Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

The Press Not Getting It--and a Proposal for the White House

Austin Bay, an Iraq war vet and writer, and Jay Rosen, a journalism professor, have an interesting dialogue about the Bush White House's treatment of the press, and the press treatment of the war. The entire exchange is worth reading so I suggest you click the link and do so before digesting my comments.

Now: What I see here is Bay saying what the White House could do to repair its relations with the press, and what the press could do to repair its relations with half the country as well as the White House... and Rosen wanting to talk about why the current occupants of the White House are so bad.

It makes me shake my head and conclude that working journalists will not understand certain things until they are made to understand them. Half the country now views the working press with a range of negative emotions running from fundamental mistrust and contempt to outright hostility--and guys like Rosen appear to think the main problem is either with the people, or with politicians he just doesn't happen to like. Either way, it must just be some big misunderstanding, right?

When reading this, it finally occurred to me what is likely to happen in the future--if not this administration, then in a future administration. It may be a Democratic or it may be a Republican administration, but it won't matter. Things can't go on the way they are, and if they don't fundamentally change, I see some President finally putting his foot down and saying, "Enough. Fire that pack of jackals."

I don't mean put their publications out of business. I simply mean, the White House could begin to issue 90% of all statements either in printed form, straight to the internet, or through recorded form for delivery straight to the internet, television, or radio.

Press can be invited in perhaps once or twice a month, in groups of no more than a half-dozen or so, chosen by the White House--perhaps one for the television networks, one for foreign correspondents, one for the AP and Reuters... and that's it.

The administration (and once again, I'm not saying *this* administration necessarily, it could be *any* administration*) might even go out of its way to invite in only friendly reporters. But more likely they'd know that to be bad strategy, so they'd stick to names that are respected and are known to be even-tempered and, well, not morons or snotty punks, nor people who ask endlessly repetitive, parsing-every-word question-spitters.

Seriously: why should we continue anymore with that pack of correspondents who analyze every fart and sneeze of White House staff and parse sentences six ways from Sunday and ask sometimes just utterly idiotic questions? What purpose do they serve? It made sense when there were only three TV networks, and tons of local newspapers and radio shows. But today, we're global: there's no need for that many reporters--there just isn't one. We also don't need these "journalists"--most of them utterly clueless boobs--to explain and interpret and "contextualize" for us. The White House can release straight to the internet the materials it now sends out through the press briefings, with a lot less wasted time and verbage.

People may think I'm kidding or just being provocative, but I'm serious. The press has shown itself to be utterly contemptuous of the people, of the military, and of politicians it doesn't like. Screw it: fire 'em. They no longer serve a worthwhile role anyway. You don't need a reporter to tell you what the President said--you can read or listen to what the President said. You also don't need some editor to give you "context"--you're more than bright enough to pick that up for yourself.

And they most certainly are not the "voice of the people" or public servants or anything else of the sort. They're people who have a job that could be done perfectly adequately by anyone with the ability to pay attention, to ask probing questions, and the ability to write or speak in simple declarative sentences.

So why do we need that pack of jackals? For what, for whom, except for their own self-importance?

If this President doesn't do something like this, some other will in the future. Because it's clear that most of the working press simpy refuse to consider that there is anything fundamentally wrong with how their profession operates.

Simple solution: fire 'em.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Flash!
  2. In Defense of Jay Rosen
  3. Firing the White House Press Corps
  4. The Press Not Getting It--and a Proposal for the White House
Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
Trudy W. Schuett (mail) (www):
I for one would be thrilled to see an entire press briefing online. What we have now is a double filter -- first the White House Press Secretary makes a statement, and then, it's interpreted by somebody from CNN or Fox or whatever, and interested citizens never really get the original story.

If the press guy from the White House makes a number of statements on a variety of items, all we hear about is what the "press corps" deems important.

Somebody once suggested a daily or weekly lottery for journalists to ask their questions and get answers, based not on what any large medium, or even the White House wants to talk about, but what the journalists want to talk about.

In this system, everyone from a blogger in Arizona to NBC gets an equal chance at asking a question by e-mail or whatever.

Meanwhile, a daily press briefing appears online, and the various media can make of it what they will. They will anyway. ;>)

But I agree that something's got to give. Major media are editorializing on their front pages and they don't even seem to recognize that they're doing it. They shouldn't be pretending to be objective because they can't be. But likely the majority of those with a casual interest in news still believe that objectivity is there, and "the Media" has access to some special knowledge the rest of the world isn't privy to.

Any way you look at it, it has to change.
8.20.2005 7:55am
Mark at Urthshu (www):
I dunno, Dean. It cuts both ways, doesn't it? There was a time when the President was a Hell of a lot closer to the People, announcing visits, traveling in open motorcades, giving speeches, etc. and now we're getting so cut off, the Executive becoming rarified and protected in some isolationist bubble.

I know it's needed. It really all sort of started with JFK then Nixon. First the danger from the public, then the danger from the newsies. And it hasn't stopped. Those dangers are still present.

But that rarification is what bothers me. I don't know whether circumventing the media would increase or decrease that, but I think it would increase it. From there we run the risk of [even more] Groupthink running the show.

I can agree, somewhat, with the overall point however. We wouldn't be arguing this if viable alternatives weren't available after all. Internet media &radio can take over the opinion &debate functions of MSM at least in part. MSM needs to get back to reporting fact and doing investigation worthy of the name.

An aside: I'm seeing the difference in potential strengths now, in an unfortunate microcosm. We had a hit &run death [a Seeber, Dean] and the local news are doing a good job of keeping it upfront, updating leads. They're sticking to facts and its very useful &welcome, while doing that online wouldn't be of much use, I'd think. When they do good, we need to tell them that too.
8.20.2005 8:33am
DSmith (mail) (www):
Between eBay, craigslist, the blogosphere, and the latest news on ad dollar trends, we are firing them. Faster, please!
8.20.2005 9:49am
Martin L. Shoemaker (www):
The printed statements are already there. It's not everything you envision, but it's a step along the way.
8.20.2005 11:11am
Bryan AWS (mail) (www):
It makes me shake my head and conclude that working journalists will not understand certain things until they are made to understand them.

I should note here that Jay Rosen is *not* a working journalist, and hasn't been for some time. even so, he has been at the forefront of criticizing the MSM on a number of fronts, and very supportive of the blogosphere in many ways.

I'd take what he says with a generous grain of salt.
8.20.2005 11:14am
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
I agree with Dean. The media have come to think that they are a secular priesthood and so everything is to filtered through them. Growing up, our family used to watch the national political party conventions every Presidential election year. One thing my father and I got tired of is when they would cut into a speech to have a gaggle of talking heads interpret and analyze the speech and weigh the significance of every possible nuance of every sentence to predict how the voters would react -- instead of just letting hear the speech.

Qualifications for being a journalist today: 1) no sense of history, 2) no sense of proportion, 3) little sense of anything else.
8.20.2005 12:40pm
derek (mail) (www):
This is already going on, pretty much. Bush gave fewer press conferences in his first term than I think any other modern president (though it seems like there's been more in his second). Administration officials like Dick Cheney give interviews to friendly hosts like Sean Hannity. And the White House website allows officials to interact directly with the public.

Don't know if you read Jay's earlier essay about decertifying the press, Dean, but you might find it worth checking out.

But I dunno, call me crazy but I'd rather watch Meet the Press than listen to the president's weekly radio address. So long as people watch or listen to us, the White House won't be able to ignore us completely...
8.20.2005 1:01pm
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
Cheney and Hannity -- an excellent combination. Men's men like Hannity, and I like Cheney's daughter.
8.21.2005 10:42am