Correspondents On The Couch

By: Vaughn Ververs
Topics: Stuff We Like

In the aftermath of the White House pressroom drama that saw press secretary Scott McClellan and reporters re-enacting scenes from grade school playgrounds of their pasts, there has been a lot of talk about the relationship between the media and the administration. Even before this latest incident over Vice President Cheney's accidental shooting, former White House press secretary Mike McCurry was publicly questioning the value of televising the daily briefing (even though it was he who instituted that practice).

Covering the White House has to be one of the more frustrating jobs for a reporter because, let's face it, information doesn't exactly flood out of any administration and it barely trickles out of the current one. The gig ensures plenty of air-time and bylines but most often, it's more a chronicle of events than anything else. Still, this morning's Katharine Seelye article in The New York Times offers up one of the more, um, unique explanations of why the press briefings sometimes become so confrontational:

Renana Brooks, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington who said she had counseled several White House correspondents, said the last few years had given rise to "White House reporter syndrome," in which competitive high achievers feel restricted and controlled and become emotionally isolated from others who are not steeped in the same experience.

She said the syndrome was evident in the Cheney case, which she described as an inconsequential event that produced an outsize feeding frenzy. She said some reporters used the occasion to compensate for not having pressed harder before the Iraq war.

"It's like any post-traumatic stress," she said, "like when someone dies and you think you could have saved them."

"White House reporter syndrome?" The doctor is in.

4 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 February 28, 2006 7:15 PM EST: How did pjh-az (a secret member of the reality-based community) get published here? I thought Vern had outlawed anyone who was not a registered member his child Fuhrer fan club?; Reply to this comment


by djman1142 February 27, 2006 11:57 PM EST: Seelye is doing a self-parody, for sure. Her preposterous friends in the WH Press Corps blame the WH for "making them look foolish" according to a CNN interview of Bill Plante last weekend. As the Seelye article finally is forced to hint at, the WH Press Corps looks foolish all by itself, and needs more than a post-traumatic stress disorder to explain its far-left bias. And how does Helen Thomas hold on to a job that she obviously cannot do well?; Reply to this comment


by ronmwanga February 27, 2006 4:11 PM EST: While the angle of psychology to explain the sometimes electric behavior of the Press Corps -- and David Gregory -- is interesting, we have to also take into account the secrecy of this particular administration and the effects of that secrecy on reporters on a tight deadline.; Reply to this comment


by pjh_az February 27, 2006 3:12 PM EST: Let's see now, the VP shot someone; didn't report it until it was too late to test for alcohol; blamed the victim initially; and then magnanimously took the blame later once the damage control was completed. To say this was an inconsequential story shows the psychologist's bias; that someone would post this nonsense shows this site's bias. It's all so convenient... the reporters have a syndrome of some sort. Why, how could it be otherwise? How unreasonable for them to be wary of a presidential spokesman who insults a leading senator by referring to them as 'yodelling?' Where was this site's psycho-babble calling Scot McClelan immature and unprofessional? Or where was the psycho-babble analyzing a president who is borderline illiterate and incapable of substantive thought? Where was the analysis pointing out GWB behaves like he has tunnel-vision and is so overwhelmed by events he retreats into soundbites he thinks he understands? Of course, what can we expect of 'reporters' who think alternative perspectives are not needed since we can trust panels exclusively made up of republicans and conservatives? If this article published by Mr. Ververs had been floated past anything other than a GWB glee-club, this site's credibility wouldn't have suffered yet another unnecessary black-eye.; Reply to this comment