I watched the last third or so of the President's press conference this evening.
I was startled by it, because it seemed to me that the questioners were, for the most part, being very aggressive in their questions. Not a lot of cordiality in the room. Some of it was humourous, like the man who tried to both re-ask the question someone else had asked and ask his own question, but for the most part, it was a serious undertaking. I got the clear impression that a lot of the reporters were not happy with the answers that they were getting. While some of it, perhaps most of it, has to be because reporters aren't happy unless they're making the President squirm as he tries not to say or expose what they want him to say or expose, part of it was clearly because in multiple cases the President didn't really answer their question. Sometimes, that was because the answer would have gone into a different direction than he wanted, as when one woman asked him, in essence, why he wasn't doing something extra for black people, inasmuch as their unemployment rate is so high. The President said that minority unemployment rates are always higher than the national average, and then he darted back to the general question of the economy, partly because that was what he wanted to talk about, but partly because he can't be seen saying Well, black people, you know, they always have problems with employment. It may be true; in some places, it definitely is true. But if the President says that, it becomes a whole different conversation; one that takes air away from the other discussions going on. In another case, a reporter wanted him to say that the government's health care plan was inherently unfair to insurance companies, because the government doesn't have to make a profit, and what the President said was more a pitch for the idea of the plan than an acknowledgement that he was right -- because, again, that would lead to a discussion that would take away from the discussion that he wanted to have. Overall, it was more an opportunity to pitch and reiterate than teach and expound. I suppose the alternative would have gone on for hours, but, in a way, I wish it had.
Though I did like his comment about insurance companies cherrypicking clients, I bet they didn't.
My daughter walked in towards the end, and we talked a very little bit about it -- about his style in answering questions, and in general leadership. Never miss a teaching opportunity.
5 comments:
I think a lot of it has to do with the trying to catch the President out on something. The right are particularly fond of this with Obama, but were annoyed when someone did it to Bush.
Even a detailed-oriented person like Obama can't possibly keep track of every detail of some of the programs that are being suggested, and/or implemented. What some of these reporters want is basically a re-iteration, complete with comprehensive justifications of 800+ page policy documents and legislation. But they want it in no more than 2 or 3 (short) sentences, preferably of sound-bite quality. in other words: they want the President to do their jobs, for them. At least Obama stays in the general vicinity of the topic - Bush and Cheney (in particular) couldn't even manage that, more than half the time!
Some things never change!
Carolyn Ann
Oh - and this President manages complete sentences, and doesn't seem to buy to into the "they're all out to get us!" paranoia a certain former Vice President is fond of.
Carolyn Ann
Well, perhaps Dick should remind people that he isn't making it up, because when you're an arrogant, manipulative SOB with a track record of walking over your opponents, people ARE out to get you.
I suppose that would be too much to ask.
The whole idea of a press conference is to create sound bites. Heaven help the person who gets all his information from the press.
Most legislation, pending or otherwise, is available on line in one form or another. I have been known to settle arguements by refering to "Hansards", the "court reporter of the House". I am sure your legislators have something similar.
We have had "gotcha journalism" now for a long time. It would be an interesting experiment to start a newspaper that actually "reported" on world events. Do you think such a paper would sell?
I think it would not. On the other hand, I understand that Newsweek is going in the other direction, changing the thrust of their magazine so that the bulk of it examines some issue in depth. I am looking at them when I see them. If I like what I see, I'm going to subscribe.
Post a Comment