Yesterday was the first of what will be several firsts for the soon-to-be First Daughters: Malia and Sasha Obama’s First Day at Their New School. The Obama camp, seeking to both satiate and control the inevitable hunger for First Day of School images released three still photos of the girls (and mom and dad) preparing for school yesterday morning. Still, the from-the-back, outside-the-school photos were snapped. Still, reporters did stand-ups in front of the school.
NBC News’s Tom Costello, for example, filed reports yesterday morning from outside the school, reports which were criticized on-air by MSNBC hosts as “inappropriate” and which Costello explained today as follows: NBC News decided it would report from outside Malia Obama’s school but leave before The New Girl actually arrived. Less invasive, presumably (or less invasive by one or two bodies; plenty of news organizations did not similarly disperse before the Obamas arrived). And: was there any real value for the NBC viewer to this outside-the-school-but-not-at-arrival-time footage?
On NBC Nightly News last night, Brian Williams showed the Obama-approved photos of the girls, some footage of an en-route-to-school motorcade (Sasha just visible in the window of one SUV) and reported that it had been the daughters’ first day at “a nearby private school.” Then, Williams ran 1977 footage of John Chancellor, then-anchor of NBC Nightly News, reporting on nine-year-old Amy Carter’s first day at public school. Chancellor said:
We covered that story because we think it is historically important, the daughter of a president in a public school, but as far as we’re concerned unless have a compelling editorial reason, that’s the last you’ll see of Amy Carter at school on this program. We wish her well in her studies and we respect her right to privacy.
Williams then echoed those sentiments:
Well done. And that’s pretty much the way we all feel about the Obama daughters. Those of us who are parents can commiserate, switching schools in the middle of the year is tough enough, so we’ll cover their dad, the president-elect and their mom when she makes news and in the meantime, we will try to let Sasha and Malia do their job, making new friends at their new school.
So we ask you, including and beyond yesterday’s “first”: When and how should news organizations cover the First Children? When it comes to Malia and Sasha Obama, what’s newsworthy? What, if anything, is fair game for coverage? These questions may not be new for news organizations, but, in 2009, are the answers any different?
Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.
For comparison, and to point out that inconsistencies in What We Will And Won't Report extended beyond NBC, here's how other TV news orgs handled the First Day of School story yesterday.
On CBS Evening News, Katie Couric, unlike Williams at NBC, made no pronouncements about how she intends to cover the First Daughters going forward but, like Williams, Couric filed a short First Day of School report at the end of the newscast and, like Williams, she did not name the school. (Of course, on CBS Early Show that morning, there was a close-up of the “Sidwell Friends Lower School” sign and live shots from outside the school during the assorted First Day of School segments).
ABC News did no such name-witholding, on their morning news show or nightly newscast, during which Charlie Gibson made the story personal:
GIBSON: Today was their first day in a new school. Sidwell Friends, a private Quaker school....Don't we all remember our first days in a new school? I am a Sidwell graduate, started in seventh grade, went through high school. My first day, many years ago, but you remember every detail of something like that. Would anybody talk to me at lunch? The teacher gave us a mountain of homework, I couldn't finish it all. I remember the first person who did talk to me, and the girl across the aisle in home room didn't talk to me. Hopefully the president's daughters will have an easier transition.
On CNN and Fox News, viewers yesterday learned both the name of the girls' new school and the annual cost of tuition (some $29,000 per student).
#1 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Tue 6 Jan 2009 at 03:28 PM
Maybe we should treat them liek the press treated the Bush twins .... no wait ..... couldnt do that could we?
#2 Posted by Jake Topher, CJR on Tue 6 Jan 2009 at 08:10 PM
@Jake: The Bush twins were 19 when their father took office, and they never lived in the White House. Shouldn't there legitimately be a difference between treatment of teenagers who are in college and press treatment of 7 and 10 year olds?
#3 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 6 Jan 2009 at 08:26 PM
One side of this discussion seems to be that the presidential family -- the Obamas no less than others before them -- is part and parcel of the president's (or president-elect's) image. Obama did in fact use his family to make his own person more appealing to the American public. That's not to fault him, necessarily, because it's a part of the process, but some would argue that ushering the little ones in for a smiling photo shoot on the one hand and on the other hand expecting the press to leave them alone is trying to have cake and eat it too.
But I'd argue that whatever choices Obama has made for his family with respect to the media, the press's decisions in covering the first-children-to-be should be made using a different metric -- one that does better by the children themselves, regardless of how media-savvy their father is.
