The Solution to Obama’s BP Press Problem

The Solution to Obama’s BP Press Problem

The Solution to Obama’s BP Press Problem

Obama’s media strategy is catching up with him.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Maureen Dowd’s new column proposes that all the squirtgun scolding after Joe Biden’s press party reinforces the myth that Obama is cozy with the press. But Biden is kicking it with journalists, she argues, precisely because Obama is so consistently down on the Fourth Estate:

The press traveling with Obama on the campaign never had a lovey-dovey relationship with him. He treated us with aloof correctness, and occasional spurts of irritation…. Sometimes on the campaign plane, I would watch Obama venture back to make small talk with the press, discussing food at an event or something light. Then I would see him literally back away a few moments later as a blast of questions and flipcams hit him.

I spend a lot less time near Obama than Times columnists, or the White House press corps, but that description definitely matches my experience on Obama’s plane in the 2008 campaign. The plane was proximity without access. Obama was generally nearby; reporters could cover how he looked, what he said at events or snippets of substance-free banter with the press. Yet he rarely took questions— whether casually in the aisles or through scheduled press conferences—and his aides focused on handpicked interviews over freewheeling free-for-alls. These tendencies have only hardened in the White House.

As president, Obama has done far fewer press conferences than recent predecessors. He had gone a whopping 300 days without a formal press conference when he summoned reporters to talk BP a few weeks back. (Had you even heard about that drought? Now imagine if President Bush tried that move.) Meanwhile, Obama and his aides often chide the "day-to-day chatter of cable television," and Obama recently offered this tart defense of his response to the oil spill: "I don’t always have time to perform for the benefit of the cable shows."

Now politicians typically wrestle with the press, and many complaints about the 24/7 news cycle are on point. But Obama has not only chosen to empower TV-driven news coverage of his administration, he has done so at the cost of access for print and alternative media. The White House arranges far more TV interviews for the president than print interviews. (The line about performing for cable shows came during an interview with the Today.) The decrease in official press conferences further limits access for print reporters, since it is the only venue for many print reporters to ever have a shot at questioning the president. And during one of the few press conferences that Obama has held as president, he made the highly unusual choice of refusing to take a single question from the four national newspapers (the New York Times, the Journal, the Washington Post and USA Today.) These are longstanding problems, but BP’s never-ending story may bring them to a head.

Obama is rightly annoyed by the made-for-TV quality of oil spill criticism—the main character needs to show more anger in this scene—but instead of complaining on TV about TV, he should try changing the channel. He could hold more press conferences, and invite not only White House reporters but also environmental experts for a deeper exchange on the crisis. (Think less emotion, more acoustic switches.) To engage people in the Gulf region, he could dust off some of the technology from the old days and convene an unfiltered, online town hall for the most popular questions from regular people and citizen media on the ground.

In other words, the solution to the White House’s press woes is pretty obvious: Stop complaining about the media you have, and start engaging the media you want. Of course, that assumes Obama’s stated desire for a deeper, more substantive conversation is genuine. He just has to prove it.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x