on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:50 AM
"Will the disdain of the Bush years give way to open government that understands, and appreciates, society’s watchdogs?"
If the Bush administration had not been treated with universal disdain by the liberal media from day one perhaps the tone might have been different. To quote Mr. Johnston, "Thoughts of the illogic made famous by Kafka" was made palpable by media scandals like the Bush National Guard forgeries and eight years of anonymous sourcing. It's nice to see that journalists like Mr. Johnston have discovered a new-found respect for openness, but it's too late. Liberals, like Sen. Clinton, have seen what a dishonest press has done to Republicans and can do to themselves and now simply no longer trust the media either.
Posted by mk on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:53 AM
I don't think there can be any question that newspaper and TV reporters considered themselves part of the Obama campaign *and vice-versa.*
This is precisely why the Obama Administration is being so clumsy right now in its press relations. Imagine you had a girlfriend who put you through grad school, paying all of your bills and never once questioning where her money was going. Now that you've got your Master's, she's badgering you with questions about what happened to her money and when you're going to do those great things with your degree that you were telling her about.
Naturally you're going to get defensive, because you've never been asked these questions and you can't understand why blind support has gone clear over to accountability.
Much like Chris Dodd's mortgage and Charlie Rangel's taxes, this is pure popcorn for me. You guys made the bed, now enjoy it.
Posted by Who is Good Will? on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:58 AM
Libby Spencer has a wonderful imagination.
Posted by P. Boley on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:06 AM
"So far the Obama administration appears to be treating its political opponents with more grace, and smarts, than journalists."
Why should the The Obama administration worry about treatment of journalists, they know the so-called journalists are so far in the tank for The Obama that they've grown gills; after all it was their dereliction of the journalistic duty tht got The Obama elected in the first place.
Posted by John Steele on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:09 AM
Oh look it's Ben Labolt, on the left in the picture.
Sweat much, Ben?
Posted by Paul A'Barge on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:15 AM
Come on, Paul... if you were sitting next to a woman that good looking, while wearing a suit and tie, on an evening warm enough that she can go sleeveless, you'd be sweating too. If nothing else, it'd be the pressure: you'd be thinking "Don't screw this up, don't screw this up....."
Posted by Who is Good Will? on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:27 AM
Hmmmm.
"This administration is coming into office at a time of extreme turmoil far beyond any administration in recent history."
Well that's that. Amazing that today's "turmoil" is greater than that immediately after 9/11. Glad you pointed that out.
What complete rubbish.
Posted by memomachine on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:39 AM
Want to say thanks to a President we certainly did NOT disdain....for 7 years of domestic security? Go here: http://www.mission1accomplished.com:80/
Posted by JenJen on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:39 AM
Obama is the most arrogant and self-absorbed person I have ever seen in my life. He needs some media scrutiny. PLEASE, give him some scrutiny for once.
Posted by Will Franklin on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:46 AM
This is not one week into the job. This is one week into the office. We've had almost three long months of the "Office of the President Elect". That's the whole point of the transition period now -- to be ready to work on day 1.
If this really is the first week into the job, then that is a harsher criticism than anything anyone else has said in the comments.
Posted by Phelps on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 11:57 AM
Memomachine, 9/11 happened almost 9 months into his administration, not nine days. And his immediate response was to read a story to a bunch of kids. Further, the aggregate result of what he did for eight years afterwards created the current horrific problems Obama is now trying to solve.
As I said at my blog, I generally admired Mr. Johnson's previous work. This piece doesn't rise to those standards as is clearly made evident by the high praise from Bush apologists here.
Posted by Libby Spencer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 12:27 PM
"Will the disdain of the Bush years give way to open government that understands, and appreciates, society’s watchdogs?"
Society's watchdogs?!! Oh, were it to be true! Unfortunately the dumbing down of our society began with journalism; the leftist sycophants that try to pass themselves off as journalists actively worked to sell this anything democrat to say nothing of this socalled "open" administration to the American public. Society's watchdogs, no; more like society's fools.
Posted by Charles on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 12:29 PM
Joke: Times are hard all over. The Obama administration announced today that they were going to have to downsize and lay off 100 New York Times reporters.
Posted by Mitch on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 12:31 PM
During our brief conversation, Shapiro, like Labolt (whose name Shapiro did not recognize), started one sentence with “off the record.”
Many people consider themselves media savvy enough to offer up the "off the record" statement before it's ever requested by the interviewing journalist. The more interesting question is, given their surprise at not being allowed to go on background, how many times Labolt or Shapiro had been allowed up until then to automatically take conversations with other journalists OTR, even when the information provided has no business being provided or used without attribution.
It's similar to when governmental bodies try to take items that should be discussed openly into executive sessions -- journalists go wild, and rightly so, when elected officials try to do things in secret; if the media has been cozy enough up until now with the Obama staff to the point that the press people are shocked when they're not allowed to go off the record because it's been done routinely before now, then you've got a potential problem of the press shirking their responsibility because of personal preference for the new administration.
Posted by John on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 12:37 PM
I see that full White House press briefing transcripts are now posted and available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PressBriefings/
It's a start, I guess.
Posted by Michael Mayo on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 12:51 PM
So they are not used to getting asked tough questions huh? I wonder why that would be? Maybe because this is the first time in 2 years anyone besides a plumber has challenged him? Sure he got asked silly stupid things about his pastor, but nothing of substance about his policies.
Yeah, the new administration is not very interested in openness, that much is obvious. But it's what you wanted. You didn't care before, why do you suddenly caren ow?
