Obama, The Press and Us: Transparency is Not Enough

Updated below

So, after running a campaign with Bush-like discipline in press relations, President Barack Obama promised a "new standard of openness" on his first day in office. His administration is rolling out regulations to ensure a more transparent government. His aides have been addressing citizens online, bypassing reporters to reach the public directly. All this makes the Washington press corps, already struggling with low approval ratings and low profits, potentially less relevant.

If Obama's administration operates anything like his campaign, it will both sideline and compete with the media as a news source.

The transition team provided a great range of video, official documents, e-mail bulletins and other content for interested citizens. Then, last week, Obama's aides clearly entered the White House with disintermediation on their minds. Scrapping the traditional wire photo shoot of the new president at his desk, Obama's aides simply published their own.

Ditto for Round Two of the swearing-in, which was largely closed to the press. " The same day that the president is talking about transparency, we were not let in, reporter Ed Henry declared on CNN. Several news agencies, to their credit, refused to circulate those government photos. As one AP official explained, their duty is to document news about the administration -- not regurgitate "visual press releases" produced by the administration.

It is great, of course, for the White House to release photos or documents or any other material. Obama's openness is a welcome change from his predecessor, who went all the way to the Supreme Court to hide the RSVP list for a single policy meeting. And transparency is intrinsically good, since in a democracy, very little government activity is legitimately secret.

Transparency reform and government information, however, are no substitutes for journalistic access and original reporting.

In fact, the administration's new openness might even function as little more than another unfiltered route to disseminate its view. If the information is offered to supplant independent reporting -- as in the photo disputes -- and only flows in one direction, then the government simply amplifies its already sizable megaphone. A louder government with less journalism does not enrich our democratic process.

The key is to couple government transparency with meaningful interaction. That means open, accountable engagement with the press and the public. As it happens, this is an area where the traditional press can now play a powerful and constructive role. It is also one where Obama's aides have already come up short.

Take a recent experiment in citizen journalism, (which many HuffPo readers will recall). After soliciting tens of thousands of citizen questions via Change.gov during the transition, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer the most popular question, about prosecuting torture and illegal spying, earlier this month. The question drew thousands of votes, including mine, because the issue was important -- and no reporter (or citizen) had managed to get an answer out of Obama's team.

The experiment could have simply ended with Gibbs rebuffing all those people who participated. Days after Gibbs dodged, however, ABC's George Stephanopoulos picked up where Change.gov left off. Noting that the question was ignored, he pressed it on Obama during a television interview. By using his access to amplify the public's voice, Stephanopoulos elicited new information from Obama, who said he was more focused on moving forward than enforcing the law. Stephanopoulos also fortified these new online portals for citizen interaction with the administration. Meanwhile, Gibbs saw that when he ducked a digital hardball, it swiftly hit his boss.

Now, the White House press corps is not going to outsource its journalistic priorities to the public, of course, and politicians often avoid questions regardless of the source. These are still new collaborative opportunities, though, to foster the access that the press desperately needs and the public deserves.

If legitimate questions from citizens are rejected online, reporters can back them up in White House briefings and press conferences.

If the administration provides information only as a unitary marketing operation, citizens may join the media protest.

And if it ever seems like Obama's commitment to grass-roots, two-way communication is fading away, like so many campaign memories, citizens and reporters can collaborate to put meaningful openness on the agenda.

The public and the press have been at odds lately. Yet when it comes to pressing Obama on coupling transparency with public interaction, as the saying goes, we are the ones we've been waiting for.

Update Response to Readers: Several readers comment on how the media's poor journalistic performance during the Bush era makes it even more vital for public officials to take their message directly to the public. There are also several thoughtful critiques of the White House press corps' priorities. I responded to multiple people in the comment thread below.

--
Ari Melber, a correspondent for The Nation, writes a regular column for Politico, where this piece first appeared.

Comments

[maskimball]

Is this the same press that just went along with WMDs and the run up to the war in Iraq? ... the same press that would not ask the hard questions before sending our young men and women in harms way? ... the same today that does not present a balanced picture of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Please, give me a break .. why do they think on-line news sources have become so popular? Because you can't get the real news from the corporate press!!

And complaining about not having access to Round Two of the swearing-in ... well, if that doesn't tell you what the corporate media thinks is important ... ha!

