Rotate the White House Press Conference Seats
By Al Giordano
.gif)
We were discussing the White House press corps, last week, and how "those veteran reporters for the biggest news organizations on earth so often ask questions that are useless because they will always be answered in predictable ways."
One of the only independent media correspondents in that pool - and very recently so - is Sean Quinn of 538. He shines some long overdue sunlight on how those big media organizations get all the seats in the front rows during White House press conferences, thus pretty much ensuring that their questions dominate - and, as a result, severely limit (that's my public position, not necessarily his) - the national media discourse regarding presidential news and policy:
How are these seats assigned? The White House Correspondents Association determines who sits, not the White House Press Office...
It's worth pointing out that the WHCA doesn't decide who can be in the briefing room. Losing a seat is not the same as losing access.
Still, one reason who sits where matters is that Gibbs only occasionally farms out questions as deep as the fourth row, rarely beyond that, and only occasionally goes to the standing wings near the front (David Corn is an effective questioner from his usual spot standing next to the WSJ, but few others catch Gibbs' eye). Nearly everyone in the first two rows get one question and a follow-up every day, which is at least the first 20 questions in what are typically 45-minute briefings. If you want an on-camera question and thus the best chance to put Gibbs on the spot with an answer that might become hard news, seating location matters. For his part, Gibbs has pledged to distribute questions better, but it will not ever change that those near the front have a huge edge on the field.
You can see in the seating chart, above, that the front row includes the three major airwaves networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) plus CNN, the two main wire services, and Helen Thomas.
The second row has three big dailies (New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal), Fox News, Bloomberg, and then CBS and AP, although in the front row, have their radio divisions sitting right behind them.
And that's why, when the Wh ite House press briefings are broadcast live on TV, you see and hear from the same reporters asking the routine and mostly banal attempts at "gotcha" questions that, they ought to know in advance, get only predictable answers, and seldom make news.
Now, I can understand the tribute and decency of always giving 88-year-old Helen Thomas a front row seat (and she actually has a better track record than the relative pipsqueaks around her in getting substantive answers out of those holding the press conferences), but not the undemocratic and anti-free press concept of always giving the biggest media corporations the closest access that results in their questions elbowing most others out of the way.
If the White House Correspondents Association is really a democratic organization, then how does that happen? I can't say I know for sure, but after these decades of working in the news media, and knowing my colleagues well as a class, I'll venture this explanation:
The back benchers - the ones that work for smaller media companies - as individuals mostly hope to get picked up on waivers by the big ones. Most already have their resumes in to the national TV and news agencies, and, among the scribes, to the Times, the Post and the Journal. Rather than organize among themselves to better their situations and access, they're so miserable in their current gigs that they hope to rise to the pay scale and spectacular terrain of working for those giant news agencies. (They seem oblivious to the evidence that the front-benchers, as individuals, are as unhappy in their caste because the bigger the company the less independence the journalist working for it has.) And therefore the members of the larger bloc of mid-sized media company correspondents don't rock the boat in ways that would upset the hirers from the big TV, cable, wire and newspaper companies that might someday pick them to fill the front rows.
Yes, my profession is that shallow and petty.
Here are the current house eunuchs, er, officers of the White House Correspondents Association:
President: Jennifer Loven, Associated Press
Vice President: Edwin Chen, Bloomberg News
Secretary: Peter Maer CBS News
Treasurer: Mike Allen, The Politico
Board members:
Doug Mills, The New York Times
Ed Henry, CNN
Richard Wolffe, Newsweek
David Jackson, USA Today
Steve Scully, C-SPAN
Well, ain't that sweet: A majority - five of the nine directors - come from media companies that have guaranteed seats in the first two rows. And the others - laboring at places like Politico, USA Today and Newsweek - probably hope to get "promoted" to those bigger companies in the course of their careers.
The obviously better solution would be to assign seats on a rotating basis, assuring that all media, big and small, corporate and independent, get regular shots at being able to ask questions from the front rows. The public would certainly get a wider range of issues and matters attended to that way.
Just think: If a government agency had assigned the seats in this big-money-comes-first order, and on a permanent basis, there would be a legitimate hue and cry of favoritism.
