- ‹ previous
- 1659 of 2716
- next ›
Obama and the Media
OBAMA AND THE MEDIA....Via Mark Schmitt, John McQuaid offers this take on Barack Obama's view of the media:
Like Bush, Obama appears to view the media agenda in fundamental conflict with his own. But now, the perceived difference isn't ideological. It's programmatic. Obama (correctly, I think) sees the press representing two things that are clear obstacles to his ambitious plans: official Washington and a trivia-obsessed media culture.
First, the official Washington view [....]
Second, the media culture: The cable maw must be fed with transient panics. Feeding frenzies and micro-scandals dominate. They fuel the chat shows, opinion columns and blogs. These faux crises and dramas, which usually pass with little consequence, can knock a presidential agenda off-stride or even destroy it.
The official Washington view McQuaid talks about is the Broderesque centrism that dominates A-list punditry. This gets a ton of attention in the blogosphere, but I elided that passage because it strikes me as the less important of the two things McQuaid talks about. After all, there always has been and always will be a mainstream pull in any political culture, and I frankly doubt that Obama sees this as something worth banging his head against. It's like fighting the tide.
The trivia-obsessed culture of the contemporary media, however, is a different story. This is the kind of thing that Bob Somerby spends most of his time railing against, and it strikes me as much the more important of the two — partly because it's more corrosive and partly because it's not as inevitable. Gossip and chatter have always been part of politics, of course, but over the past decade or two, at the same time that gossip has practically taken over political journalism, it's gotten so inane that it's hard to tell where Access Hollywood ends and Hardball begins. It's nearly impossible to turn on a talk show on any of the cable nets these days and hear anything that's even remotely enlightening.
And I'll bet McQuaid is right: it probably bugs the hell out of a guy like Obama who takes politics and policy seriously. When he said in his inaugural address that "the time has come to set aside childish things," I wouldn't be surprised if he was addressing the media directly.
So how does he work to change things? McQuaid warns that tightly controlling media access the way George Bush did isn't the answer, and I agree. Instead, I'd say that he should send a consistent message about the value of serious journalism by providing the best access to the most serious journalists. Not the ones who are the most famous, or have the biggest audiences, or who agree with him the most often, but the ones who have written or aired the sharpest, liveliest, most substantive, most penetrating critiques of what he and his administration are doing. He should spar with them, he should engage with them, he should take their ideas seriously. Eventually, others will start to get the message: if you want to get presidential attention, you need to say something smart. It's too late to for this to have any effect on media buffoons like Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews, but you never know. It might encourage a few of the others to grow up. It's worth a try, anyway.
Here's another idea, which I think he has already started doing: try to fill the need for trivial minutiae with things that he has some control over. In his responses to questions about the family dog, for example, he is clearly taking this question more seriously than I think even he knows it is worth, and I think the reason for him doing so is because he specifically wants the media to cover that if they need to fill their quota of nonsense.
Here's another idea, which I suspect he's already thinking about: have a regular intersquad basketball game, and actively invite the media to attend and cover it. They will inevitably try to interpret the personal interactions of the various participants as having some larger significance ("ooh, Holder gets fouled by Duncan. I wonder how long that Education position will last"), but if all of the partipiants know that that coverage is the entire point, and will avoid any "created" nonsense, then that will be time well spent.
Laughing in their faces when they asked about the relevance of a trip to get a hot dog was a good start, too.
Pointing out and mocking the silly stuff (in his polite way) can work.
I'm not so sure that only calling on the smart reporters works. It's like ignoring the poor students who spend the entire class passing notes, drawing pictures of zombies, etc. Ignoring them won't make them stop; it may only lead them, out of boredom, into greater mischief, such as setting fires. And when did the fools at Fox need or want hard news -- or real news, for that matter?
Of course I don't have an alternative either. Force of character and focus on what matters makes the difference for some teachers; maybe it will have a similar effect on some of the more teachable members of the press.
Always call on Helen Thomas first.
Give a real answer to her question, and to her followup question, and all will be well.
Keep feeding the press a steady stream of petty ,inconsequential bullshit that will be distracting to Republicans. For example, Obama's press shop could sow made-up, off-the-record stories about personality conflicts driving the contest for RNC chair. Then, after the chair is filled, they can pimp rumors about Republican resentment against the winner.