I'll take my Internet sources any day. That way I can cross check facts and get different opinions from all over the world, thank you very much.

[Jimbo62]

Well geez, the press performed so admirably during the Bush administration and they are so monolithic, let's refer to them collectively as "the Press". I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the press to get my message out, unless it was a Britney Spears sighting or a missing rich white girl. Until "the Press" proves that it is doing it's job, after 8 years of enabling the last administration to run rampant with our laws and rights, I wouldn't let them be my outlet for information. You folks that are hyperventilating in his first week of his administration need to take a long vacation, soak up some sun, get some perspective and realize that the role of the media has been watered down by some among you. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove......­.the list goes on and on. As long as "the Press" counts these people as legitimate "press" people, you will be in this position. The media has no credibility anymore and there should be a lot of finger pointing at your club meetings.

[EdgedInBlue]

I don't' think you'll get much sympathy from the public quarter. It is still fresh in our minds how little Bush was pushed to actually tell the truth. We also remember:
+How talk show host Robert Novak was instrumental in outing Valerie Plame, never revealing his source but saying he was “confident the president knows who the source is.”
+How Jack Abramoff paid for news written to his specificat­ions...rem­ember Peter Ferrara, defending taking the money by saying “I do that all the time … I’ve done that in the past, and I’ll do it in the future.”
+How the Pentagon et al paid Iraqi columnist to right only positive stories about the war..."Zak­i [an Iraqi newspaper editor] said that if his cash-strapped paper had known that these stories were from the U.S. government, he would have 'charged much, much more' to publish them."
+The Bush Administrations lame attempts at manufacturing "news"; the Department of Education paying Armstrong Williams to defend the No Child Left Behind Act, HHS hiring Maggie Gallagher to promote its "marriage initiative," and both agencies sending prepackaged pseudo-news advocating administration policies to local tv channels.
Not too awfully inspiring of trust.

We're not talking about Jack Anderson here, we're talking about the white house press corps.

[mmgbizgirl]

Give them an inch, they'll take a yard. He's teaching the press the rules of engagement in his administration.

[DKLabRat]

Hmmmm....o­kay, where's the Obama shutting out the press bit to justify the headline?

Also:

"In fact, the administration's new openness might even function as little more than another unfiltered route to disseminate its view. If the information is offered to supplant independent reporting -- as in the photo disputes -- and only flows in one direction, then the government simply amplifies its already sizable megaphone.­"

Isn't this down to the press rather than Obama? It's up to them to vigorously question what they are given, instead of just delivering it to the people unchallenged. Our lot in the UK do this all the time - it's lazy journalism. Don't blame the messenger - get your act together and question things. It's what you're supposed to be there for. But if you're going to just BE an unfiltered route that's your doing, no one else's.

[propitiousmoment]

Although there are probably good reasons for not bringing back the fairness doctrine, I do remember a time when reporting was about facts and opinion was clearly labeled as such. I have pretty much shunned television in general since my teens, and the contrast as a result is stark. When I look at television news now, I see a lot of ideological posturing aimed at inflaming the base (whoever the base may be). It was completely different in the 70's and before. It's easier to just stick to the web for real information and bypass that blather altogether. And if fact, HuffPo is not much better, at least in the headlines department, as it often seems that they are spun to inflame rather than to reflect the actual, mundane story.

I have to say I am impressed by the passion and erudition of the commenters on this post. It seems to have hit a nerve.

[rsprags]

You guys are great - it not just Ed Henry at CNN; Campbell Brown, Mr.Lying independent Lou Dobbs, the whole Fox gang, and MSNBC have a group of disrespectful grining females announcers on during the day that sensationalize every story they report. After multiple complaints they finally start calling Pres Obama Pres rather than Obama or Barack.
They cannot take the fact that the President feels empowered by the people to bring his message directly to the American people rather than allow them to water it down with their sound bites and over analysis which is off base 99% of the time.

[springsm]

Good for President Obama. In a room with the Press, Obama is the only mature adult.

[mmgbizgirl]

I like how he plays ball. With grace and decisiveness.

[westbrooks01]

Is it just me or does our media think "The Real World: The Obama White House" just started its new season?

I do not expect that kind of access in our White House. Even though all of Obama's quips are interesting, they are HARDLY news. BUT, to the media, every single word is a chance for a journalist to make his/her career: Obama's Justin Timberlake-bet with Malia or whether Obama knows the words to Beyonce's "Single Ladies" song. NOT news, quips.

