Changed definition of journalism
Journalists tend to rate the state of journalism based upon the number of media jobs that have been slashed during the current cycle. Let us rate the state of journalism on a different measure, whether journalists are meeting Webster’s definition of “gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or disseminating news.”
Scripted press conference
But for what an old-fashioned journalist used to call “the rest of the story,” we need to read a “break from the pack” account from reporter Dana Milbank of the Washington Post:
White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. “I know that there may actually be questions from people inIran who are communicating through the Internet,” Obama went on. “Do you have a question?” Pitney recognized his prompt. “That’s right,” he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.” Pitney asked his arranged question.
Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.
One would suspect that the lord correspondents from the networks would have been more than amazed. Surely this bit of information, that there had been a planted question at a White House news conference, would have been included in the network news reports. “Full disclosure,” as they say.
But who was going to call the all-powerful president on this bit of media manipulation? A journalist from ABC, the network that wins the lap dog award for extensive programming promoting the president’s health care agenda? A journalist from NBC, whose network recently did a flattering “day at the White House” documentary? Maybe a journalist from CBS, which might be irked that the network only received a morning show interview with the president?
None of the network journalists spoke up – even though this was a situation that demonstrates to the world that the free press in America is no longer what it used to be. It was left to the blogosphere for further dissemination of the Post’s report on White House chicanery. It seems that journalists in 2009 are “gathering, writing, editing, and publishing or disseminating” whatever the White House wants them to.
OK so what’s wrong with Obama saying: “I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet,” Obama went on. “Do you have a question?” He (O) acknowledges that he KNOWS this guy has a question from Iranians….. this is simple logic and deduction.
The Blogger talked about this in his blog too. Everyone is invited and the handlers know what each person in that room is working on …. not sure how this is scandalous or a plant….
Agreed — planted questions at press conferences are bad form. The president’s preface to the question made pretty clear the question had been set up… and if I recall correctly, it still wasn’t that stirring of an answer.
Have you guys checked out Nico’s live blogging on the Iranian Elections? Did he lob a softball question? NO he didn’t.
Was the question a boiler plate response … sure was …. but there is not a whole lot the POTUS can say….
Seems to me like this whole article was lifted from the Washintonpost’s dana milbank…
another non-issue highlighted to create a stir….. UNLESS …. the question was planted.
Journalists? What journalists? Those that are lap dogs for Obama?
Where is a journalist that can ask a tough question? Where is a journalist that can dig into the illegal activities of Acorn? The lack of transparency in the present gov’t? The story behind the US bonds found in Europe? The TARP money that disappeared? The truth behind climate change and the present cap and tax bill? And on and on. The MSM, other than Fox News, seem content to just sit in Obama’s shadow and lap up scraps. And we citizens of the US are the losers.
Indeed, thank goodness for that fair and balanced Fox News… which identifies disgraced Governor Mark Sanford as a Democrat.
Of course, as Arianna Huffington points out in her enterprise’s defense, HuffPost is much less servile to the current administration than Fox News was to Bush II.