Why Press Conferences Are Now Utterly Useless: Jay Carney Decides Who Gets Called On
Valued reader DRJ makes a great catch, digging up an item from Roll Call that suggests that Jay Carney decides who will get called on at Obama’s press conferences:
“I’m just going through my list, guys. Talk to Jay.”
President Barack Obama, referring any reporter complaints about who was being called on at Tuesday’s White House news briefing to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
DRJ’s observation: ” I’d like to know whether Carney talks to the reporters before deciding who to call on. After all, he has to make sure they agree to stay on script.”
Maybe Carney doesn’t have to talk to them privately. He talks to them every day, and knows who the lapdogs are. In fact, many have questioned the usefulness of White House briefings, since Carney blatantly lies, stonewalls, and obfuscates about every embarrassing issue. But perhaps the briefings serve a useful purpose — not for Americans, who get zero useful information, but rather for the White House, which gets to take the pulse of the White House press corps, and make judgments about which of its individual members are safe to call on at a press conference.
So if it puzzles you that a press conference could last over an hour, with not one single question being asked about the vindictive manner in which Obama has managed the slowdown, and not one single question being asked about the absurdly embarrassing ObamaCare rollout . . . be not puzzled, my friends. All is going according to plan.
The bottom line is that, after yesterday, we know that press conferences are as useless as the White House briefings. We should stop treating them as significant because they aren’t. They are a platform to get out the White House message, and interference with that critical mission Will Not Be Tolerated.
I have always felt puzzled over why the press would “want” to talk to whoever held that position. If i am a reporter, I want to talk to the POTUS, not some flunkie. but Carney is the worst axample of them all.
felipe (70ff7e) — 10/9/2013 @ 7:47 amYou will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
ropelight (be6fe4) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:25 amMr. President, do you ever have regrets that you sidelined your true calling of super-model and Nobel winning saint with the power to cure all the world’s ills for the thankless task of trying to prevent the Neanderthals of the Tea Party from destroying the universe?
Err ahem humm err, (Whispers urgently) Jay, that question isn’t on the list.
It’s the softballest of softballs you mooch-ass SCOAMF, just say something meaningless. (Aloud) I’m sorry, Rachel, that’s all the time we have today.
nk (dbc370) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:35 amLike I said.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:35 amfood stamp has never taken the training wheels off
happyfeet (8ce051) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:36 amI note that, at the height of Watergate, Nixon would call on Rather. But then, compared to Obama, Nixon had both class and honor.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:38 amDRJ’s observation: ” I’d like to know whether Carney talks to the reporters before deciding who to call on. After all, he has to make sure they agree to stay on script.
He still got a couple of difficult questions (not counting the ones on foreign policy)
See comments 68 and 77 in the Obama Faces Zero Questions on Glaring Issues at Presser thread
https://patterico.com/2013/10/08/obama-faces-zero-questions-on-glaring-issues-at-presser/comment-page-4/#comment-1311972
I quoted two questions and answers in full.
There was another difficult question he just waved away and called on another reporter instead:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-oct-8-news-conference-on-the-shutdown-and-debt-limit/2013/10/08/866088c0-3038-11e3-8906-3daa2bcde110_print.html
The reporter was a little invohrent and didn’t get his question out, and certainly anybody watching on television who didn’t know about this already who didn’t know about this wouldn’t learn, but what the reporter wanted to ask about was the Defense Department not paying $100,000 in death benefits that they always pay within 36 hours after a soldier is killed in combat (in order for people to travel to Dover Air Force base to meet the coffin, and to pay for any funeral expenses, and leave plenty over for any necessities)
A person who;s son was killed in 2007 who runs a charity said he would front all the money needed.
Now the thing about this is, the military exemption (which includes morale) should have covered this. And if not you could always pass a separate bill. Although he had already given an answer why not to do that – you could miss something that didn’t attract attention, and you would not fund things only Democrats cared about.
Once you have a budget and a government with a set of functions, you make sure that it’s all operating. We don’t get to pick and choose based on which party likes what.
Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:42 amSomeone with the time and initiative ought to compile a list of the reporters upon whom Obama has called in his press conferences, then compare it with a list of the reporters present who did not get called upon. It would be interesting to see who the administration thinks are their lick-spittles, and who they are afraid would have the temerity to challenge Dear Leader on his nonsense.
JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:43 amJVW,
The media has undoubtedly learned to replace unacceptable reporters with someone Obama finds tolerable. Unlike with a Republican President, they can’t afford to alienate a Democratic President or they will get pushed to the back row and denied plum interviews.
It’s like the IRS and Patterico’s theory on Presidential press conferences: You don’t need to tell them what to do. They know what’s expected of them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:55 amIt’s another part of The Chicago Way. The mob boss murmurs that a rival gang member is like a “stone in my shoe” or something similar. The other fellows know what to do.
And the mob boss’ hands are “clean.”
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:57 amClearly not all reporters and journalists are equal – some require a hands – on instructive meet.
President Obama held an off-the-record meeting with five conservative journalists on Tuesday afternoon.