#4 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Tue 6 Jan 2009 at 08:49 PM
Seems to me that the Chelsea Clinton Rule--essentially, leave White House kids alone--still holds...yes, even in 2009, even in an age when the Web and the new culture it's engendering are blurring the lines between public and private and often muddling the two. Sure, we may be interested to know how the Obama girls are adjusting to their new lives, at school and elsewhere--I certainly am. But we don't need to know. We don't have a right to that knowledge in the way that we do have a right to know how their father, for example, is adjusting to his new role. So the press has no obligation to provide it to us. And, really, it has no business trying to. There's a reason that "the welfare of the child" is a trump card, not just in legal terms, but also in terms of the culture at large: Kids deserve more consideration, more protection, than adults do. And kids in Malia and Sasha's position--since that position, for all its perks (living in the White House! personal chef! puppy!), will inevitably provide challenges, as well--deserve even more of each. A good, if simple, rule of thumb for all this (and one I also thought applied to Clinton the Younger): the less individuals have sought the spotlight, the more privacy they're fairly entitled to. The Obama girls haven't chosen a public life; they've had it chosen for them. So they deserve, I think, the maximum level of privacy we can give them.
In other words: Back away from Sidwell, Tom Costello. Back away.
Jane, you make a great point: Monday's family-approved photos, in particular, smack of cake-having-and-eating for the Obamas. But that doesn't bother me too much. Publishing/airing family-approved coverage of the girls, in this case, seems more a concession to courtesy than to politics. Journalists--political journalists, in particular--are routinely depicted as rabid news-hunters who care more about their stories than the people who populate them. Occasionally, they deserve that treatment. While easing up on Malia and Sasha's coverage is the right thing to do, it would also offer the added benefit--especially if accompanied by an NBC-style explanation as to why they're easing up--of reminding a disillusioned public that journalists aren't just story-stalkers. They're also human beings. And, in that capacity, they should be willing to sacrifice a story for something that, in this context, is more important: showing some compassion for two little girls in a tough situation. Journalists' silence, in that case, would be telling.
#5 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 10:22 AM
I think what Williams had to say at the evening news--or rather, what Chancellor had to say in 1977, and what Williams replayed--will suit the day just fine. Absent a "compelling editorial reason," lay off.
The fact of the matter is that Sasha (7) and Malia (10) are unlikely to do much of anything that deserves news coverage over the next four (or eight) years. There are some conceivable picayune things--illness or accident--that I'd expect to see reported. The darker potential stories--malice towards them, petty criminality of teenage years, etc.--strike me as unlikely, but if they do happen, unquestionably meeting the "compelling" standard.
But did their first day of school deserve attention? A bit, sure. The Obamas, unlike the Carters, chose to send their daughters to one of the nation's most expensive private schools at a time when the D.C. public school system is being led by a new, hopeful, chancellor whose reform attempts are the subject of much debate. There's good arguments in favor and against their decision. And the fact that it is, after all, their family's decision doesn't mean that it didn't have public relevance.
Of course, most of Monday's coverage didn't plumb the thorny private/public/charter debate. It was, put crudely, voyeuristic. But I'd argue, to an extent, it was paparazzi with a point. This is part of the ritual of the family settling into their new D.C. digs. When they get a new White House Chef, or redecorate the family quarters, we'll be sure to hear about it too.
The Obama daughters won't be able to live a "normal" childhood--that's the price of being the President's children. But if the press, as Chancellor suggested, holds itself to reporting the truly newsworthy, they'll serve the girls and the rest of us best.
#6 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 11:21 AM
Journalism ethics be damned, but I want to see more of those girls! They’re cute. They’re charming. And they were dangled in front of my nose during the election. “Look at how awesome my kids are,” Obama said to me. “Vote for me, and I’ll give you more cute.” (Okay, he didn't actually say that, but that was the message I got.) Well, now we elected him and, all of the sudden, I’m supposed to think of the children’s benefit. It doesn’t seem fair.
Here’s the thing about public service. It’s an incursion on one’s privacy, and if Obama saw fit to sacrifice his daughters’ privacy to the election gods (those being the voters, yeah?), then I want to reap the spoils.
Which isn’t to say that news outlets should dedicate resources to creepily stalking the girls in order to find out what the health-conscious Obamas pack into their lunch boxes, but I do want to know the answer to that question at some point.
Why? Because I found the Obama family narrative compelling during the campaign, and I'd feel gypped if I didn't get to read the next chapter. Plus, it's a good story with lessons about the work-home balance playing out at America's most famous address. Give me more!
Bottom line, this is a matter of time, place, and execution. Should Chuck Todd stop doing what he’s doing and go on the First Kids beat full time? No, of course not. But I certainly hope that journalists don’t ignore opportunities to find out how the girls are doing merely in the name of Welfare of the Children.
#7 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 12:43 PM
Hurray. A swift answer to my lunch question.
#8 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Wed 7 Jan 2009 at 12:47 PM
In light of the fact that our economy is stalling, bombs are being dropped in the Middle East, and far more relevant things are going on in the world; I could do without the play by play of a first and third graders first day at school. Was it really that slow a news day? How relavent is the school's lunchtime menu to me?