Posted by chrisb on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 12:53 PM
I've done stints as a reporter and in corporate PR -- here's my perspective. Anybody in a corporate PR office who refused to give his/her title or didn't have an answer, or not having one, didn't say" I'll get back to you" and do it promptly would have his/her ears pinned back or get fired. Period. Also, that person would be equipped in advance (and the transition team certainly had plenty of time to prepare; they knew what the issues were) with talking points, position papers, all sorts of background materials on the company's or administration's stand with explanations. Anybody knows that off the record is the reporter's choice, not the interviewee's. Another example of your government at work? Maybe the administration should outsource the press office?
Posted by voice of some experience on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:00 PM
When even someone who is so partisan as to say "especially those Obama messages that run counter to deeply ingrained cultural myths about the economy, taxes, and the role of government" is complaining, things must be really bad over there.
Posted by David Preiser on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:04 PM
..."struggling to cope with a flood of calls and perhaps the complex machinery of the modern office." WTF? Complex machinery like a phone and answering machine? More and more ridiculous.
Posted by E Sheehan on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:08 PM
Niles Johanson's post is as succinct and perceptive an analysis of the current status of the media as I have read to date. His post should be required reading at the start of every course at the so-called "journalism" schools turning out this current hapless bunch of hero-worshiping, uneducated children now being fobbed off on the rest of us as reporters.
Posted by philip sargent on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:24 PM
Obama was autocratic in his work at reforming the Chicago School Boards with Ayers. He is extremely far left and as such is autocratic. He is in no way values another opinion regardless of what he says. He is who he is. Elections have consequences.
Posted by Bill Welling on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:31 PM
What can I say? This is what you get when you get sold a bill of goods called "change" and don't ask what you're going to change to.
The supposedly tech-savvy "change.gov" website is just as incompetently run. Get used to it. Rubin said pretty plainly that qualifications are going to take a back seat to demographic considerations in hiring. So we're going to have the most incompetent administration in history.
You wanted change. You got it.
Posted by Self-hating Boomer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:40 PM
Just a note to the sysop - if you're wondering why there are so many multiple posts, it's because your post program keeps returning an Apache error message even though the comment is successfully posted. You have a script error in there somewhere.
You guys wouldn't be the same ones running change.gov by any chance, would you?
Posted by Self-hating Boomer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 01:46 PM
Maybe the individuals at the press office didn't want to answer your questions because you sounded like a smarmy old coot of a pedagogue wasting their time rather than a serious journalist inquiring about actual, relevant news with which they could assist. I would hope they had more urgent and important matters to deal with instead of indulging your fishing trip for leads on some kind of supposed internal failing or secretive operations at the department. In fact, isn't the irrelevant nature of your inquiry the exact thing that would prompt a reception fitting the narrative of your bogeyman tale?
If the Obama campaign and transition has shown us anything, it is that they are disciplined and focused on performance rather than the more frivolous aspects of typical Washington gamesmanship in dealing with the press and the public. I somehow doubt questioning the operations of the press department and the suppositions inferred in this article, especially two and a half weeks into the administration, qualifies as real news. A less indulgent person than those you spoke to would have told you to bug off. I can only imagine the eye-rolling and nicknames ("Professor Journalism is on the phone") associated with you now at the department, and rightly so. I wouldn't reply to your emails either.
Posted by Countervail on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 02:16 PM
I am amazed at the short memory of some of the posters here. I hear a lot of hate for President Obama. I didn't like or trust President Bush, and now you can see why? The media all of a sudden has gotg some (you know what's?) sorry folks you guys have blown it for 20+ years.
Posted by TexasGrandma on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 02:26 PM
"While it is too early to judge just how this will work out, the early signs are troubling. And interviews with a dozen Washington reporters indicate that the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions, while treating skeptical questions as not worth their time or, worse, as coming from an enemy."
So stop asking him skeptical questions. Then you'll all be friends again. Heck, it worked all through the campaign! After all, when did a single one of you "reporters" report on anything that could potentially put The One in a bad light?
Hope that helps resolve your lover's quarrel....
Posted by orthodoc on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 02:42 PM
Libby Spencer was exactly right about Jake on the street not caring about this issue one whit. However, I have to admit that I blanched at her "And it's entirely possible the outgoing admin, crashed the communications system, deliberately or inadvertently," comment.
Really? Is there any indication that such a thing happened?? And if there was, don't you suspect that the people in the press office would be glad to cite that as an excuse?
If there was not (and I am as well informed as the next guy), why would you offer such a speculation with no foundation whatsoever. You might as well said "And it's entirely possible the press office didn't get back because Pizza Hut had a lunch special going and you know, White House staffers love pizza."
I realize that a comments section in a website is not the same as a story - we're just all talking over the back fence here - but as a former newspaper reporter and editor, that's the kind of comment that would raise an eyebrow, whatever the venue. Society in general and journalists in particular have gotten awfully comfortable with offering speculations based on nothing more than our own biases and feelings (which has given birth to the near-ubiquitous "some say" questions, i.e., "Senator, some say that your hard stand against this policy is related to your dislike of Siamese cats...."
I keep hoping that somewhere along the line, the person would be interviewed would shoot back something on the order of "Some say? Who? When did they say that? Where?"
I think I also take some issue with your hint that publishing the press office phone number "would be good for some trivial 'gotcha' piece like this. For the good of a smooth transition, not so much."
It can be argued that it's not, nor should it be, a journalist's concern how smooth a transition goes. It's the logical conclusion of the concept illustrated when the most prominent TV journalist speaking at a panel discussion a few years ago indicated that if they were embedded with U.S. combat troops and they became aware of an impending ambush, they would not feel any requirement to inform the military because they were there as journalists and were not supposed to influence the situation in any way. (If I had been there, I would have asked what planet they were from, because that kind of attitude is something other than human - NO story is worth a human life... at least not someone else's life).