The press digs that kind of story, and if Obama's own operation is clean and tight, the hounds will be willing to run those stories about Republicans--especially since their pack instinct drives them to pursue weakness, and the Republicans are the lame ones hobbling around the edges of the herd right now.
Sure, I buy that. He can start by doing Fareed Zakaria on a Sunday instead of George or David.
Give an interview to Greenwald. Ought to shake things up.
The Daily Show is one of their best allies in this. Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee understood the "childish things" line as addressed to the media in their bit about the inauguration on Jan. 20.
Kevin is surely correct about Dowd and Matthews being buffoons (although Matthews can occasionally surprise you), but Kevin also over estimates the smarts of other journalists and the value of having a president engage in serious discussions with the media. The president only has so much time, and he should engage in serious discussion with true subject matter experts, then report his policies/conclusions to the media.
The media trivialize everything, whether it's important or not. Thus the superficial reporting on vital issues and the slavering over who said what to whom while wearing what. I will bet that one story we will see coming out of CNN or whoever is a mother-in-law-in-the-White-House scandalette. I mean, that's besides the inevitable obvious Michelle-interfering-with-who-knows-what story. This is a primary reason I don't watch TV (another is commercials, another is programming, and there are a few others).
Kevin daydreams:
"Instead, I'd say that he should send a consistent message about the value of serious journalism by providing the best access to the most serious journalists."
C'mon, Obama just got himself elected President by dodging hard questions for two years. Why should he start giving serious access to anybody who asks serious questions now that he's President. Obama. The press will continue to do as they are told and like it.
Maybe the President should give his first print interview to someone from McClatchy. That would set the tone.
They just need to feed leads to the press for Freedom of Information requests on Bush Administration abuses and let the media sift through all the past sins. At least 8 years of stuff that should have been covered the last 8 years. That will keep them busy and probably result in the public demanding some prosecutions.
How did Mother Jones get infested with moronic racists like the idiot whining that Obama dodged hard questions. Tell us, clown, are you still worried about Obama's muslim background? Still selling dopey conspiracy theories about his birth certificate?
Sorry, no answers for racist thugs is actually a good rule.
For a fascinating analysis of Obama's pedestrian inaugural address and Obama the man (including speculation that he intentionally toned down the speech), see
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/obama_a_complicated_ma...
The analysis makes me see more potential in Obama.
He makes a very interesting point of Obama tying himself to Washington, which I think was a good thing and I wish Obama would have made it even more explicit and a greater theme of his speech. I like the idea of Obama paying tribute to and linking himself to Washington, a man who was flawed enough to have "owned" Obama but had the wisdom and virtue to free his slaves upon his death and provide funds for the retirement of older slaves. I think it would have been a powerful message for Obama to rhetorically bond with Washington and, in the process, help truly declare that America is ready to move beyond the over 250 years of racial problems and injustice.
Perhaps this is why President Obama gave a nice long sit-down interview to my favorite non-journalist journalist, Rachel Maddow, just prior to the election.
If so, I can't wait for the next one!
I think he just needs to be his own media, something that works well with many of his skill sets and talents. Using his White House site to delivery weekly addresses, as he has done more softly since November, is a good start. But using NPR, for instance, to delivery weekly addresses to the nation, a la Roosevelt, would allow him to articulate, as he does so well, his policy ideas and perspectives. He could directly address the media bits that are worth addressing and plainly describe as distracting and ridiculous the ones that are not.
I agree with the poster who doubts Kevin's negative reinforcement technique. It does seem good at first blush, but I suspect it will just make the 'bad kids' grow noisier and more troublesome. One more thing he could come out and do right now, though the message would require his precision and care in its drafting: encourage the media to cover stories of ingenuity and community involvement at least as much as the rest. It would lift spirits and get the word out about ways in which people can really help in their community, as President Obama continually prevails upon us to do. Additionally, I think it could be said that it is a higher calling and a duty of the media to not only deliver misdeeds and problems, but to report on good deeds and solutions. The positives are STILL news - news we need to hear far more than the rest of it. I would much rather hear about a clever co-op agreement between a soup kitchen and a retail land lord who has lost tenants due to the economy than I would like to know about a mom getting caught smacking her kid in a department store parking lot.
This is a nice idea, but completely pie-in-the-sky.