But when the gatekeepers are allowed to regulate our selves, the situation turns out just as bloated and ill serving of the Republic and its people as when that happens with banks and other industries.
Of course, the media is an industry, just like any other, and one that makes a lie out of the entire concept of a "free press" because it follows the same golden rule: that them that has the gold, makes the rules.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about it at this precise moment in history. But by giving more attention and scrutiny to how it works, 538, by removing the curtain on a previously shrouded set of facts important to democracy, has gotten a lot of us thinking about it.
If we want government to be more transparent and democratic, part and parcel of that is for the media industry that covers government to do the same.
Rotate the White House press corps seats, or hasten the already fast process by which the commercial media is losing all credibility and, one newspaper and agency at a time, going out of business.
As the daily newspaper shrinks and disappears as a institution in most cities and towns (and as correspondingly the mid-sized newspaper chains whither), and as media corporations continue to consolidate and merge to stave off extinction, the White House press corps seating chart is going to inevitably change. And kudos to this White House press secretary for letting some more independent new media like 538 and The Huffington Post in the door.
I'm guessing that when, in this game of musical chairs, the tune stops, the newer online media are going to outlast many of the stuffy or fast-buck cable institutions that, in part by preserving their own privilege and unfair advantage, have brought upon them the ill will of the public that increasingly "seeks alternate routes" from which to get our information and news.
Email this page
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Comments
Can President Obama and/or Press Secretary Gibbs Moderate?
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 1:37 pm by Josephine (not verified)I am unaware of the appropriate protocol, however cannot President Obama and/or Press Secretary Gibbs simply call upon whomever they wish to when the question and answer period or pressers are officially occuring.
If the White House simply starts calling upon the small and/or independent media sources, perhaps this will enhance the quality of questions and/or statements made to President Obama and Press Secretary Gibbs. Therefore the White House can assist in setting the tone of what is discussed as the lead story for the day versus the MSM doing so all of the time.
Interesting times indeed...
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 1:43 pm by bonkers (not verified)for the "News" business.
Having worked for BigMedia outlets myself, I'd agree with the idea that the mid-sized outlets don't want to the rock the boat for potential career advancement, and additionally, the owners of the gatekeeper BigMedia outlets are also very concerned with message control, so they make sure they're hand-picked employees are in front asking the inane questions.
Media consolidation (basically the Telecommunications Act that Bill Clinton championed) has been one of the most destructive things to happen to the great American experiment. This allows BigMoney to keep the electorate voting in politicians that work against the public's best interests, while those voters don't even realize it. Without such tightly controlled "reporting," I don't think people like Bush and most Repubs would ever be elected in the first place.
Certainly good developments to have New Media outlets at the White House, but we'll see how far the Obama Admin goes with this. Also, as Al often talks about, we'll see how much the New Media can learn and improve as it grows up. If you're going to tear down something, you have to be ready with a suitable alternative. If the Children's Table mentality ends up dominating the New Media landscape, I'm afraid that won't present an attractive alternative to bring in enough new audience members, and grow our ranks to influence the process in a truly meaningful way. The latest Tom Tomorrow cartoon touches on this subject, and it might be rather humorous for many readers here:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2009/03/the_future.html
@ Josephine
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 1:54 pm by Al GiordanoJosephine - Certainly - as the President did at his last press conference when he called on Sam Stein of the Huffington Post (much to the chagrin of some commercial media commentators) - the holder of a press conference does moderate to some extent.
But other considerations come into play. I say this as someone who has hosted and moderated many a press conference over the years. One's first goal is to promote whatever agendas one is promoting. The matter of who gets to ask questions is almost secondary to that one. Second, the reporters in the front rows are more visible. You see their hands go up, you are close enough to see the frustration on their faces when they don't get called upon, and some are quite skilled at just plain interrupting and blurting out their question so that, at that point, if you ignore them it seems to the larger public that you are "dodging" the question. And because they feel so entitled with their permanent front row seats, they get even more morally indignant when you reach to the bleacher seats instead of to them for the next question.
