Potholes on the High Road
We have spent so much time piling on Bill Clinton, it wouldn't surprise me if he called a news conference, simply to tell reporters to go to Hell, that he simply wouldn't deal with them anymore, something akin to "You won't have me to kick around anymore"
Yeah yeah, I know, that was more piling on. But now, I think the time has come to tackle Barack Obama. Mr. Clinton is right. Obama has been getting a free ride.
My friend, Howard Kurtz, of the Washington Post, has an important column in Monday's paper, in which he describes Obama's refusal to have regular dealings with his traveling press.
Why should he, after all? He's done quite well running a rock star campaign, generating all the publicity and great video he needs by turning on large crowds, who are inspired by his platitudes.
Well, here's why he should: The reporters who see and hear him every day are the best equipped to question his positions. They are the ones who can make the candidate deal with the nitty-gritty of the campaign. After all, a president will have to deal with the nitty-gritty of governing, won 't he? Inspiring speeches won't be enough.
No one loves the press, certainly not the candidates and high officials, who would prefer a cocoon inhabited by adoring sycophants, as opposed to a snarling swarm of professional skeptics.
But like it or not, us wretches have an important role. We are the reality check that is fundamental in our democratic system. We can't have an informed electorate if the voters fully understand what their favorites will get us into. We should not have to rely on the self-serving, propaganda put out by their campaigns.
Obama's aloofness could be a serious flaw. It could mean he can't tolerate the kind of challenges to his ideas and presentation that are essential. He needs to be willing to mix it up with those who are best equipped to ask the tough questions. He may want to travel the high road, but he must be willing to maneuver any bumps caused by the low-lifes in the press.
We journalists also need to wise up. Barack Obama puts on a good light show at his rallies. We shouldn't get so starry-eyed after we've watched one of his concerts. It's time to demand that Obama be seen offstage, closer up. Sporadic appearances on the morning broadcasts or Sunday talk shows are not enough. The valid candidate needs to engage with tough questioners constantly, every day. This is an election, not a coronation.
One of the Clintons' biggest problems is the impression they leave that they are far too accomplished to deal with unworthies like us riff-raff reporters. We don't need another candidate like that. Barack Obama seems to have the same tendencies. Is there something about an Ivy League education that fosters that kind of mindset?
Come to think of it there probably is. Frankly, the adherents may be right about us, but a major qualification for any successful politician is his or her ability to suffer fools. They need to at least be able to condescend. We'll all be the wiser for it.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
amen, dejavu to 2000 when the msm decided gore was a liar and gwb was a regular guy, but i think we cant give to much license to these "reporters" very few are even qualified to call themselves that, they are merely accomplished in the use of the english language and they write down what they are told very well, real reporters ask tough question, not because they have sided with someone but because we deserve to know the answers and how these candidates will respond to the questions
Amen---the media's lack of reporting on and excess of fawning over Obama is appalling and reminds many of us of Bush in 2000.
I blame the Clinton derangement and hatred the media all has--they long ago decided the story was Hillary (bad) vs. Obama (good), and won't budge. It's horrendous.
I'm confused. Presidents have been using the press and the press have been promoting their "darlings" forever. Now, they act like they've had an awakening? The press loves to help their favorites into office then tear them apart like rabid dogs as long as I can remember (beyond the Carter years). They love no one but themselves as they primp in front of their mirrors and laptops.
Bob, as a post script...
take a look at todays ridiculous grade school gossip mongering coverage of Obama's supposed slight to Clinton when he allegedly turned his back on her while she was shaking Ted's hand, including the over coverage of it on CNN.
It is a perfect example of what is wrong with the MSM today and why no one has any respect for journalists any more. It is unimportant, extremely speculative, superficial and worse yet displaces the very important issues that go unreported while your profession wallows in this fluff.
When I see Obama, all I can think of is the slogan, "Where's the beef?" He mentions the word "change" a hundred times in his speeches, but I don't hear any details. Time for Obama to be scrutinized the way the media has done the Clintons for years.
Why don't you tell your colleagues rather than preaching to the choir? The media is pathetic and irresponsible, but smart enough to know that its darling will get elected.
South Carolina coverage went to an all-new low. Pat Buchanon is the lone voice offering an alternative interpretation to the narrative getting shoved down our throats?!! Now that's sad.
I suggest you get Gore's book about REASON and read it.
They have learned, thanks to Bush, how to handle the media- reporters are no more than P.R. specialists to deliver their spin.
Reporters & news organizations have no one but themselves to blame as they have let Bush & Co. go unchallenged for 8 years-they can"t expect to the Dems to be open to their magnifying glass after coddling Bush during his campaign..
In fact I, hold them hugely responsible for the past 8 years!