That attitude is certainly reflected by publishing the phone number (although I suggest that most of the cranks that would make use of it probably aren't reading CJR). So what it if it makes things more difficult for the administration? Not my job to make it easier or more difficult.
This is all, I recognize, mountains from molehills here. But isn't that what editors do?
Posted by Mike B. on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 02:46 PM
Change we can believe in.
This is the man to whom the media gave the presidency. And now you're whining about it?
Suck it up and deal with it. This is what you wanted.
Posted by malclave on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 02:49 PM
David -- Great job for illustrating exactly how this problem is manifesting itself. Most other outlets are just spouting. Yours is the first credible report I've read or heard.
Certainly, it will take some time for Obama's people to get humming to the same tune. But this issue of no job titles and "off the record" insistences is embedded in all of Washington. This is nothing new. No one wants to be held accountable for fear they'll say the wrong thing.
It's our job to remind all of our public servants that "off the record" is no longer acceptable as a salutation. If every news outlet practices this -- especially with the press offices -- it will no longer be an expectation of the office.
Posted by sirscroddy on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 03:21 PM
Ladies of the Fourth Estate, (I'm looking at you, Matthews) as any frat boy will tell you, you can't spend three years on your knees in front of someone and then expect him to look you in the eye.
Posted by richard mcenroe on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 03:26 PM
Can you PLEASE give the obama administration a break....It has only been a little over a week and already the dogs are out! We are close to economic collapse, involved with two wars and a planet in environmental peril and you are worried about how Obama deals with the press....Maybe all of you should take a deep breath and give him time to catch up a little. I believe Obama is doing all he can and more to help the American people. Oh and btw it was the republicans who refused to even give one vote to the stimulus package.....and you wonder who is undercutting the president and the American people? I hope the American people remember this in two years when certain republican congressmen are up for re-election.
Posted by maitri on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 03:34 PM
Mike b. ---well said
Posted by ken in sc on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 03:35 PM
Libby, are you for real?
These are basics of running a press office. This isn't some minor detail a politician or a business would leave hanging and hope that reporters and the public would simply visit their web sites until they got their acts together.
No, this is troubling - and I think you're wrong, the average Jake will care.
Posted by Kathleen C on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 03:55 PM
I think we had the same thing with Clinton I in 1992.
I voted for McCain, but I say give these folks a little time.
Posted by C.Lynch on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 04:06 PM
I don't buy the "we're new at this" angle. These people have experience, right? I mean, they've worked at other places before? Weren't some of these people working on his campaign for the past 2 years?
Posted by Rob D on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 05:22 PM
Mike B: The reason I suggested that the phone system MAY have been deliberately crashed is because I read somewhere that shortly before they left the White House, the last admin turned off the phone lines to the White House switchboard and didn't bother to turn them back on when they left. Nor, as I understand it, did they leave instructions on how to do so. Also, this new admin is bringing in a lot of young people who are used to the latest technology and it's been widely reported that the White House is using antiquated equipment. It's not surprising that they may be having some tech issues.
I'll admit that my remark about publishing the phone number to deliberately sabotage the transition was unnecessary and out of line. However, I do see it as possibly unleashing a raft of crank callers to the press office and it struck me in the moment as something Michelle Malkin would do, so I over-reacted.
As for the Obama admin's alleged failure at transparency, I would remind you that he issued an important FOIA order right out of the gate, along with other orders increasing the public's ability to access public records and launched recovery.gov to track spending. And for the geeks who understand these things, I would point you to the underreported story on how they changed the robots.txt file at whitehouse.gov. It seems to me, that to be fair these steps that Obama has taken already to bring transparency back to government could have been mentioned to balance this one failure. And again, we're very early into the process.
In any event, David and I are having a discussion about this at my personal blog, The Impolitic, so I'm not going to repeat all my points here. As I've said repeatedly now, I think David is good journalist who has done some fabulous work. Chalk up my untoward remarks up to morning crankiness and the shock of seeing him waste his talent on such a trivial issue. I would rather see him addressing something more important, like the GOP's relentless obstructionism.
Posted by Libby Spencer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 06:22 PM
During the campaign, from somewhere I heard words about Mr. Obama such as "inexperienced" and "unready." Not from the journalists who have legions of fact-checkers and armies of editors. But I heard it from somewhere.
And I got a laugh out of the comment above that said these communication glitches happened during the early Clinton years. What a shock that another Democrat is the example.
But "I don't speak to the military" has been replaced with "I don't speak to journalists whose legs don't tingle."
Posted by Lloyd on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 06:58 PM
Wow. Reading some of these comments, I come to this inescapable but stunning conclusion: Conservatives read CJR? I gave up years ago. Maybe I should come back ... Anyway: This headline says a lot. "Who's Undercutting Obama." Do you think a McCain or Bush administration staffed by such boobs as described here would receive a similar break? Because that is what this is: The meme: It's not Obama's fault. Oh, no. It's the fault of these clowns who are "undercutting" the man! Can you imagine such a formulation offered to a Republican? Such as: That moron Rumsfeld: He's "undercutting" Bush! So THAT is why he has to go! ... Keep it up. We on the other side now get to indulge all the rage we want to. Because, as you all know: "Dissent in the highest form of patriotism." .... Hey CJR: How's Mark Rudd? Revolution!! Pass the bong!!
Posted by Craig Colgan on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 07:00 PM
hey repugs; in this country there are 2 political parties D & R; on 11/4/08 D won and R lost; now R has a chance to win in 2012 so in the meantime STFU and support your new president; you fucktards are all loonies; if you hate this country so much; please move to Alaska and leave the rest of the sane people alone who are actually trying to fix the fuck ups that you guys cause the last 8 years.
