If he won’t answer questions, stop showing up for his press conferences

May 24, 2006

It’s common to hear [tag]White House[/tag] [tag]reporters[/tag] criticize the president’s approach to dealing with the press. [tag]Bush[/tag] rarely holds press conferences, routinely gives addresses without responding to journalists’ questions, and when he does interviews, the president prefers to pick reporters from a scripted list and filibuster his way through the discussion to cut down on the number of questions.

But what’s a reporter to do? The White House clearly has the upper hand and the press corps doesn’t have a lot of options to protest the president’s policies towards the media. Then again, White House reporters could consider what our neighbors to the north have done.

About two dozen journalists walked out on [[tag]Canadian[/tag] Prime Minister] [tag]Stephen Harper[/tag] on Tuesday after he refused to take their questions, the latest chapter in an increasingly unseemly spat between the prime minister and members of the national media.

The scene of reporters boycotting a prime ministerial news conference was described by Parliament Hill veterans as a first. It resulted in Harper being forced to make his announcement on aid to Darfur to a small handful of reporters, photographers and cameramen outside the [tag]House of Commons[/tag].

The impromptu boycott was the latest move by journalists in their ongoing tug-of-war with the prime minister over who controls news conferences.

Harper’s office asks news outlets to submit a list of names of reporters who have questions, and the prime minister will use the list to run an “orderly” press conference. Most reporters in [tag]Canada[/tag]’s capital refuse to cooperate with the rule and have decided not to submit their names for Harper’s list.

Fine, the prime minister’s office said. Instead of answering questions, Harper would make a statement and then leave. Fine, reporters said. Instead of showing up for Harper’s remarks, they’ll [tag]boycott[/tag].

After journalists refused to be placed the list again on Tuesday, Soudas announced that Harper would be on his way shortly – and he would not be taking questions.

The press gallery president then turned to his colleagues and suggested they leave.

Most agreed, including a reporter for The Canadian Press, although a CP photographer stayed. Several said there was no point sticking around if the event could be covered off a television set from any newsroom in the country.

“We can’t accept that the prime minister’s office would decide who gets to ask questions,” said Yves Malo, a TVA reporter and president of the press gallery. “Does that mean that when there’s a crisis they’ll only call upon journalists they expect softball questions from?”

Note to the White House press corps: this is the way it’s done.

Excellent. My impression is that the White House press conferences are a waste of time these days. So I would recommend that U.S. reporters look for real news…

  • It would be grand if, just once, the majority of the WH press corps would walk out on Snowflake—and the cameras were left on just long enough to let the whole country see it happen. Then, to take it one step further, have the press corps report some “real” news—in front of live cameras’ no less—with a freshly-boycotted White House in the background. Or better still, file a “live” report from Arlington National Cemetary…or the Lincoln Memorial…or the Viet Nam “Wall.”

    The media in this country, if they’d just show a bit of gumption, still have it within their power to take this country back from Kid George and his shotgun-toting puppeteer….

  • There is little point in comparing American Info-tainment to journalism found in other countries. The NYT is considered the paper of record, and what is considered fit for the front page… The Clinton’s sexual habits? And you expect the media to take a cue from other countries? Why not ask Pat Robertson to tell the truth? Remember, America is the Beacon of all that is Right, and the rest of the world should be learning from them.

  • If the US press walked out like that, they’d stop getting their gov’mint checks in the mail. It’ll never happen.

  • That old joke comes to mind: Q. What do you call a good-looking, polite, well-dressed, educated North American? A. Canadian.

    I’d suggest *we* ignore the Washington press corps (I’ve given up on them), but we’re like addicts. Even when they’re no good any more, we have nothing else to turn to (except blogs like this). The only one who understands how to treat them is Stephen Colbert, and even then they didn’t realize what he was doing to them.

  • The Canadian Press Corps follows the British tradition of asking anything they want. Although, they are not perfect (far from it) and do have their biases and lob softball questions to the ones they favor. But they’ve always jumped on anyone who has tried to control the press.

    Problem is that our corpulant PM also tried to pull a Bush and hide our Afghan KIA from the eyes of the media. That stopped when our press were invited as guests by the families of the dead.

    The press was very harsh on a previous rightwing leader (now Minister of Security) who made a statement to the effect that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time (suddenly there were a lot of snide remarks about the Flintstones was actually a documentary.) And Cannuck journos (rightly) pounded the centrist Liberal Party for their corruption problems in Quebec which led to their defeat in this most recent election.

  • There is little point in comparing American Info-tainment to journalism found in other countries. The NYT is considered the paper of record, and what is considered fit for the front page… The Clinton’s sexual habits? And you expect the media to take a cue from other countries? Why not ask Pat Robertson to tell the truth? Remember, America is the Beacon of all that is Right, and the rest of the world should be learning from them.

    Comment by Xeroman — 5/24/2006 @ 11:08 am

    Au contraire, mon cher. I have talked to a lot of acquaintances who emigrated from the former USSR, and they say that the Washington Times, USA Today, the Conservative News Network and Fauz Snooze are remarkably similar to Izvestia and Pravda and their equivalents on Soviet TV at the time.

  • I always did wonder what to call a WH press briefing when know one showed up. Of course that is pipe dream not matter how hard I wish while clicking my heels together 3 times.

  • I’m with you, Ed. (#8).

    And ET–you don’t have to wonder what a WH briefing is like when the press doesn’t show up. They effectively don’t show up now.

    I think Dear Leader et al would be please as punched if most of the stenographers weren’t there. Things would be orderly, like in the old USSR. You only need Faux and Gannon Guckert anyway. It’s not the press but the press release that matters now.

  • i’ve spent a lot of time trying to decide whether the U.S. does such an awful job because of mendacity or some conceit on reporters’ part that serving the news sunny-side up is a moral obligation. there’s the oft-made observation, on the one hand, that a finger from their corporate masters comes down to draw a line in the sand, which reporters may not cross. but the flip side seems to be that reporters see it as their duty to promote positive spin, so as not to burden the public with too much bad news, thus souring the national mood. the right-wing crazies have, of course, badgered the press for so-called liberal bias to the point where being neutral on the issues has in turn neutered reporting — as long as 2 sides of an issue are presented and given equal weight, nevermind whether either or both can withstand scrutiny (which, of course, is absent). the WH press briefing is a charade, and if you go out of your way to look for it, you can even find reporters complaining about it. but then read their stories and wonder, what would they be doing differently even with less stonewalling and repetition of talking points? the press here simply wants to be treated like the important personages they see themselves being — few are instrested in rocking the boat.

    • Comments are closed.