Thank you for this article. Now I understand why the rock concerts get full word to word coverage on the talking head MSM. Not only are there stars in their eyes they get no access to the guy so no tarnish forms on his shining suit of armour. Until very recently that worked for Bush too. I am sure that effect will only get more intense as the Kennedy show is added to the concert reminding all of the iron horses of the msm of the early activist days with JFK that guys like Mathhews constantly reference in their chatter. Soon like Bush the campaign will selectively choose which media persons get annointed with access to the star so they will all carefully work not to ask any annoying or troubling questions that could spoil the show.
Bob, while I normally enjoy reading your pieces, this time I feel you're off base. The reason Obama deals with you all the way he does is the same reason Clinton deals with you all the way she does- neither take your profession seriously and choose to use you as they see fit, one by spinning you and the other by dismissing you.
Too many of your peers don't seem to remember how to do their jobs properly anymore- they instead wallow in the superficial, the self important and the sensational, choosing to stir up or even create controversy rather than focusing on the issues. I read part of the link to the Kurtz article and frankly, it sounded to me like unmitigated whining. "Wah, where's my soundbite- Boo Hoo, where's my quote?" Can none of you find the story without it being handed to you on a silver platter?
You should not give Obama a free ride, nor Clinton. In fact none of the candidates should be given one. But until journalists decide to once again embrace the tenets of their profession and act along the lines of Murrow and Cronkite, rather than TMZ and Entertainment Tonight, no one is going to take you seriously- not the candidates and certainly not the public.
Ask the hard questions, but make them fair and make them relevant. Do your research and dig into the issues. Then if a candidate refuses to engage we can actually draw some conclusions from their answers or lack thereof.
But please note- the public is growing more and more disenchanted with the MSM; we're tired of the sloppy job you've been doing, whether it's complicity, incompetence or the avarice of the ratings race. This is a presidential campaign after all, not some grotesque combination of a popularity contest, American Idol and a school yard pissing contest. The MSM would do well to quit trying to make it so...
Based upon how the press has conducted itself thus far, I'd say Obama has made the right choice.
If he can speak directly to the electorate via his website, personal appearances, and the grass-roots network he's built, why should he risk quotes out of context?
When he appeared on ABC's Sunday talk show I was absolutely appalled to see the entire discussion become one of the Clintons and completely ignore any substantive discussion of his positions on the issues. The Clinton kerfuffle was done -- it was time to move on to the future, but in classic sound bite fashion, the press stayed on a dead controversy.
I'm smart enough to figure out what he's saying for myself with out pundits telling me what he said. I expect he knows that too.
"But like it or not, us wretches have an important role. We are the reality check that is fundamental in our democratic system."
As a filter, MSM has been outstanding. They were able to filter out whatever message Dodd, Biden, Gravel or Kucinich were trying to deliver to the voting public. MSM has marginalized candidates and, more important, candidates' positions that are not in tune with the corporate status quo. Reporters are agents of the corporate media and their loyalty is to their employers, not their potential readers. Obama's campaign team has - just like HRC's staff - worked to offset the compelling influence that MSM has on the electoral process.
The Reagan comments came from an hour sit down with the Reno newspaper. I know this because I watched it.
The problem is that we have a pack of dogs who have tons of demands and yet fail to do the work we should expect of them.
And if Sen. Obama doesn't have time in each and every day to meet all the demands, journalists with big egos get their panties in a bunch.
I have seen a lot of Obama both electronically and in print. Maybe those in the media should look at themselves for a minute and reflect on their failures to move the debate forward.
You mean that he should rely on reporters to make a fair case for or against him? That you'd actually do journalism rather than seek out sensationalist soundbites?
In case you haven't noticed, journalism has lost a lot of its luster in recent years. To whatever extent he is avoiding the clutches of the media - and you're not an unbiased party in making that claim - he may be displaying his wisdom.
Have you tried sending him a thoughtful list of questions that aren't about seeking sensationalism?
But of course, the press, as per usual in this age of infotainment, has contented itself with $400 haircut stories and endless musings on body language and poll numbers, and most of all how they themselves feel about a candidate, deep in their hearts, which is all about whether they loved their mommies or the smell of Daddy's aftershave. A reporter these days wouldn't recognise any political position as newsworthy unless he'd seen it in a sex manual.
Hear, hear!! The press initally fell in love with Bush and now another candidate gets a free ride because he is attractive and articulate on the stump. What do we really know about Obama? At least with Hillary, flaws and all, we have been saturated with more than enough information to base a decision. I don't want the next 4 years of an Obama presidency to be a platform for the Sharptons and Jacksons running to a microphone yelling "racist" to any criticism aimed at Obama.
Loading comments…
Posted January 28, 2008 | 11:36 AM (EST)