Logistically, it is just very hard to bypass those in the first rows. Rotating who is in those rows would be the shortest rout to solving that problem, IMHO.
Another alternative?
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 3:01 pm by AnnC (not verified)I'm assuming that, whatever else is going on, all the organizations/correspondents are known before a press conference starts. And that each one would have at least one question, if called upon (that might be overconfidence on my part).
Why not generate a random list to set the first 15 or so questioners - announced in advance - and scrupulously stick to that list? You could even weight it so that correspondents who've asked a question in the last two or three days are weighted lower in the randomizing option. Once the random list is done, the front rows can play all the games they want.
Whether it's politically reasonable or feasible I leave to other people, but it's mathematically a whole lot more reasonable, and the WhiteHouse is trying to push science again, so....
Any chance the liberal blogs could form
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 4:01 pm by Angie (not verified)a blog equivalent of the AP and gain access to these press conferences?
Have you abandoned cross-posting to DailyKos?
Really, doesn't the dominance of the same hacks
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 5:16 pm by Allan Braueronly serve to perpetuate the CW they all spout? If the only questions that get asked are endless replays and hair-splitting distinctions and word parsing about the three or so topics that the MSM have already decided are the hot stories to cover, then guess what? The only news that comes out of press conferences is the kerfluffle that Gibbs chose a new and slightly different adjective to characterize something and does this signal a shift in the Obama administration's position on zzzzzzzz.....
At the very least, Gibbs should go in sometime and declare Standee Day. "Today, I'm only going to take questions from reporters standing in the back of the room. You, bald guy from that website, what's your question?"
Shallow and petty is right
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 6:36 pm by Erin RosaThat's a great way to describe the fear and immaturity endemic in mainstream media circles these days. A little over a year ago in Colorado, a group of said people took it upon themselves to organize a state capitol credentials committee in order to filter what credentialed reporters/bloggers would have access to the House and Senate floors, along with a press table in the chambers. Such access is very valuable for journalists because it gives them the opportunity to interact with legislators face-to-face. A very rare practice at state capitol buildings.
This small group of people decided that they, “full-time correspondents of bona fide news organizations,” would vote on whether to credential other publications for the floor, and they finagled support from House and Senate leadership to enforce their decisions. Award-winning on-line newspapers were locked out. So were bloggers. A veteran capitol news reporter was escorted off the House floor by the sargent at arms because of not having the “right” credential.
But today, at least half of the capitol credentials committee doesn't even exist anymore due to newspaper closings and layoffs. And the committee is toothless now. The more powerful media outlets may not want to acknowledge it, but the future is coming whether they like it or not.
it still makes me smile, though
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 7:57 pm by Sadie (not verified)to read "NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, Helen Thomas, Mc Clatchey, Reuters,Tribune, Christian Science Monitor."
Upon her earthly departure that blessed woman's chair is going to be bronzed.
Helen Thomas
Submitted March 9, 2009 - 11:37 pm by Nancy ChesterHelen lost her front row seat in early 2007. Here's an interesting Politco article that covers some of the maneuvers by the committee.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2847.html
Helen Thomas Moving Back After 46 Years Down Front
By: Mike Allen
February 21, 2007
“I didn’t think I had a monopoly on that seat,” Thomas, 86, said in a telephone interview. “Since my peers have decided that I don’t belong there, I’ll bow to their – I’ll drink the – What did Socrates drink?”
Hemlock?
“I’ll drink it,” she said. “You have to submit to the will of the people, and apparently this is the will of my peers. It’s OK with me. I’ve had a good run in the front seat.”
Right on target Al
Submitted March 10, 2009 - 9:57 am by Jeff LarsonThese WHCA guys need to be ridiculed. Daily. They also need to have the light shined on them just as you and Sean are doing. It needs to be done on a regular basis and this needs to be one of the top progressive causes.
For those who missed it or just want to enjoy it again, Stephen Colbert gets in their face the way no one has:
But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!
See the video here.
The transcript is here.
The video doesn't contain the skit he did with Helen Thomas but the transcript includes it.
I believe the New York Times decided to stop attending this dinner shortly after this Colbert speech.
Post new comment