President Obama has a government/free world to run, and it is not important so much as to how Obama carries on his day, but what his work product is and how it effects us.

So, enough with The Real World-type reporting, and how about some Johann Hari-type, investigative, intellectual-type reporting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari

[NOLAMoCity]

I could not have said it better myself.

[propitiousmoment]

Johann Hari is an excellent example, great research, great writing. I've learned a lot from him.

[GrainOSand]

This is a celebrity culture in some measure. If there were no market there would be no product. I sense the reason in your words, but I see the reality before me. When people can sell baby pictures for millions, we have lost our bearings. When people identify with strangers on a screen playing a character as integral to their being (I can't miss my show) perhaps a review of priorities is in order. When photographers chase another human being and make a spectacle of themselves for “the shot”, you lost me. I am highly appreciative of artistry and there is nothing wrong with being a person of interest. Inflating other humans to God status seems a prescription for letdown. Actors, dancers, singers, musicians, writers, astronauts, janitors, and clerks...p­eople.

[escrow7]

Now do you really think they are going to stop. If they stopped what would we blog about.

Although I do agree :)

http://www.thirdeyechronicles.com

[apoyo]

The press have made themselves irrelevant. Maybe if they do some research before they ask a question they might come across as knowledgeable and credible. If all they want is a news headline then they shouldn't be given the time of day. They write observations with a spin to their liking.

[Susanfrom29]

What we know as the "press" today was started in an era when people did not have any other way to learn what their government was doing. Clearly, that era is over.

The press taught us, during the Bush Administration, that they were not capable of supporting the informed citizenry that a democracy relies upon.

Why should I need a journalist to do my thinking for me? This is the same press corps that accepted George Bush's declaration that his life before he turned 40 was off-limits. The same press corps that accepted the great lies of Clean Air, WMD, "terrorism" as an enemy, and a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attack of 9/11.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my information direct from the horses mouth.

[MsCanadian]

This is also the same press that refused to dig into Palin's background during the campaign. Enough of the infotainment already. Journalists - do some serious reporting.

[kgb999]

And the same press that knowingly participated in disclosing the name of a CIA agent for sheer political malice - and then protected the perpetrators within government. Most frighteningly, this was in retaliation for her husband doing what the journalists refused to do: publishing the truth about the evidence that lied us into Iraq.

Journalists have made themselves an extension of the political establishment they claim to cover. At least with direct communication, our government has to take responsibility for their statements. The media just act as stenographers to achieve the hidden objectives of their secret sources.

[Xenopus]

Well, when the press become reporters again, rather than commentato­rs/opinion­ators and tabloid gossip mongers, maybe they will get better access to this President. The press has been pretty pathetic for quite awhile now.......­..and it's their own fault no one respects them like they used to "back in the day.".

[susie1776]

Let me see.......­..hasn't there been a daily WH press briefing? President Obama signed a bunch of executive orders during the swearing in of Senior Staff and the press were there. He went to the State Dept and the press was there. It seems to me he has talked and talked and talked to the "press" this first week. But you know what, he has an economic crisis of mammoth proportion plus a bunch of jerk Republicans doing everything to obstruct him. He has two wars at the same time. He's still only got part of his Cabinet in place. He's got more troubles than 3 Presidents should have to handle and the WH "press" can't stop whining that he's bypassing them? Maybe when that bunch of smug, self righteous gossip mongers start acting like journalists, President Obama will feel more like talking. I still want to know where the WH press was when Bush/Cheney were dragging us into Iraq. Where were they when Valerie Plame was outed. Where were they when Bush/cheney were stompinal all over our civil liberties? They deserve every low rating they have gotten. And they wonder why nobody trusts the media anymore???

[Bronzer]

When the press returns to true journalism, that is, reporting the news rather than putting a spin on it, then politicians and others who either avoid or are wary of the media, will once again welcome them to "report" the news. Reporting the news means reporting what they observe or airing comments they receive verbatim -- leaving editorials to the Editor of the station or newspaper, as appropriate.

[McFlipFlop]

Yes, that is it.

And kudos to Obama for refusing to particpate in divisive tabloid journalism.

Once the new zeitgeist is instilled, maybe quality reporters will get more time with the Pres.