…is what “the day of a typical White House correspondent consists [of], literally,” writes Ana Marie Cox in a Washington Post piece arguing “Why We Should Get Rid of White House Correspondents,” Cox’s contribution to a Post “Spring Cleaning Special,” “Ten Things To Toss Out.” Other toss-worthy things, according to assorted Post Outlook writers: television (you have Hulu and you don’t need The Hallmark Channel), the term ‘Muslim World’” (it’s meaningless), and the prom (it’s “graduation’s vapid sibling”).
UPDATE: Not helping The Case For The White House Press Corps: yesterday’s “WHITE HOUSE NOTEBOOK” from the AP, which brings us the news that, per the article’s subhed, “Obama gets chatty with press.” Also? One of Obama’s aides left his wallet on the president’s podium in Trinidad.
When Watergate broke, it was due to two local reporters in Washington who used shoe leather to investigate, not the White House press Corps.
Some of us on the Right side of the aisle believe that now that there is a Democrat in the White House, reporters (even those in the White House Pool) will not investigate any signs of corruption by a Democratic President or a Democratic Congress.
Woodward and Bernstein were ahead of the prosocuters and Congressional committees; When Spago and Spitzer were indicted, then the press started to investigate (I'm looking at you Anderson Cooper and NYT).
If I'm wrong, please CJR, write an article and prove it to me.
#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 20 Apr 2009 at 11:54 AM