What legitimate role does the newspaper reporters have in Obama's press conference?

[genna]

I was watching the introduction to Chris Matthews' Hardball at 5 pm today. He said:

under the tag: THE VIRTUE OF VIRTUAL
As a candidate President Obama made creative use of the internet to raise his profile and money. Today he went back online to take questions directly from voters in a first ever presidential virtual town meeting. Just two days after when the president took no questions from major newspapers at his news conference.

Does this mean that the president is trying to bypass his critics? Can the presidency of perpetual campaigning avoid the national media and sell directly to voters?



When I heard Chris say this, I was aggravated. I kept playing back to see if I thought he was being fair. I guess what strikes me is Chris is pressing down on the same critique used against President Clinton because Bill moved away from the DC Chatter and came to directly to people asking us what do we want and need.

I didn't agree with Clinton's problems, but I hated the misdirection in the media. They didn't want to deal with Clinton's agenda or what was actually passed. They always went after the flavor of that particular news cycle. I don't want President Obama to get caught in the same muck and mire in which hammered Clinton.


There are new roles for different voices in the mixed bag of media today. I don't buy the meme that Obama is running from scrutiny. He's been criticized from every angle. I think bloggers and online news outlets should be able to ask questions at traditional press conferences. I also like the idea of widening access to everyday people.


My question to you all is: what is the role today of newspapers? I know Obama is going to reach out in every single available forum if he has to, but what role should newspapers' play?

[niyad]

1. why is it that some cannot stand the fact that obama chooses to go directly to the people?

the "bubble" that is the media is pissed because, if he bypasses them and goes directly to the people, they cannot spin things the way they want.

kind of reminds me of certain belief systems--the difference between immanent and transcendent systems.

[genna]

4. Tell me what is the difference between immanent and transcendent systems ?

and in what context does the bubble apply?

[genna]

6. I think the answer is media monopoly.

I looked it up to check myself:

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.<1> Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly


I think the market has changed. The normal press gaggle is no longer effective. The market is demanding different content.

The print media is going under on a weekly basis. Some cities are not going to have local print medium.

The television media is completely sensational. There are those that love the attitude and the no depth coverage. I'm a fan of Jim Lehrer.


I think online newspapers and bloggers are changing the actual inputs. It is going to force the monopoly to change or go out of the business.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Newspaper reporters are generally smarter than those on television. nt

[FrenchieCat]

3. Their role should be to report what the issues are, and how the issues

are being addressed.

Op Ed should provide their opinions.

[genna]

7. So do you think it is a legitimate role they play when they filter what we think is factual?

I enjoy Jim Lehrer because he discusses what I used to assume were facts. Then he forces the guests to examine their facts and draw some assessments based on what is discussed.

Most outlets filter facts and give you their version of the news.


I think Obama is putting himself in enough forums to let people hear him in whatever forum they like so they know what is going on.


In a newspaper I think the Op-Ed has merged with the reporter function. If they have several writers on one topic, usually they all provide the facts and filter out perspectives they disagree with. In a newspaper the diversity of thought in that editorial staff is put forward.


Since Joe Conanson and Jake Tapper from his Salon days, I have not followed a reporter on a story because I think they've already filtered out the facts they don't like.


Thanks Frenchie.

[emulatorloo]

5. Matthews always opens with summaries and provocative questions

That is the format of the show.

The other night he was talking about what a great strategy the town halls and Leno visit were.

[genna]

8. It caught my notice because I disagree with supposition.

It makes it worse if he said the other night the exact opposite.


Obama has done amazing things communicating with the public. I applaud his efforts. If he came directly behind Clinton, his talents would be in line with Bill Clinton's abilities to communicate. In light of Bush's tragic failure, he is exceptionally good in telling people what is going on.

Thanks emulatorloo for giving me more information.

[Clio the Leo]

9. But what was said AFTER that?

I haven't seen Hardball yet so you may be right, but it's important to not only listen to the initial statement but what follows, most often a point argued by the talking head du jour. Keith does this all the time as well. What they're really doing should be read as "Obama did something today that some are declaring the end of modern civilization, now, here's our friend the liberal columnist to refute it." The first part is to get your attention, the second part is to set you straight.

