The White House press corps and the president aren’t ‘buddies’

March 28, 2006

Editor & Publisher reported today that the president has a new strategy to help win over reporters who’ve been giving him a hard time: a charm offensive.

In an apparent effort to mend his relationship with the press, President George Bush has been holding [tag]off-the-record[/tag] meetings with White House reporters for the past few days, an apparent first since he took office.

Several correspondents confirmed to E&P either participating in such meetings or being invited to them, noting that at least two have been held in the past week, with one scheduled for Tuesday. Most have lasted more than an hour and at least one took place in Bush’s private residence.

One reporter said Bush “wants to chew the fat,” and asked “about our backgrounds, our families. He wanted to be informal, but it couldn’t be, because of who he is.”

The more I think about it, the more I think reporters are making a mistake by going along with this. Obviously, every journalist in the world would welcome the chance to chat with the president. But these discussions aren’t interviews, and the reporters who speak with Bush can’t report what they learn. There’s no news to be gleaned; it’s all off-the-record.

David Bohrman, the Washington bureau chief for CNN, who attended one of the private sessions, said, “Most of the time, the environments that our reporters deal with the president in are very structured, very managed, and they rarely get to just kick back and have a conversation. I think there’s a lot of value in it for both sides.”

It’s hard to see how. Bush is no doubt trying to win over these journalists with special access and private conversations. I can see the president’s incentive — “don’t write those mean things about me; we chatted about your kids” — but what’s in it for the reporters?

To its credit, I think the New York Times was right to turn down the invitation.

The New York Times, which was invited to attend a session today, has declined to participate.

Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief for The Times, said in a statement last night: “The Times has declined this opportunity after weighing the potential benefits to our readers against the prospect of withholding information from them about the discussion with Mr. Bush. As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct [tag]on-the-record[/tag] interviews with public officials.”

Bush’s invitations are meant to effectively spin [tag]reporters[/tag]. They’re taken to exclusive areas in the White House residence and the president chats them up. I’m sure it’s a rather surreal experience.

But there’s limited, if any, upside for journalists to engage in these personal chats. Bush isn’t their “buddy,” and he probably isn’t asking about their families because he’s deeply interested in their personal lives. The White House is struggling to communicate, it knows it, so it’s beginning to try and charm reporters. News outlets shouldn’t play along.

well, yeah, CB but you assume we still live in a world where what used to be called journalistic ethics still matter or are remotely valued. You must have been on Ambien when you typed those stories about the Post hiring Ben Dumbredneck in your sleep and forgot all about them! 🙂

  • Journalists playing footsie with the Bush Crime Family is like drug enforecement agents cozying up to drug dealers. Hey, wait a minute … that’s what they do.

  • This is similar to the kind of briefings that Rockefeller got about the illegal wiretaps. I’ll tell you some stuff, but you cant repeat any of it.

    Sounds like a spin about cozying up, but Im sure, in the end, it will be shown to be a way of blackmailing anyone who attends.

    NYT did the right thing. Dont go anywhere near a conversation with these people that isnt on the record.

  • this comes out of bush’s training as an alcoholic. he really believes he can be an utter shit to people–remember how last week the media was siding with the enemy by not reporting the “good news” out of Iraq?–then think a little bit of false warmth will patch things up. how many times did he humiliate laura with his drunkenness, then buy her flowers or a nice dinner to make up for it? people desperate enough to love an alcoholic will initially latch onto these gestures, wanting to believe the bad behavior will stop (just see how often andrew sullivan roars back to bush’s side when he does something not entirely incompetent). but sooner or later, even the most besotted enablers snap. america has to do what laura finally did: give bush an ultimatum: either shape up or we’re shipping out.

  • “…As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials.”

    Who the f**k does this idiot from the NYTs think he’s kidding?

    New York Times: “All the News We’re Told to Print.” After committing treason by not reporting presidential crimes BEFORE the 2004 election the Times has forever sacrificed its credibility on the very knife Bush is stabbing into the heart of America; they are deserving of nothing but contempt.

