On March 4, President Obama sat behind his stout oak desk, flanked by beaming lawmakers, and, wielding a pen for the cameras, signed the Travel Promotion Act into law. Just a routine White House moment, right?
Maybe not. The images from which I—and others in the press—recreated that scene were captured by government employees. The White House released a photo to the world and produced a slick video that would have looked right at home on the evening news. No journalist was present for the bill signing because none were invited.
The bill, which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, had the anodyne goal of luring foreign tourist dollars to these shores. Not so controversial. But the ceremony was just one recent example of an unsettling trend of limiting press access to major events at the White House, from the Dalai Lama’s visit to the odd do-over of Obama’s flubbed attempt to take the oath of office.
Despite the administration’s trumpeting of its record on transparency—not to mention its use of the issue as a campaign cudgel—on the whole reporters have found this White House to be no different than the Bush administration (or any other recent administration) when it comes to providing information or being accessible to the press. “By and large, they’re just like all of their predecessors,” says CBS Radio correspondent Mark Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford. “They give us information that serves their interests more than our interests.”
Message control is central to every administration, and it would have been naïve to expect much else. But the Obama White House has actually regressed in some troubling ways. For instance, Obama has been far less available for questioning by journalists than even President Bush, who was openly contemptuous of the press. And accommodations on off-the-record background briefings and White House photo releases—both forged in the wake of significant press failures in the run-up to the Iraq war—have eroded since Obama took office.
Photo releases, where shots taken by the official White House photographer are offered to news outlets, are nothing new. But photojournalists have long been irked when such photos are the only images of an event that could have easily been made public. In 2005, after an increase in presidential events from which they were excluded, the White House News Photographers Association allied with other press organizations and successfully pressed the Bush White House to routinely allow photographers back in. “We won the access under the Bush administration, and it has been taken away under the Obama administration,” says Ron Sachs, who chairs the association’s advocacy committee. He pointed to a series of recent incidents, including the decision to bar photographers from Obama’s February 18 meeting with the Dalai Lama in favor of releasing a single, no-smiles still taken by Pete Souza, the official White House photographer.
It wouldn’t take much to let the photographic pool into the room for half a minute, thereby producing dozens of shots for editors to choose from. Instead, the only record of official White House business is often a single frame, curated by the president’s staff in accordance with the administration’s message of the day.
Message control is enhanced by eliminating instances when the president is forced to answer inconvenient questions—and possibly provide inconvenient answers. Remember the very real national distraction that ensued after Obama suggested at a July 2009 press conference that the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police had “stupidly” arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home? That was Obama’s last formal press conference after a remarkable opening string. In February, shortly after The Washington Post and The New York Times published pieces pointing out the drought, Obama made a surprise half-hour visit to the briefing room. Besides that, he went without a White House press conference until late May—309 days.

But the "free and unfettered" fourth estate, with respect to the White House Press Corps, has been proving their irrelevance for years. These self-obsessed prima donnas and drama queens never fail to make any presser all about themselves, sashaying in front of the camera, openly thinking up as many gotcha, vapid, or irrelevant questions as they possibly can get away with. It isn't hard to see why the President has opted for going directly to his audience more often. Just tell me when the last time the WHPC boyz and gurlz broke anything important. Go ahead.
I really fail to sympathize with the grousing about the photo sprays. I mean, how many journos does it take to watch the President go from the White House to the helicopter and wave? But there are literally hundreds of journos hanging around the White House *all day long* for that. And how many photographers does it take to witness the signing of a minor bill? It used to be called "featherbedding."
I fail to see why the press thinks they MUST be present at every meeting, every event, every signing. Where the hell were they while Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld were planning their torture regime? I'll tell you: they were lolling around, snarking and gossiping and cowering, down in the press briefing room. And NOW all of a sudden they want to demand access?
Now if the more responsible ones want to put pressure on their drama queen colleagues to act like professional journalists instead of 12-year-old teenyboppers, I'd be all for that.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 03:15 PM
For once, I agree with James' general point.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 08:28 PM
I'm not challenging your overall analysis, Clint, because the press clearly has a beef with Obama, but can you explain why the number of interviews with journalists that Obama has done, and the number of off-the-record lunches and dinners with journalists, are completely missing from this analysis? (As in not even mentioned.)
One-on-one interviews are unscripted opportunities to question the president, aren't they? If you had disclosed the numbers, I believe they would have conflicted with the story line, "even worse than Bush," so what gives? The public doesn't get the benefit so I am not necessarily thrilled about them, but the lunches and dinners are also unscripted opportunities to question the president. So I don't understand why you would leave them out. Can you advise?
#3 Posted by Jay Rosen, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 08:36 AM
Just one typo - The time between February 2010 and May 2010 cannot be 309 days. I assume you meant 39 days.
#4 Posted by Charles, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 09:42 AM
@Jay: You are right that Obama deserves credit for doing lots more one on one interviews than his predecessor. While the piece focuses on ways that this White House has been falling short, I can assure you that I didn't leave that fact, or the existence of Obama's off the record sessions, out out of a desire to make things look worse.
@Charles: "309" is the number of days between the July '09 conference and the May '10 conference.
#5 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 12:08 PM
Clint: I don't get it. If your piece is about opportunities to question the president in an unscripted way then you are leaving out the major source of those opportunities in this White House. Seems your piece is actually about opportunities for journalists to question the president as a group, and you should make that clear.
#6 Posted by Jay Rosen, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 04:46 PM
Of course, Jay, the whole comparison is retarded when you go over the Bush record of press manipulation, directly fashioning positive coverage through paid representatives - be they paid in money or paid in access - and how the Bush Administration would have hissy fits if someone dared ask the president a hard question on the rare times he gave them a chance.
Bush had to go to Ireland for a grilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxsJvO-l5O4
And that interview had consequences:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article576295.ece
So to me, this headline is a silly hook for Clint to draw in panicked readers from the Drudge Report or where ever, people who have no knowledge of what the press environment was like under Bush and don't recall how boot licking bad the press acted in order to avoid petty retaliation in the form of ranging from leaking information about your wife to getting you fired from your job.
Yeah, Obama is so worse than Bush. Why I remember an interview Obama gave to Fox News where.....
Oh wait, that kind of kills your whole hook there Clint. Sorry.
Do your job without the false comparisons. Yes it's good to examine Obama's approach to the press, but to claim his present conduct comparable in anyway to the Bush administration is a disservice to your readers. The Bush Administration's press record was long, rancid, and was truly destructive to democracy. (Remember the Tom Ridge terror alerts for political purposes? No, I guess it was that long a time ago) Your readers need an accurate record, not one that's spiked up for page views and controversy.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 2 Jul 2010 at 08:27 PM
This is not the Law an Order that president Obama should come to media every week or like that. if, it is important message to the country than . he must come to media or press. if he is not doing such kind of activity then this is the right to media & public raise the question. why mr. Obama is not doing so. bcoz he is the president of democratic country not a king of ancient time........
#8 Posted by Rajiv Raj, CJR on Sat 10 Jul 2010 at 03:33 AM
I 've never been given a firm, coherent explanation of why government sources at the WDC level refuse to be identified honestly --- other than the silly excuses routinely cited-- even though it's rarely if ever a real secret.
Anyone?
#9 Posted by Arnold Markowitz, CJR on Wed 21 Jul 2010 at 10:43 PM