Present at the meeting were Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor; Paul Gigot, the Wall Street Journal editorial page editor; Robert Costa, the National Review’s Washington editor; syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker; and Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting.
Dana (6178d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:23 amYes, I think there’s some ‘splainin’ that needs to be done.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:28 amMore on the private meet with conservative reporters / journos. This just doesn’t seem like a good idea.
The meeting took place shortly after Obama held a White House press conference in the briefing room Tuesday afternoon. For over an hour, Obama fielded questions from White House reporters, with the focus on the government shutdown and looming debt default. Later, he met with the conservative journalists for 90 minutes in the Roosevelt Room.
Costa tweeted afterward that it was an honor to meet with Obama, but did not elaborate on the discussion. Given the off-the-record ground rules, it’s unlikely that attendees will discuss exactly what was said.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney thanked Costa on Twitter for coming by the White House, but in an email to HuffPost declined to discuss the meeting or its attendees.
“In addition to giving press conferences and interviews, the President meets on occasion with groups of reporters and columnists for off-the-record discussions,” Carney said. “We don’t provide lists of participants.”
Dana (6178d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:01 amThat the President is not called upon on these two very obvious issues is a complete abdication of journalistic integrity. The profession as a calling is dead.
NeoCon_1 (062f23) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:36 amI think Julie Pace was called on first b/c she was to be on Fox later that day. Taking the message behind enemy lines!
Patricia (be0117) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:44 amI don’t quite understand the whole “off-the-record” interviews. If I am a reporter I would have to assume that I am somehow being manipulated and I can’t imagine I would take any of it seriously. I guess getting to spend 90 minutes in the White House is a big deal, though, and even the Krauthammers of the world fall for it.
It would be funny if one of those conservative journalists started sprinkling his or her White House stories with lines like “sources close to the White House’s thinking on this issue believe. . .” or “Obama Administration officials, speaking on background, say. . .” and make it patently obvious that it is information directly from Dear Leader’s lips.
JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 10:48 amnot one single question being asked about the vindictive manner in which Obama has managed the slowdown,
There was one question about to be asked about that, but Obama choked that one off and called on another reporter. See what I quoted in comment 7 here.
He got a question, instead, on how would it be different if the continuing resolution was passed – wouldn’t the political dynamic still be the same? (about possible contradictions or difficulties with what he said, that is)
Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:01 amJVW,
That they would attend an “off-the-record private” meet, fairly screams compromise to me. They should collectively be countering with “We will come only if it’s on the record”. And, if there were no agreement to this demand, then the select few should have refused and reported publicly that POTUS was unwilling to treat them as equal and on the same playing field, which would naturally beg the question, “Why would that be?”.
Also, why should only conservative reporters be in the meeting – shouldn’t POTUS be a reporter-neutral and equal-opportunity disseminater of WH decisions and information, views, promises? Are we all not simply the citizenry, both left and right, with skin in the game? What fresh hell of new(s) bigotry is this??
The point is, the optics of this are very bad – in a number of ways. Conservatives should be angry that those who have in the past been willing to speak out – no matter who was in the WH – are being manipulated or seduced by the office of the presidency thus making them appear as having lowered their standards; and, exactly what is being said that just can’t be said in the public square before conservative and liberal journos alike?
Dana (6178d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:10 amPosting before reading the comments: I’m not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Go back to the TV show “The West Wing” and this happened all the time. Several movies involving the Presidency show the same thing.
reff (e8fcfd) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:28 pmreff, we are not surprised at the fact. Just that the media spends absolutely no effort concealing their complete surrender.
SPQR (95c543) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:42 pmThat the media has surrendered (or whored itself out to this administration) is one thing; but it’s an entirely different matter when we start seeing both sides of the media aisle partaking. Standards be damned.
The media does this because they can get away with it. The reason they can and get away with it in large part, is because of an apathetic and willfully ignorant public.
Dana (6178d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 12:54 pmOK, I am now reading the transcript of the press conference that Andrew Malcom posted on Investors Business Daily. Here is a break-down of the journalists who are called upon:
Julie Pace, AP — asks about the mechanics of negotiations to avoid the shutdown, questions that Obama is well-prepared for and provides him a chance to trot out his “no ransom” line.
Julianna Goldmann, Bloomberg — asks if bondholder payments would be prioritized over Social Security and Medicare recipients if
the debt ceiling is not raised. Obama gets to talk about how “irresponsible” it would be to not raise the ceiling and how many people would be hurt.
Sam Stein, Huffington Post [really?] — asks a really fatuous question about how a “clean” CR would lock in the sequestration “cuts” which “may do harm to the country and your agenda.” This guy is a total effin’ tool. Dear Leader grandstands that the Dems have a plan to replace the sequestration, so they are the good guys. Sam Stein sucks.
Roberta Rampton, Reuters — asks if the possibility of not raising the debt limit is freaking out China, Japan, and other countries who hold our bonds. Dear Leader says yes, and that it’s Boehner’s fault. She follows up by asking if Obama has any emergency powers he can use and is told that the WH is doing everything they possibly can.
