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?

long suffering

i've been meaning to write this post for a while, but, every time i get started, something happens that makes me rethink portions of it, to add or subtract or consider a different way of looking at things. the post was originally going to be my take on a #metoo statement, but i ended up making that post on my personal facebook page. [it's not that i don't love you all, but there are a few things i'm not comfortable putting in the entirely public sphere.] but beyond joining the #metoo juggernaut, i wanted to write something about the wave of sexual assault revelations that continues to swell over the north american media landscape that wasn't about me. then i realised that that was a little more complicated than just writing "so, lotta sex rapes happenin' these days, ain't there?" or whatever it was that i was going to say.

so i tried writing something about just a part of it: the media coverage or the entertainment industry or the politicians or …

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

making faces :: getting cheeky

blush might just be the last thing that a beauty lover comes to appreciate, seeing as it can be a matter of slight degrees that separates one product from another, and it's most difficult to tell from just swatching a product how it's going to look. and it did take me a long time to appreciate that, despite loving my refined pallor and believing that my natural rosy flush was more than enough of a blush for me, blush is my friend. it softens, sculpts, perfects and, although you might not see it at first blush [yuk yuk yuk], it is something that subtly harmonises with the other colours in a look to make it "complete". yes, it's the most tricky thing to pull off when you're wearing something that doesn't mesh with your own undertones. but it's also the thing that can take a face from gloomy to glowing with a swish of the magic wand known as a makeup brush.

highlighters are an even trickier lot, since many of the more brilliant ones have a tendency to e…