As noted the only thing arranged was granting that particular reporter access and calling on him to ask a question. Seems the question was anything but helping the president “get a specific message out.”
Was there anything to prevent another news outlet from also asking him about it, with their own particular slant? It sounds to me as if he wanted to make sure that someone asked him the question- why not go with someone you know won’t be hostile just 'cause you belong to the other political party?
Well, yes. And as I hinted above, at first blush it seemed it was NOT made clear this was what was happening. But the subsequent note that the reporter disclosed everything answered that point.
Umm…Huffington Post wasn’t the source of the question though, that’s the point.
Right - and in multiple threads following these incidents numerous cites were posted showing that while reporters might have been chosen in advance, nobody was ever told to ask a question or revealed their question in advance. So this didn’t rise to a big scandal to me - just like I didn’t gripe and moan when Obama waited until this weak to call on a Fox News reporter.
This thing with ABC News becoming a willing partner in the health care propaganda war is a different matter though, as I mentioned above.
And it didn’t matter who was, as long as the word “Iran” was mentioned so he could give his prepared statement in reply.
Anyone thinking this is the same as planting “Jeff Gannon of Talon News” to bail out a press secretary who’s run out of ways to explain lies will go on thinking so.
Though I realize the classic Victorian Christmas never really existed, it does not stop me from quasi-nostalgic pining for the good ‘ol days.
Similarly, I’d like to believe — really believe — that when the President is holding a press conference he is facing a hostile audience (not hostile in a room of Pubbies sort of way, but hostile in the adversarial, checks-n-balances sort of way). I get photo ops. I get arranged meetings. I get a lot of propaganda techniques. Fine. But in my heart I want the line between the White House and the Press Corps to be as sacrosanct as possible.
I don’t know how far Bush went in making it a gray area. I certainly didn’t think he was the first to do so, but popular conception that between pre-scripted Town Hall meetings, rehersed interviews with soldiers in Iraq (or was it Afghanistan?), planted stories made to look like ‘real’ news, etc., and shill journalists he pushed the boundaries quite far. I think that’s a tragedy.
Was Obama’s pseudo-plant nearly as egregious? Of course not. But it’s a step in that direction.
Above all, I get the pragmatics of politics and realize that such a line may never have existed. But I’m still irked.
Iranian, not Iraqi. Ordinarily I wouldn’t quibble, but in this case it makes all the difference. (And you quoted it right in the OP). I’d hate to see a couple of questions in each press conference from Betsy in Podunk, but the Iranians are being prevented from speaking freely, so a question from one answered by the President is a very nice signal. Iraqis get to talk all the time.
They played the introduction to the question on Talk of the Nation and they didn’t explicitly say it was prearranged, but it was pretty clear. Obama blew it by mentioning Iran before the question.
Which is why in this case, it probably wasn’t that big a deal (the “get a specific message out” language comes from the OP) But anything that blurs the line between the administration and the media and between journalism and boosterism is something to worry about.
So leaving aside anything Bush may have done, do you see anything worrisome with ABC News and their actions today?
Do you? If so, what?
Man you’ve blown by the OP and mentioned the ABC thing at least three times. If you want to start a thread, why don’t you go start a thread.
It’s rooted in jealousy, fear and fury: Jealousy that the President should actually treat a mere blogger as a co-equal with the august doyens of the traditional media; fear that the damned online news sites and bloggers will steal away the remaining audience for print and broadcast news; rage that their jealous fears are being confirmed by the President’s welcoming of the Huffpo intruder.
Please do start a thread on this. I’d love to participate in shredding it.
Here’s ABC’s response to the RNC effort to gin up outrage:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/pressroom/2009/06/abc-news-responds-to-rnc-letter-.html
From my cite, quote of Dan Bartlett, WH Communications Director (bolding mine)
Not necessarily, just so long as they don’t abuse the access for partisan purposes the way other networks have done in the past.
And by Fox doing things like that, it’s hurt people’s perception of their credibility and given them a reputation for being biased. Likewise, if ABC’s news special is nothing more than a platform for the President to pitch his health care plan, their credibility will be hurt.
What event is Dan Bartlett referring to? He is quoted without context and the link to the original article in your cite is dead.
If you’re asserting that he said such-and-such, we should be able to follow your links and find out what he said in its entirety.
No, I don’t agree. Huffington Post was the sole judge of which question to pick from the various twitter and blog sources available. With such a wealth of choice in front of them, they in essence ARE the source of the question; they choose the question they like.