You people take pride in fucking ignorance. Read some fucking history; get off the fucking net and educate yourself. Are you people this delusional? I'm having a very hard trying to comprehend any of your nonsense. History has proven time and again that this country always prosper under democratic leadership and fail again and again under repugs; for a party that claims to be fiscally convervative; the last 8 years sure prove that theory.
TAX CUTS NEVER SOLVE ANY FUCKING PROBLEMS; it's not socialism when your gov't wants to make the country thrive for everyone; including you TOO repugs.
You are afraid of socialism but you were ok with facism; well that's rich!
Posted by repubsaredelusional on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 07:02 PM
"it's been widely reported that the White House is using antiquated equipment."
Posted by Libby Spencer on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 06:22 PM
Yeah, Windows XP. Those poor Obama staffers are having problems synching their iPods and updating Facebook.
"You are afraid of socialism but you were ok with facism; well that's rich!"
Posted by repubsaredelusional on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 07:02 PM
You're a moron. But that's to be expected, I suppose... you do seem to be a typical liberal Democrat.
Posted by malclave on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 07:09 PM
repubsaredelusional -- I plan to give my new President all the support you gave President Bush. Choke on it.
Posted by richard mcenroe on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 08:56 PM
What the difference between a puppy that roles over and let's you rub its tummy and the MSM when Obama speaks?
Yeah, I couldn't think of a difference either.
The reason the press has so much slack for this administration is that is didn't cut any for the last.
Posted by Allan Bird on Fri 30 Jan 2009 at 10:19 PM
Andy: One has to ask themselves the question 'why is President Obama, in the midst of an economic crisis and two wars, expending energy attacking a radio host who was ineffective in promoting his own candidate (Romney) in his own parties primary?'. The answer is simple. Obama's political strategy is simple, find the most hated person, set them up as a lynchpin, and attack away. It worked marvelously in the general election, using President Bush to rally people to his side despite the fact President Bush was not his opponent. Now he looks to do the same using Rush Limbaugh (in absence of actual Republican leadership in Washington) who is already unpopular among non-conservatives. Make it about Rush, not about the boondoggle stimulus package and Obama's desire for a civilian police force beholden only to him. Judging by your kneejerk response to the story and rush (pun intended) to bring Limbaugh into a debate he had heretofore failed to be mentioned in, his strategy is working.
Posted by keith on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 12:29 AM
"hey repugs; in this country there are 2 political parties D & R; on 11/4/08 D won and R lost; now R has a chance to win in 2012 so in the meantime STFU and support your new president...."
First of all, I thought dissent was patriotic.
Second, in the words of the late great Oriana Fallaci: You go fuck yourself. I say what I want.
Posted by orthodoc on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 12:52 AM
Mr. Johnson, no one, not his staff, not Rush Limbaugh, not any Republican, has undercut President Obama. He has performed admirably despite all the hell his opponents and some within the media have launched against him. His approval rating even among Republicans demonstrates this point. So chill. Mr. Gibbs, in due time, will resolve the issues that trouble you. Meantime, his boss, President Obama, has been tackling the nation's problems with aplomb. Republicans complain because he has been most effective during his first ten days in office. For all the haters, understand that your vitriol did not keep him from winning the presidency and it will not prevent him from doing a great job as our commander-in-chief. In fact, I believe some of you will eventually come around to supporting President Obama. God bless our President!
Posted by publius on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 07:18 AM
Too late, pinko: the transition from the free press regime to party press is over as of 1/21/09. And party journalists do not ask party bosses to spell their names and actually they supposed not to ask anything at all, they will be receiving everything they have to print by mail and they do not need to know anything else.
So, suck it up and smile, you had worked really hard to make it happen.
Posted by Alex on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 10:13 AM
I'm surprised by the strange hypothesis asserted by commenters above that President Bush enjoyed the universal disdain of the press corps from almost the start of his administration. A look at the coverage shows that Bush got a pass on any critical examination of his policies in the media for at least the first four years of his presidency. The reporting of the leadup to the Iraq war and its initial occupation was usually bereft of any depth and often sourced only by Administration spokesman and cheerleaders, with little to no fact checking. The Bush Administration was the most secretive Administration since Nixon's, opposing any request for information, destroying and reversing FOIA, and overtly declaring hostility to the idea of open and transparent government.
David has a good point -- the Obama Administration, which pledges a level of transparency not seen in a good while to the People -- better get its act together.
Posted by Tom Burka on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 10:20 AM
Uh, dude? That's exactly the same approach you "journalism" types refused to cover and report on during the campaign.
Posted by Celtic Fan on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 10:34 AM
This empty suit has all of the vindictiveness and petty politics of Jimmy Carter, with none of the redeeming qualities. And since Carter has no redeeming qualities, you do the math. You paid no attention to the man behind the curtain, and we hate you for it.
Posted by Bill on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 11:04 AM
The administration's savvy use of the new media, and their ability to coalesce not only support of their positions-along with grassroots fundraising-is unsurpassed.
Has no one noticed what is going on here? Every story becomes its own new story, whether the thread we're writing on now, or blogs, or websites, or IM's, and so on.
Why did the mainstream press not cover Palin's "interview" with Sarkozy? Their 'sotto voce' reports were days later-but it was on Youtube immediately, with millions of hits.
It is no longer the purview of editors to decide what is on the front page, and Johnston's journalistic hand-wringing is indicative of how much they have to rethink their raison d'etre, one foot still firmly in the past.