Ari Shapiro, NPR — asks about the Supreme Court and campaign finance. Another fat and slow pitch right down the middle. Obama says that Citizens United has left Republicans in gerrymandered districts and made compromise much harder. Ari Shapiro is another worthless Obama tool.
Mark Landler, New York Times [naturally] — asks how the cancelled Asia trip has allowed China to play a more prominent role in the region, and would Obama have cemented a trade deal if he had been able to go. Obama basically agrees and launches into a tirade against GOP obstructionism and says that the Gingrich-led GOP in the 1990s learned that this wasn’t the way to do things, and then just starts whining about things. Landler brings out the petulant boor in Obama.
Richard McGregor, Financial Times — goes back to Julianna Goldmann’s question and asks if the U.S. does not have a legal obligation to pay foreign debt-holders first. Obama refers the question to Jack Lew.
Steven Dennis, Roll Call — asks about the possibility of a super-committee or commission being set up to hammer out a budget compromise. Obama says it should instead go through regular channels. In follow-up, Dennis then comes close to asking Obama why he expects the GOP to first throw away all their bargaining chips and then start negotiating. Obama then seems to indicate that he would be amenable to a deal to reopen government for a limited period during negotiations. This may end up being where we are headed.
(This is now the point where someone starts to ask a question out of order, and Obama pretty much shuts it down by telling them that they have to be placed on the list by Jay Carney.)
Stephen Collinson, Agence France-Presse — asks how the military operations in Africa over the weekend squares with Obama’s declaration that we can’t be at war forever. Obama says that limited military operations are much different than wars. Collinson asks if the African raids comport with international law. Obama dances around the issue.
Mark Knoller, CBS — has the stones to ask why Obama won’t agree to the House bills funding certain vital agencies. Obama has the gall to say that politicians can’t pick and choose which parts of bills they want to fund and which parts to ignore. Really. No one asks why he is suspending various parts of ObamaCare.
The last question seems to be the one person Obama chose who was not on the pre-approved list. Thus, the name does not appear in the transcript. This person asks Obama whether he regrets entering into negotiations with Boehner in 2011 and what he wishes he had done differently. Obama naturally says that he always tells Boehner that he should have taken the deal that Obama offered him back then, which was alleged long-term deficit reduction in return for spending that would have boosted the economy in the short term. The follow-up is what he thinks will have been accomplished after all of this is over, and Obama takes the opportunity to try to present himself as a strong, resolute, decisive leader. Man, this guy is such a chump.
JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:04 pmSo from the small sample size of interactions above, I would conclude that Sam Stein and Ari Shapiro are 100% in the tank for Obama; Julie Pace and Mark Landler are happy to ask questions that they know Obama has been prepared in advance for; Juliana Goldman, Ramona Rampton, and Richard McGregor ask OK questions and at least try to get something interesting about of Obama; and Steven Dennis, Stephen Collinson, and Mark Knoller are at least willing to try to challenge Obama on his bunkum. It’s a shame that Knoller missed the opportunity for a good follow-up.
JVW (93c84b) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:09 pmI’m glad you did that JVW. It is a valuable exercise. I’ll help with a similar summary if you find other press conference transcripts.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:38 pmYes, but I want a transcript of the conversation between Obumbles, and Krauthammer, et al.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 10/9/2013 @ 1:46 pm*sigh*: The Liberal retort for everything.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/take-me-obama-54.html
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:20 pmActually this isn’t new at all.
Back in the days of Clinton, the Radio New Zealand (think NPR) correspondent talked about how she had to have permission to ask Clinton a question about the US relationship with NZ.
scrubone (2f74d8) — 10/9/2013 @ 3:56 pmOooooo, burn.
SPQR (768505) — 10/9/2013 @ 5:17 pmMaybe it is time for a new West Wing based on our President Petty Petulant Pissant. Since Jeb Barlett was the liberal wet dream of a Democratic President during Bush’s tenure, I would be cool to show how that actually plays out in real life under Obama/
Thresherman (8ec7ac) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:14 pmDid anyone ever think this crowd would ask Obama hard questions?
http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/11/14/reporter-gushes-over-obama-news-conference
The starstruck news babe giggles as Obama deigns to remember her from back in the day.
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 8:58 pm30. She just said congratulations! That is just being polite, and is a reference to how Obama might personally feel.
Didn’t Romney also congratulate Obama on winning re-election?
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/11/mitt-romney-concession-speech-congratulations-prayers-for-presid/
Obama returned the favor:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-to-romney-congratulations-on-a-spirited-campaign
Sammy Finkelman (bd89d5) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:18 pmDo you think more reporters are biased for Obama and Democrats in general?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/9/2013 @ 9:33 pmOf course they’re more biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats. Carl Bernstein who along with Bob Woodward helped bring down Nixon at the WaPo explains his hatred of Republicans and why the media shouldn’t be even handed hers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=596TPv9Ucic
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:00 pm*here:
Steve57 (a3cd20) — 10/9/2013 @ 11:01 pm