Tweety, Keith, Rachel all of them ... all on our side ... they just have a show to produce. No one would watch if they all sat around ONLY talking about how wonderful the President is. Even *I* would get bored of that after all.

[genna]

10. Susan Page US News and Roger Simon Politico were a part of the later segment

Chris ran the discussion in pretty much the same way. He thinks Obama should chuck the later forums (blogging and online forums) and go with the established route.

Clinton was brow beaten for months because he wouldn't do a straight news conference. He was dodging questions about Monica Lewinsky. The reporters would not accept forums where he gave information about public policy ONLY nor would they accept the rest of his administration discussing public policy points. They wanted to dog him for Lewinsky. They had a daily ticker for what he was avoiding.


Obama has made himself available for questioning. Instead of saying/suggesting the man is taking questions and they have an opportunity, they are off complaining that he should only take substantive questions from whom they deem appropriate. Instead of looking at the number of reporters who have been granted access, they are ranking who is most relevant FOR us.


Then, Chris blows past the opportunity given the press Wed. or Thurs. He says hey, buster YOU need to give the press a list so they know who should actually prepare questions! If you get to be in the room and he happens to call on you, you want him to do your preparation too?


As for who is 'FOR' us and who ISN'T
If Keith, Rachel or Chris is OFF for whatever reason---and I fervently disagree with anyone of them---I am going to do so especially if it is already pat argument that I've heard before. It is not necessarily about whether or not Obama should give preference for newspapers just because Chris thinks he should or whether he is filling airtime.

The deal is it is a bogus measurement. 2 press conferences on 2 different issues in the first 60 days. Reagan did these prime time press conferences, but Clinton and Bush did not often get that opportunity NOR did they have much to offer. Chris even had nerve to say that Obama bored him with his demeanor and substance. (Maybe that is an overstatement, but my irritation is clearly intended.)


Chris was in Carter's administration and served Tip O'Neil. If he'd prefer something stronger based on his experience and background, SAY IT especially since he says everything else.

[genna]

11. The reporter protecting the MSM's turf and tradition

http://wonkette.com/407289/reporter-asks-gibbs-about-question-selection-and-teleprompter-gibbs-goes-insane#more-407289

I don't think Gibbs went off, but he did give it the relative weight I would have given to it.

[genna]

12. Wider access. Broader message.

Later post dealing with the media strategy.


babylonsister
Fri Mar-27-09 05:21 PM
Obama sets a new standard for managing the news

While the TV networks focused on the economic crisis, the nontraditional media questions focused on Mexican border policy, military spending, taxes on charitable giving, the morality of stem-cell research, the plight of homeless children and Middle East peace negotiations.

"They were niche organizations, as a rule," Hess said, "the sorts of organizations that aren't ordinarily called on. They have produced different types of questions. They were interesting."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8297496

[Exilednight]

13. This is a two-fold problem........

1. Media, and newspapers specifically, have hurt their own credibility. Most papers no longer bother to do actual research, there's a rush to get the story out without actually doing the leg work. With two and a half news channels (MSNBC is kind of a joke for news) trying to fill a 24 hours news cycle to a public who wants current information now; it's easy to see how much is overlooked. It's all about the headline, and by the time you see it on the front page of a newspaper, it's probably a half day old - if not older - and has been continually looped on Fux, MSNBC, and CNN.

2. Most of the news media are not only competing with other news companies, many are competing with themselves. How many reporters end up appearing as analysts, guests, or even hosts of other forms of media? There are some reporters who show up weekly - if not daily - on radio, tv, and several forms of print. You're basically reading the same point of view that you heard yesterday on tv or on the radio. Juan Williams from NPR is a classic example, he does an average of two NPR shows a day, a story for the Washington Post and is a political analyst for Fox News.

[Terri S]

14. The President merely understands that the media is irrelevant

as the press conferences so far have so perfectly illustrated. Heaven forbid Tweety should consider that the people are who voted for him and who he works for, not the overly-ego-inflated talking heads who live in their own bubble of self-satisfied hot air.