Good, sharp insightful and skeptical reporting will always be in demand and always read. But there has been a diminution of such reporting the past few years. The damage is significant- the complacency in questioning the war in Iraq was bad enough, but where have the hard hitting financial reporters been? Aren't they supposed to question the corporate spinmeisters on results, earnings, acounting-seems to me most of them now can't read an annual report, and all of this post Enron? Maybe now things will change, with i-bankers the new Lucifers (deservedly so) but Johnston's ire is palaver. He has written an article that says nothing, but done so with the panache of a good journalist, and made it appear substantial. It ain't.
Posted by Neal Horwitz on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 11:27 AM
This stonewalling is no surprise. Obama and his crew have behaved like "Confidence men" talking hyperbole, and being devoid of accountability during the campaign. These con-men are now faced with reality, and being held accountable for the words they speak and the things they do.
So now they are hiding. They lack integrity and so they behave like cowards - because they are afraid of transparency. Why? Because they have something to hide. They are Chicago grifters, political predators, and some of us can see that they have no clothes.
Posted by Bella on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 12:43 PM
IMO, the ObamaLoveFest occurring from his election as Senator to the present is the culmination of all that the Left has been working for since the Sixties. They really did march through the institutions. Along with the ACORN shock troops and Teacher's Union education of a whole generation, the Leftist strategy of 50 years ago has borne its fruit.
Yet the United States of America remains as the greatest of all historical anomalies and the Freedom of Her Liberty burns hot in the hearts of the Silent Majority. When people who love Liberty say, "Don't Tread On Me" they mean it...and they don't need no stinkin' bureaucrat to tell 'em what to do.
Posted by JordanJordanJordan on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 01:01 PM
"Obama messages that run counter to deeply ingrained cultural myths about the economy, taxes, and the role of government."
Pray tell, CJR myth-destroyer.
Posted by b on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 01:40 PM
LOL. The media pushed this arrogant and secretive man into the presidency by feeding his arrogance and helping him hide his secrets (Rashid Khalidi tape, anyone?) and suddenly is upset to find that he is arrogant and secretive with them now that he's safely ensconced for the next four years. Too bad, so sad.
Got to admire Bush, though. He stood up, year after year, to a hostile and combative press that never wished him to succeed. Waffles doesn't have the cojones and his handlers know it.
Posted by inmypajamas on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 02:07 PM
"Snicker, Hee, Hee". And this is only the honeymoon phase. Quote Bette Davis, "Hang on, this is going to be a bumpy ride."
Posted by SandyL on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 02:27 PM
It would be nice if we could get back to a rational, civil discourse about the issues I examined in my article, instead of angry, incoherent and smug posts.
How about sticking to the issues. Also, thinking deeply about the conduct of our government and the role of the press and then try to provide light, not heat.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 03:50 PM
Neal, some of us DID write and warn about the financial disaster we are now in. We did it for years. And in front page articles in The New York Times (where I worked) and other major newspapers.
I wrote about the housing bubble six years ago -- and that was not even on my beat.
I wrote two best-selling books, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch, that exposed what was going on.
Way back in 1996 a team of us at the NYTimes put together a gigantic project about how the pay packages of top executives work, changing the way CEO pay is reported on and waking up a lot of top corporate people that at least some journalists had developed a deep and sophisticated understanding of what they were doing and had an ability to put it in plain English. Please read my Oct 13, 1996, front page NYTimes piece (with Christopher Drew), the Oct 14 installment with Diana B. Henriques and the rest of our series.
Who told you that Enron paid no taxes, that companies were using Bermuda mailboxes to escape taxes, that the working poor were more likely than the affluent to have their tax returns audited, that GWBush had a stealth plan that would let the already rich live tax-free (printed about a week after he took office), a story that required a deep knowledge of how the law works to string together what was missing, rather than included in his tax cut bill. Who told you that the Clintons paid twice as much in taxes as the law required, among other financial issues? Who broke the backdated options story (which the Wall Street Journal ran with brilliantly)? Who reported that some electic utilities have found a way to keep the income taxes embedded in the rates you pay? Or that government has created markets whose rules artificially raise prices to near the levels that unregulated monopolies could charge?
Others -- notably Floyd Norris and Gretchen Morgenson at the NYTimes and Bethany McLean at Fortune -- did outstanding work and nayone who read what they wrote knew that trouble was brewing and why.
I could go on and on and on here with examples.
What you wrote is false, uttery and damnably false. You (and many others) just did not pay attention. And I sound angry about your post I am because I am tired of the kind of reckless and smug comments of this kind when there is an abundant record that shows the truth.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 04:15 PM
David, how does this recent experience compare with your contact with the Obama press operation during the transition?
Posted by Nell on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 09:34 PM
Mr. Johnston, thank you for your excellent reporting. You are one of the best.
Posted by Denise B on Sat 31 Jan 2009 at 09:40 PM
What that magnificent bastard Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy, I say to the Mainstream Media and the newly minted 0bama misadministration!
Posted by JackWoodson on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 02:08 AM
What a bunch of focking wankas. The Columbia Journalism Review wants some face time with President Obama.. Get in the focking line behing the other 100 million.
Posted by Terry on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 04:36 AM
It's very interesting that the candidate who became the president so intent on a transparent government would be so deflecting at medium and even hard-ball questions from the press. Did I say interesting? I meant worrisome.
But like every aspect of a new administration, especially one that is barely two weeks old: GIVE HIM A CHANCE.
Posted by Jonathan on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 08:29 AM
Nell, I don’t cover politics. I cover what politicians do, not what they say.
So, I have no direct knowledge of how the campaign or transition operations worked, but many journalists have contacted me and described similar friend-or-foe approaches and what strike me as very lax application of on-the-record standards. If you do some searching you will find that other journalists have written, a bit, on how the campaign press people (some of whom now work at the White House) operated.
