Skip to main content

press corpse

i watched most of barack obama's speech and press conference the other night, more by accident than by design, and i couldn't help but notice something that made me angry. (in general, i try to avoid watching a lot of television, since there's almost always something in there that causes my blood pressure to rise.)

the questions that were directed at the new president were generally very well-thought out, intelligent, challenging ones. this was one of the first opportunities that the washington press gallery had to directly question obama, so maybe they were like kids on the first day of school, energised and eager, but their input could hardly have been in greater contrast to that displayed during the seemingly interminable bush years. i routinely remember, during the few press conferences i watched during that time, that i was often given to wonder if the members of the press had had a contest where they decided chiefly to ask questions submitted by preschool children (and even then, the questions were of pretty poor caliber), since they avoided asking anything of the president that might have seemed even slightly tough, that had any whiff of digression from his line of, um, logic.

obama handled most of the questions pretty well, which is to be expected, since we all know he's an articulate man, accustomed to presenting his ideas to groups of people who may or may not agree with him. but his answers, whatever you may think of them, aren't the main issue. what galls me is the implicit message in the behaviour of the press corps. they can ask obama tougher questions precisely because they know he can handle them without looking bad. so the press is apparently allowing itself to interrogate the president only to the extent that he can handle. they stop themselves at the point where they might embarrass him.

of course, in that kind of situation, it's a given that no president will ever have to answer for anything that might have implications that beyond what they can comfortably explain. in the previous administration, this was painfully obvious, but nothing has really changed. in team sport, the threshold for determining individual ability shifts, depending on the skill level of the players involved. what happens in washington seems to follow the same rules. when you have a skilled political player, like an obama, you can increase the difficulty level in order to take advantage of his superior abilities.

the problem with this model is that what is not addressed can be more important than anything. the press can and should ask very tough questions about the preconceptions that form the basis of government policy, even when those questions run the risk of embarrassing the government and the president.

veteran journalist helen thomas offered the only moment of possible awkwardness in the entire press conference (although she had to know that the president would refuse to give the answer we all know anyway) when she asked if there were any middle eastern states in possession of nuclear weapons. beyond this anemic effort, it was very much business as usual. the players have changed, but the game remains the same.

Comments

Aaron Fenwick said…
The Forth estate has unfortunately become far too beholden to the "access" spooned out to them from increasingly more secretive public institutions.
You can't push the president or press secretary too hard or he may cut access for you and your news organization.
Fox news for example have found themselves somewhat out in the cold with the new administration, and while I detest what Fox do they are in someways a victim of holding contrary views... (There is also only so many times you can call a guy a terrorist and he will still talk to you I suppose)
Helen Thomas was hit with similar treatment at the hands of the Bush whitehouse, who basically treated the most experienced journalist in the room as a joke. (esp. whilst she was absent due to illness)

Damn this comment is getting long and opinionated lol. But yes a sad indictment of the system indeed...
flora_mundi said…
you raise a good point, in that there's been a definite power shift. politicians act as if they are doing a favour by allowing the media access to them, as opposed to treating media interfaces as an obligation of their office.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…