    I include the WaPo in this assessment; they suck, they know it, and they simply play stenographer for Bushco.

  • Sounds like classic batterred wife syndrome….

    ‘He beats me, but you know it’s not his fault…’
    ‘He’s under a lot of stress…’
    ‘Nobody understands him…’
    He needs me…’

  • I used to desribe Clinton’s Charm as being like diet cola, tastes fine going down but leaves a bitter after taste (yes, I’m old enough to remember bad diet sodas).

    I’ve begun to wonder if all ‘charm’ is like that, artifical and often bitter tasting after the first gulp. Certainly George W. Bush seems to come across that way to me. Is the effect of charm just a temporary feeling which does not live up to real friendship in long term value?

    Bush is said to value loyalty. But does he really return loyalty for loyalty given? Seems to me Claude Allen is spinning in the wind.

  • Absolutely correct, Bill Arnett.

    I’ll add this: Just how many anonymous sources were quoted extensively as the New York Times helped maked the administration’s WMD case against Iraq? They had no quibble reprinting every single piece of erroneous trash verbatim they were fed by the administration in 2002 and 2003, so why start acting like you’ve got scruples now?

    Philip Taubman: A sanctimonious, hypocritical prick.

  • Bush sounds like the guy who tried to sell me a time-share in Branson a few years back.

  • Sounds like the Bush Administration has run out of Judy Millers and needs to goose up some more.

    Just because Miller and Armstrong Williams and Guckert/Gannon are gone doesn’t mean that there aren’t a few thousand insecure and timid journalists who wouldn’t feel a little puffed up in front of their colleagues from the prestige coming from being able to chat with the President. Of course, the downside to the present situation is that the President is so obviously trying to make friends because he’s in a pickle, so the prestige value for the reporter won’t be so great as it would be of Bush was remotely popular.

  • Oooo… ouch! The wounds caused by Miller are still painful at the Times. I’m glad they’ve decided to get off the sucker -circuit. And there’s the pleasure of watching the Pres change from bully to openly pathetic, and waiting to see who else meets with the him and what they write. Some of these guys are lower ‘n’ a snake’s belly.

    I’m transcribing a huge long interview (book tour) with Moulitsas and Armstrong in which they’re assailed at one point for not having obvious journalistic credentials Get that? Journalistic credentials! Contradiction in terms, these days!

  • C’mon guys, you know stuff like this works. These journalist/stenographers will get off meeting mano a mano with President Moron and being, like, his friend. And he’ll joke with them and ask them about their little darlings by name. That’s what he’s good at, and what makes Presidentin’ such hard work. They will leave with a photo, just them smiling with their buddy, the Commander in Chimp. Plus they will have their very own nickname, just like Putie and Brownie and Kenny Boy. Think of what that will bring on eBay when they are ready to retire and, until then, they can impress their friends with their presumed access. True, Clinton may have been an amazing policy wonk, but this is the guy they’ve always said–and still do!– you’d want to have near beer with. And yes, next time, when they want to write something that approximates the truth, I mean, something mean, they just, in “fairness”, won’t want to.

  • Bush needs a few more Bill Sammons, Bob Woodwards, and Fox networks to provide more fair and balanced coverage. But it isn’t going to change the fact the Bush is still Bush, Cheney is still Cheney and Rove is still Rove. No matter how they cover it, the facts ain’t pretty.

  • Are these people for real. How many times do you have to get kicked in the head before you finally learn. Bush and Co. are liars and back stabbers and they will do and say anything as long as it benefits them. Being one on one with him will only get reporters the truth as Bush sees it. Remember the reporters embedded in Iraq? Do you think they really printed the truth or what their protectors wanted to hear? This is no different. If these people had any morals or scruples they woudl tell him to stick his invitation where the sun don’t shine.

    • Comments are closed.