#9 Posted by GArietta Falls, CJR on Fri 9 Jan 2009 at 12:37 PM
Being famous is a double edged sword and in the case of royal and presidential offspring they rather have the obligation of being in the public spotlight. The tax-payers' or the country takes care of their every need in luxury. Basically they get the best of everything a country is able to offer. Ie: the finest schools', a mansion or castle to live in, servants' to attend to their every need and travel. Sadly such children must pay with their privacy. In a sense they owe it to their country. The tabloids and media want to know everything about them. These same tabloids' and Media pay taxes so that these children may live in luxury. Sometimes it is tragic as in the case of poor Prince Harry. Ever since the time he wore the Nazi costume to a party he has been dubbed the racsist prince by the media and tabloids'. Recently he was kidding around with his Army buddies in a way the media watching him has labeled as racsist yet again. I serve in an Army unit too and that kind of crude kidding around occurs all the time and no one really complains or makes issue of it. Harry should have the same rights and yet like all children of national leaders he is under extreme scrutiny. That is now Malia and Sasha's future like it or not.
#10 Posted by Cathy Bevona, CJR on Mon 12 Jan 2009 at 03:19 PM
While I take Cathy's points that 1) these kids' lives aren't going to be normal by a long shot and 2) they will experience breaches of their privacy simply because of who their father is, I don't agree with the notion that they must (or are somehow obliged to) pay for the privileges that accompany their father's post with their privacy. There's certainly a give and take between public servants and their constituents, but Sasha and Malia aren't a part of that covenant.
#11 Posted by Jane Kim, CJR on Mon 12 Jan 2009 at 05:13 PM
Jane, my point is that the minute the Obama's put their kids out on the stage infront of everybody they became Stage Parents' for lack of a better word. Over 20 years ago when the Olsen's put their beautiful blond baby twin daughters' on TV and in movies they did basically the exact same thing. The Obama girls' are now celebrities due to what their parents did while campaigning. 16 years ago the Clinton's did not do that kind of thing to Chelsea and she has not really been hounded by the Paparrazzi. Chelsea was kept apart from her parent's ambitions while she was a child and lead a private life. She wasn't flaunted like the Obama girls' have been. Now voters' and the American public see it as a right to hear about America's celebrity first kids'. Unlike movie star kids' the American tax-payer is going to foot the bill for their extravagant lifestyle including fancy prep-school, 24 hour security, travel and other grand perks' of their lifestyle. It is not so costly to care for presidents' without kids' or older kids'. Doing the math I came to about $320,000 a year for the care of two presidential kids'. They owe the Tax-payer and they should learn that the finer things' in life have a price even at their young age.
#12 Posted by Cathy Bevona, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 03:33 PM
The Bush twins were 19 when their father took office, and they never lived in the White House. Shouldn't there legitimately be a difference between treatment of teenagers who are in college and press treatment of 7 and 10 year olds?
Fair enough Jane .. but how do you explain the treatment of Plain's children, especially Trig?
That was one of the most despicable acts of the campaign season by the media.
#13 Posted by Jake Topher, CJR on Tue 20 Jan 2009 at 01:53 PM
you guys need to calm down with the private school thing, just because it is private, doesn't mean it is one of the nation's Top or Expenseve school. Lots of kids go to private for the advantage to get in to great schools. both malia's and sasha's parents are Harvard alums, they wan't their kids to be as intellectual as them. The pricee for the private school is typical private school price. Another thing is the washinton d.c school district. it's very unsafe and it's ot as good as it used to be. Even my parents would send me to private scool if that's the situation.
#14 Posted by rachel dan, CJR on Thu 22 Jan 2009 at 12:36 AM
Because President Obama is always saying he is “the common man” he should keep that theme going in every aspect. For example, he also says he is for the underdog, why doesn't he rescue a dog (to live with him and his family in the White House) rather than do what all the other “rich people” in the White House do and buy and over priced pure breed dog. If he would rescue a dog he would send a much needed message that breeding is adding to the over population of dogs in the US. Visit a dog pound and see all the pure bread dogs in there that are to be euthanized. If a 5 year ban were passed to stop breeding of any kind of dog that would give us who rescue dogs a chance to catch up with those who breed dogs for money. I have a wonderful American Eskimo mix that I rescued from Fort Campbell Animal Shelter 2 days before he was to be euthanized. I would love to donate him to the President and his family.
#15 Posted by Carla Cowart, CJR on Mon 16 Feb 2009 at 08:48 AM
i think most of you sound like hypocrates. I mean look at the way the stars children are treated. There's no remorse for paying millions of dollars for their pics. Obama is a celebrity now and that means his kids are fair game. Perhaps not with "legitament" news sources like CNN or ABC or NBC but certainly for ET, Extra, People Mag, and things like that.
#16 Posted by samwright23, CJR on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 01:29 PM