My focus is on what the government has done or is doing, largely through studying the massive but little examined public record of statistical data, internal reports, contracts, training manuals and other material that very few reporters plumb. I mine mountains of bureaucratic paperwork to find golden nuggets of fact.
But once I find that nugget (or sometimes that a nugget is missing) I have to refine and polish it. That means contacting officials and others to verify, to give context and to develop the facts.
Terry, CJR did not ask for face time with the President, nor does my article even hint at that. And must you be rude? How does an angry and false post like contribute usefully to the public discourse, without which our democracy and the liberties of the people cannot endure?
The facts, as shown in my article, are that I called the office that is set up for journalists to ask questions of the press staff. When I finally got through my questions were not even heard. What fault do you find in a journalist calling an office set up to answer journalists’ questions? And keep in mind that no previous administration I have contacted (which goes back to Nixon) has conducted itself this way, as noted several times above.
Jonathan, you raise a point covered in my article, which I hope you will re-read if you have and if not that you read it. I called the GWBush press office within days of his first inauguration and got prompt answers to my questions from people who treated being asked for their name and title as routine. Over his eight years his spokespeople replied with written statements that were off point or contributed nothing. The Obama administration promised transparency, openness (on which it has taken some significant actions) and changing the way things were done in Washington, So how to explain what I (and others who have contacted me) ran into?
What do you think about the reluctance of official, taxpayer-paid for spokesmen to spell names as well as the refusal in one case and reluctance in another to give one’s job title? (The third person cheerfully dealt with requests for spelling and title, but then she was not authorized to answer questions.) And what do you think about official spokesmen declaring what they say will be “off the record,” which means, had I agreed, that I could not use what they said, defeating the whole purpose of my call.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 12:47 PM
I dropped a word in a sentence above and as a result it gives a false impression.
Over his eight years his (GWBush's) spokespeople SOMETIMES replied with written statements that were off point or contributed nothing.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 12:51 PM
he has been transitioning -- but he has only been in office for 12 days. There are so many people lining up to say Obama isn't doing what he said he's going to do when he has been distracted by this massive economic depression, war in Iraq, Gitmo, and the Israel drama -- all of which he has inherited. I wonder what the reporter from the CJR could have had to ask the administration that was so important.
Furthermore, Obama is looking at alternative ways of communicating with the public such as YouTube. This will effectively by-pass the press which has become increasingly 'impartial' and more interested in selling sensation than shedding light on the activities of the government. I think this is a good strategy as I've about lost confidence in the so-called 4th estate.
Even the title of this article suggests that this ONE incident is undercutting Obama is a bit of hyperbole at best, and at worst shows that there are just as many people interested in proving Obama wrong than helping him fulfill his stated goals for the US.
Lastly, there has to be something that this article is not telling us. Why did the reporter call this number rather than dealing with an appointed member of the press office -- I mean, can anyone call the White House press office and get an interview?
I have some other questions for this reporter.
Why is he reporting that other reporters have had problems dealing with the White House press office without quoting his source. Are we supposed to just believe him? Why was he calling the main number rather than dealing with a designated person, I mean can ANYONE call the White House and get an interview. Third, he says that no reporter from a previous administration has ever been hung up on: How does he know this? Where does he get his information?
See this is the type of stuff that undercuts the media (all information and no sources!!!).
Posted by lnw on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 02:53 PM
Inw, your comments would be a lot more on point had you read my article before commenting on it, which it appears you did not from some of your fact-free comments.
The issue of the President going directly to people is addressed in the piece (and in my comments above) as "entirely appropriate." The issue of newness is also addressed, including my checking with four former press secretaries and citing my own experience going back to Nixon.
And you got wrong the issue of what number I called and called and called and what happened. It is the main White House press office number. Really, it makes sense to read before commenting (or, if you if read it, then to read with care).
On the issue of hanging up, my article is explicit that I was referring to myself -- that no White House press aide has ever hung up on me even in the days when reporters were encouraged to be much more aggressive than now and high volume exchanges with flacks and even high level government officials were not uncommon.
My piece quotes by name two journalists I spoke to before the piece, both highly respected veterans, Dana Milbank and Al Hunt.
In follow up posts I referred to reporters I spoke with since publication without naming them and you can believe my characterization or not. But be aware that in 42 years at this that six broadcast stations were forced off the air (for news manipulations and blackouts), Congress and other legislative bodies changed numerous laws, agencies changed many regulations, a number of criminal charges were brought and convictions obtained, a worldwide CEO was forced out (no one at that evels seems to get "fired" anymore) and in addition competitors, blue-ribbon citizen panels, grand juries and Congressional committees all have investigated my work -- and all of it stood up.
So I hope you do read my article and think about its implications. As a thought experiment, imagine the same set of facts applied to an administration that you do not like. This is about how the government is administered for all of the people. And it was written for CJR, a publication whose mission is to improve the quality of journalism and whose audience consists largely of people who are journalists or who have a serious interest in journalism issues and who are, therefore, familiar with my body of work and reputation.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 05:39 PM
David, your politics are an anathema to me, but I have to say that I have a great deal of respect for your journalistic approach. This article is one of the very few instances I can recall of any journalist applying a consistent standard of criticism to both Obama and Bush. And the results are telling.
Also, I like how you mix it up in the comments section!
Posted by JLD on Sun 1 Feb 2009 at 07:44 PM
Imagine that you spent the last 2 years (or less) of your life working every day for a group who's activities were consistently the biggest news stories around the world. You and you co-oworkers were hounded by small town and international press requests on an almost daily basis.
Now imagine that group having a near Holy doctrine that forbid you to speak to the press. Your job depended on it and you were reminded of this roughly every week or so. You heard stories about people being fired simply for having their name printed in the paper. One of your co-workers even had a mental breakdown when the NY Times printed her name in a story about an Iowa farmer's struggles (which only mentioned that she had come knocking, nothing more about the campaign. She was not fired).