Look at who Obama invited to he pre-inauguration dinners with the media. Was Maureen Dowd invited? Of course! Frank Rich? Andrew Sullivan? Yes. Buffoons all. And all of the right wing commentators he met with the night before were buffoons.
What again, as usual, goes unmentioned by "sensible liberal" bloggers is that "the media" in the USA is owned and controlled by a handful of giant corporations.
These corporations don't use "the media" in the public interest, out of the goodness of their hearts or a devotion to "journalism", to inform the American people about facts and issues. They use "the media" to propagandize the American people in furtherance of their own corporate interests -- in furtherance of the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. against everyone else.
Key items in the media's corporate agenda include perpetuating the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich, and other government policies that generally transfer wealth and power to the corporate aristocracy; and preventing any rollback of the Bush policies of radically deregulating media ownership to enable the handful of giant media corporations to gobble up America's last remaining independent TV and radio stations and networks.
That's why the corporate-owned so-called "mainstream" media working in close collaboration with the corporate-owned, openly partisan Republican right-wing extremist media engaged in vicious character assassination and vilification of Obama during the campaign, and why media analysis now consistently seeks to undermine public support for and confidence in Obama.
What Obama -- or any populist Democratic president who hopes to govern in the public interest rather than the corporate interest -- needs to realize is that the corporate-owned media is not a neutral party, it is the propaganda arm of the opposition.
The media come to bury Obama, not to praise him. The corporate owned media were terrified on tuesday to see 'the people' in Washington. They are losing their grip on the fascist state they created.
SecularAnimist,
Actually I think much of the media is NOT owned by anonymous corporations. It is owned by a couple obsessed and driven whacko's who have managed to obtain great wealth through their obsessions.
I am speaking of Rupert Murdoch and Sun Yung Moon.
I am serious here. These guys are rather nutty and they have also gotten a lot of power.
Someone please tell me I am wrong.
How about we have two press secretaries? One for policy and one for stupid stuff. The policy sec'y could just hand the stupid questions over to the other one, who would evade them. Might put some of the pressies in their places.
As for giving interviews to the serious journalists, I wonder if something similar could work with the Republican colleagues in Congress. Obviously you can't just NOT ever meet with Boehner and McConnell (who I am presuming to often be deeply unserious). Still, in other circumstances, Obama can choose which Republicans he wants to meet with, and this could be done based on who develops a track record of demonstrating non-wingnut, non-posturing behavior, coming to meetings prepared to discuss substance, etc..
Jack,
You totally miss the point. Obama's pre-inaguartion meetings with the 'buffoons', were off the record - not in-depth interviews. He just gave them a taste, but didn't let them buy.
I think Kevin has a great idea - only get substantial with journalists of substance.
A good place to start... Rachel Maddow, who definately rises above the lot.
Hm, well I think msmackle was right in her/his first point, namely that Obama already understands and skillfully handles the 24-7 "news" cycle of scandal and rumor. It seems the professional media hasn't completely caught on to this, or hasn't cared to comment on it, but Obama's team has been full of useless and meaningless information for quite some time. IN ADDITION to the substantive things he has to say. Think about the post election "drama" that has had no real import. Rahm Emmanuel "scandal" about maybe not accepting the post? The carefully timed leaks of every appointment possibility?
I think the Obama team is already well aware of the need to feed cable news their gossip in a way that doesn't distract from his agenda when he needs to send a real message.
Ha, oops! I guess you need to fill in your name before posting. I swear I'm not some troll.
"The trivia-obsessed culture of the contemporary media"
Which you personally have fed and thrived off for many years.
But now it's suddenly all bad. I wonder why.
Obama's definitely been fighting the "distractions" all throughout the campaign, and he clearly has no interest in continuing the battle. And I agree with the suggestion of only sitting down with the journalists that are likely to be thoughtfully interrogative. Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, and Scott Horton would be good for that. But it seems to me that the problem with this idea is that most serious journalists (at this point) would question him from the left. For whatever reason, a lot of conservatives really do consider the issues we find to be trivial and frivolous to be meaningful and substantive (hence their reliance on Fox News).
Charlie Savage or Marc Ambinder would offer good centrist interviews.
But I'm wondering if there's anyone from the right who can be taken seriously anymore. Someone who has retained a modicum of intellectual honesty. Maybe Ross Douthat or Andrew Sullivan? Daniel Larison? Who?