Megan’s already made the most important points about that odd “White House Memo” in today’s New York Times, but just to add one more: The idea that President Barack Obama may be holding too many press conferences and conducting too many interviews is especially strange because his predecessor faced exactly the opposite criticism. From a 2003 Times story by Richard W. Stevenson:
Mr. Bush almost never holds formal news conferences. Instead, he frequently takes a few questions from reporters, especially after meetings with foreign leaders. He has a strict rule: he calls on two American reporters and his counterpart calls on two reporters from the other country’s press corps…
…Mr. Bush’s two-question rule variously annoys and infuriates White House reporters, who have started to rebel. On Wednesday, when Mr. Bush and [South African President Thabo] Mbeki held their “media availability” on the lush lawn of the presidential complex in Pretoria, many of the reporters on the trip chose not to attend, figuring they would not get a chance to ask a question anyway.
Is there some happy medium out there that will leave everyone satisfied?
Great point, Greg--yeah, the Times piece is especially ironic in light of that passage. Bush took the whole no-press-conferences thing to a laughable extreme (and, I guess, smartly so, from his perspective: if speaking isn't, um, your strong suit, why would you voluntarily place yourself in a situation that might find you, once again, wondering aloud whether 'our children is learning'?).
And Bush was carrying on a long tradition. I'm remembering a fantastic passage--I think from The Boys on the Bus, though there's a chance it was in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail--in which Crouse/Thompson described a feisty press corps staging a coverage boycott to force the similarly reticent President Nixon into holding a press conference. And that was during the election of '72.
#1 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 01:01 PM