Now imagine, after all that, you are now at the White House. Press office or not, this is called message discipline, and it has served the Campaign, the PIC, and now the new White House very well.
Posted by JohnnySly on Mon 2 Feb 2009 at 09:25 AM
Ha ha ha. Made me laugh. Reporters' love is unrequited.
Posted by Justine on Mon 2 Feb 2009 at 12:32 PM
"Never has anyone in the press office declined to spell his name, give his job title, or hung up, even after the kind of aggressive exchanges that USED TO BE COMMON between ...journalists and high government officials." David Cay Johnston
Oops...now the cat's out of the bag.
Posted by JR on Mon 2 Feb 2009 at 06:43 PM
JR, no oops about it. I am troubled (and have written elsewhere on this) about how public complaints that reporters were disrespectful of politicians when they asked various hard questions have promoted a broad and subtle shift in the standards of conduct set for reporters.
To be clear, I do not think that is a good thing, which is why I mentioned it.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Tue 3 Feb 2009 at 08:01 AM
Wow, really fair and nicely written David. I commend you on asking tough questions, where so many of your bretheren have failed. Please keep up the good work.
Posted by Karen on Thu 5 Feb 2009 at 01:05 AM
"The reportorial practice of letting government officials speak without taking responsibility for their words has been an issue with the public and is being questioned NOW by some journalists, as shown by this article from Slate’s Jack Shafer." (Emphasis added.)
I don't mean to put you on the spot as the sacrificial lamb for a press corps that, in my opinion, was all too sheepish (to mix metaphors) over the past eight years. But I do mean to put the spotlight on your own words and what they (un?)intentionally reveal. If you happen to read this post, I'd be very curious if I'm (a) misreading your entry unfairly -- please do correct me then; or (b) otherwise being unfair.
Otherwise, I'd like your thoughts as to why NOW is the time to press the Administration when the last 8 years saw so much disdain for the press corps from the White House spokespeople. Why NOW is accountability a serious issue that has to be addressed by serious journalists?
Posted by JPH on Fri 6 Feb 2009 at 02:44 PM
very late but the idea that a couple of people (niles among others) posited that Bush was treated much more harshly than Obama ignores one thing, reality. Are you f***ing kidding me? the War on Gore left a million dead. Bush was constantly making up facts, misquoting opponents, and demonstrating a profound lack of understanding about - well pretty much anything. He was not destroyed by the media, but good god he should have been.
I don't doubt Obama should have been questioned more, but in comparison to what? Mccain and Palin focused exclusively on banal ridiculous platitudes (the tax and spend democrats, ACORN) and at least Obama could answer questions intelligently.
I do, though, blame liberals to some degree for the fact that seemingly intelligent people can spout such utter nonsense, as leading liberals have consistently avoided talking about the reality of the 2000 election and the role MSM played in it.
People just don't seem to get what unbias is. It is not saying an equally number of "good" and "bad" things about each candidate. it is holding them to the same standard. Both Bush's and McCain (especially McCain's) were breathtakingly incompetent and dishonest. Frankly McCain got off real easy (Obama called Palin a pig..yeah right....McCain was treated fairly.LMFAO)
Posted by bh on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 06:04 PM
JPH,
Yes, I think you are misreading my piece.
My use of the word "now" in my reply post was to show that the issue remains current, not to suggest that it was new. Poor word choice on my part.
CJR has for decades examined these issues and throughout the GWB administration wrote long pieces on these issues, so I take it you were not among its readers.
And for a lightly funded nonprofit magazine it did exceptional work.
I encourage you to get a subscription to CJR. It's $19.95
https://www.kable.com/pub/jrcl/newsubs.asp
If you care deeply about the quality of the press I also encourage you to donate to CJR (as I do) and to give gift subscriptions to journalists along with a letter asking them to read it faithfully (as I also do).
Remember -- CJR's mission to to critique the press and its performance.
No one who read CJR the last eight years lacked an understanding of the issues about access or lack thereof and of government's selling distortions, half truths and lies.
And the issue of how the GWB Administration treated journalists with disdain, used retired generals as propaganda dispensers, hid material from reporters and the public and even used techiques to make it hard to search government websites -- those and many other related issues were extenstively, repeatedly and exhaustively covered in CJR, on the front pages of The New York Times, in the Washington Post, on Frontline and Bill Moyers, in the Los Angeles Times and by the old Knight-Ridder chain, among many other organizations.
I did not set out to write a piece on how the Obama White House press operation was doing -- the facts just made themselves apparent when I called about an unrelated matter and encountered problems with no precedents in my four decades of experience calling the White House.
The Obama White House has since improved a great deal, but still does not match the quality and speed of response of previous administration's, including even that of GWBush.
I had to follow up several times to get a definitive answer to a question and then got a reply only after it was raised at a daily press briefing and then the only answer I got back is that when the Obama administration has an answer it will get back to me. Its been 10 days now since I first asked and still no answer. But at least the press aide gave her name, etc.
I have another question pending, have sent several reminders and am promised an answer soon on another matter.
When Ron Nessen ran this shop for President Ford he did not go home until every question had been answered, often staying past 10 PM.
Finally, it is perfectly reasonable for journalists at any time to hold any politician to his own words. Obama promised transparency. He has taken some clear and important steps in that direction, but in others his administration continues to fall short and I intend to keep chronicling its performance.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Thu 12 Feb 2009 at 12:05 PM
The partisan rancor seeps trough every pore of the American society it seems. A piece relating particular problems with this new Administration becomes a rehashing of portentously stupid fairy tales about Obama's birth place and "OMG this dude ought to fail 'cause I oppose his plan"., while the dire economic and military situation of our country completely and utterly escapes the personal.
