From the Washington Post:
I’m not sure I see the problem. As long as the press conference isn’t dominated by such tactics, it seems to me the use of a scripted Q&A can be useful for getting a particular message out.
Where’s the beef?
I don’t see the problem, either. Sounds like they were very open and up-front about it being an arranged question. I think the objections to Bush doing this was that they were trying to pass them off as coming from independent journalists.
I have a lot of issues with the White House Press Corps that covers this and previous administrations.
One guy brought in specifically to forward a question from someone in Iran is not one of my problems.
Agreed with Miller. If they’re up-front with what’s happening, it’s not a problem. If they’re sneaky about it, they need to cut it out.
And as Bricker said, it needs to not be the main kind of question at the conference, and journalists who don’t play along, who ask difficult questions, need to be called on also.
I thought so, too. This comes off as a particularly lame tu quoque from Milbank.
Glenn Greenwald also addressed this issue today. He felt the press was irritated that Obama was taking a question from an actual Iranian person and not from reporters presuming to speak for the Iranian people. And I think he may be on to something.
Another agreement with Miller. It doesn’t matter.
I’d be wary of attributing motive like that. I think I would tend to agree with this thread so far in general, but I can see how this could be seen as a bit smelly (certainly, that’s my emotive reaction).
Just to jump on the agreement bandwagon here, it doesn’t sound like the actual question was arranged, just the source of the question. It could have been friendly or hostile to the administration (anywhere from "Why has your administration handled this situation so well… to “Isn’t what Iran doing basically a war crime and why haven’t you invaded yet?”).
However, since Huffington Post is the one choosing the question, I guess the administration could assume it wouldn’t be too hostile.
Actually, I’m not sure I follow this assumption. Unless you mean, “Done so transparently that it amounted to an admission…” I don’t see anywhere that the White House acknowledged up-front that this was a set-up. And frankly I don’t think that’s relevant to the issue, unless the arranged questions substitute entirely for the real questions. The very next question the president took after the planted one was from a Fox reporter, so we can safely assume he’s not dodging reporters with semi-hostile stances.
The tone of the WaPo column seems a bit disgruntled at the event, and I don’t see why.
Well, this answers Miller’s point quite nicely. Even if the White House didn’t disclose the arrangement, it’s harmless error, so to speak, since the reporter involved did so.
It just amuses me that the mainstream media is up in arms about the event (in a low key but obvious way).
The thing is, though, apart from things like normal stagecraft and managing access, I never saw any reasonable assertion that Bush was scripting things overmuch. That didn’t mean, of course, that he didn’t get criticized for what he did do - and criticized too for some things that were made up on the spot.
I’m not concerned with this single item in a press conference - a far bigger concern for me is ABC News essentially turning over all of their news programs plus an hour of primetime to the White House today so that they can roll out a health care message. Rebuttal time will be controlled by the network alone, and balance will be determined by them.
This is scripting, and anyone who griped about minor instances of Bush doing it by going to a town hall meeting instead of a press conference ought to marvel at this massive “news” push, IMHO.
One fact overlooked in most of the discussion is that the question asked was not a good one for Obama. It was a tough question that he answered fairly poorly.
Bricker, in what way was the question “scripted”?
I think I’d be a little pissed if the question itself was pre-arranged, or if it came from a source that was so obviously in the bag for Obama that it might as well have been. But it appears that just the source of the question was known in advance, and indeed, the question was actually a fairly difficult one for Obama to answer.
I have a problem with it. I mean, in this specific case, it’s probably not a big deal, but it’s not the job of the press to “help the president get a specific message out”. When members of the press agree to participate in this sort of thing, it strips them of their independence and their credibility.
How did the press participate in helping Obama get his message out? This sounds like almost the exact opposite.
Edit: That’s ignoring that everybody uses the press to “get their message out,” of course.
The reporter was briefed in advance that he’d be called. The President knew he’d be getting a question from the reporter ostensibly from an Iraqi “in the streets” person.
Given that the usual practice is for reporters to make up questions on their own and ask them when called upon, I don’t think it’s a stretch to call it “scripted.”
I just don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Um… Huffington Post isn’t “…so obviously in the bag for Obama?” Really? You see them as neutral on him?
I don’t agree.
I think “scripted” has a different connotation here. For one thing it implies Obama knew what he was going to be asked. The reporter did agree to participate, but we don’t know who approached who in this situation.
I think most people would assume “scripted” means the question was known in advance.
The WH always chooses who gets to asks questions in the pressroom, I don’t really see the difference if the person isn’t physically there but asks through an intermediary, so long as this is made clear that this is what’s happening.