Is it any wonder we are in such deep crapola? Not in the least when one reads through the responses here and elsewhere. There is a frenzied attempt to stoop to the lowest intellectual level possible without being declared certifiable.
Sigh!
Posted by Francois on Sun 22 Feb 2009 at 07:08 PM
Niles, you're laughable. "Liberal" leading lights like Dowd openly admitted they personally disliked Gore and took it out in reporting, question-asking, commentary, etc., while giving Shrub a Gentleman's C via the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Put a sock in your sock puppet mouth.
The real fault is much more complex. Once people like Woodward started trading "access" for coverage -- and their editors put up with it -- the slide started. Years ago. Then, reporters started letting Bush staffers in the previous administration go off the record on relatively noncontroversial issues. Add in the Gen X sense of noblesse noblessitude with Obama, and there you are.
Posted by SocraticGadfly on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 12:27 AM
I think that what this reporter experienced is a press office getting it's footing. They will fine tune the operation and get the right people in place. It seems like a number of the commenters here a struggling with the fact that we aren't being "blessed" with another term of Republican incompetence. Obama is not perfect by any means but compared to the administration that just left his first month looks like paradise.
Posted by Blueman1 on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 07:17 AM
Great post and great replies in comments, David.
bh wrote:
the War on Gore left a million dead.
That probably seems cryptic to many. By "War on Gore" (Bob Somerby's phrase) s/he is referring to the press' extraordinary mistreatment of Gore in the 1999-2000 campaign (and not just the right wing press, but also NYT, etc.; see Somerby's archives for extensive documentation) "[A] million dead" is a reference to the Iraq War (which likely wouldn't have happened if Gore had won). The number of Iraqi dead to violence as a result of the Iraq War is hotly disputed. A million is consistent with what was found by ORB and Lancet studies (the former explicitly; the latter if you extrapolate from the study period to the present day), though other studies (notably NEJM/IFHS) have found lower (though still horrific) numbers.
Posted by Crust on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 11:05 AM
Obama selected his White House Press Secretary, correct? Obama is the problem. He wants things as they are. Create confustion so he can do what he wants unhindered and hidden. We may eventually know what he has done, but it will be too late. If anyone cares, PROVE me wrong, don't just spew hatred and accusations.
Posted by in SoCal on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 11:58 AM
One element of the problem may be that people under 30 wouldn't recognize a landline phone if it hit them in the head. I have two teenagers at home and they never answer the phone anymore. Why should they? Everybody important to them calls them on their mobile or--better yet--leaves them a message on facebook. One might argue that professionals in a press office should know better but--the evidence speaks for itself.
Posted by Catherine Baker on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 12:45 PM
It is amazing to me how paranoid and schizophrenic the clearly foaming mad right wingers commenting here are. Bitter and arrogant, they forget every failure of the preceding 8 year criminal conspiracy known as the Bush administration, from the abject prostitution of the Supreme Court writing a one-time-only Bush's Baby Boy ruling to the Chinese spyplane (do they have bibles, mr president?) to utterly ignoring the runup to 9/11, the hiding out phase, lying about Iraq, losing bin Laden, and the subsequent unsolved anthrax attacks (which don't apparently count as terrorism?), followed by a bunch of inbred Republicans watching the economic disaster spawned by their policies.
And now they want no punishment or even investigation of their failures. And they criticize Obama for not dancing to the tune of journalists who are all, of course, Communists and pinkos they wouldn't trust anyway. Could all the Republican obstructionism and tantrum-throwing possibly have anything to do with delaying the establishment of a well-oiled press machine? Would it matter to the mentally ill conservatives who rattle off bizarre conspiracy theory rants to blogs? How many opposing notions can the conservative lunatics keep together at once?
Posted by Dick Hertz on Mon 23 Feb 2009 at 02:29 PM
The same thing occurred with the Clinton White House in many aspects (although their War Room was more adept at getting out 'their message').
This is what happens when the adults are swept away and we get the idealistic young skulls full of mush who think that 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' are actually policy proposals become the New Boss(es).
Obama has never run anything in his life. David Alexrod ran a brilliant campaign. But David Alexrod isn't running the White House. Alexrod is a marketing firm CEO actually so running a business which actually produces something is not in his resume.
It is amusing to those of us who don't find any of this surprising that there are people in the media who ARE surprised by any of this. Transparency not so transparent? Shocking!! Who could have possibly warned us that this was going to be an Adminstration which spent more money on Teleprompter maintenance and event planning than it would on stopping terrorism or ferretting out government waste?
Gosh, who could have tipped us off to this style over substance approach to public service?
If only there was an organized group of people who were dedicated to exposing the gritty underbelly of the people who seek to control, tax and possibly imprison us if elected.
If only....
Posted by bpjam on Wed 11 Mar 2009 at 02:33 PM
Ummm. Does David Cay Johnston actually believe that '1 million' people were killed in Iraq?
Please somebody correct this misimpression or Mr. Johnston will be thought to be in the same group as the Holocaust Deniers, Bush Caused 9/11 types and the UFO sighters.
Posted by bpjam on Wed 11 Mar 2009 at 03:50 PM
The posts by the anonymous poster "bpjam" are bizarre, to say the least.
First, I wrote NOTHING about Iraq in my blog or follow up comments.
Second, I did write that the behavior of the Obama White House press office is NOT like that of previous administrations, including Clinton's, in that no one ever refused to give their name and job title, did not vet questions for whether they liked them and I got them to talk on the record.
Posted by David Cay Johnston on Thu 12 Mar 2009 at 09:54 AM