The Public Eye Chat With .... Jim Axelrod
(CBS)
Matthew Felling: It seems like the ‘gaggle’ exists in an old school media vacuum, as opposed to the afternoon briefing, with all the cameras present. Are there completely different moods? Are there different tones of voice used in the morning as opposed to the afternoon?
Jim Axelrod: Well, [Clinton Press Secretary] Mike McCurry famously said that the biggest mistake he made was allowing the briefings to be televised. They used to be just to be for a minute or two and then the cameras would be off. But with the televised nature of the briefing, I don’t think now that the gaggle is “old school,” I think the briefings sometimes become show business because everybody knows it’s on television. It generates a lot of heat, but I’m not sure how much light.
The gaggle is often a much better source for actual information, primarily because there’s no camera on. You can tape record comments and trancscribe them later. And I don’t want to say that they’re informal or casual, but they’re more relaxed in the sense of ‘performance’ that sometimes accompanies the briefing which is not always to the process’ benefit. If the process is getting information to the public, than I’m not sure the briefing is always the best way to do that. The gaggle often yields more.
Matthew Felling: How has the press corps’ relationship with Tony Snow changed, now that we’re in the ‘second term’ of his tenure as White House Press Secretary?
Jim Axelrod: I don’t think the tone has changed. This is a guy who is undergoing pretty intensive medical treatment right now. I think you’d have to ask him, but he seems a little tired to me. He seems a little low energy. Here’s a guy who may be getting chemo on Friday, and back in front of reporters on Monday -- but it doesn’t change the nature of the relationship. I don’t think it’s such a contentious relationship. It’s respectful and professional and civil and I don’t think anybody is not asking questions because they’re worried about looking like they’re beating up on a sick guy. And he doesn’t hold back any, either. I haven’t seen any significant difference in how business is being done now and being done before he was sick.
Matthew Felling: What is the biggest misperception about the White House press corps?
Jim Axelrod: I think the White House press corps, first of all, on a personal level, likes the administration staff we deal with. It’s very civil. I don’t call up to get information and end up getting in screaming matches. I also think that things are not as personal as people make them out to be sometimes. The other thing is, I wasn’t here for the Clinton years, but from everything I hear, people went after getting information in the Clinton years with no less aggressiveness, assertiveness, diligence than they do now.
Matthew Felling: Do you think the Bush administration is in a bubble?
Jim Axelrod: All Presidents are. [Bush] talks about what people are thinking, but he doesn’t spend any time at Starbucks. It’s just the nature [of the job]. Clinton was in a bubble; they’re all in bubbles. I think in the administration, there are obviously people who are aware of what the conflicting opinions are. But this is where I think you get into a situation, take the Alberto Gonzalez thing, where so many people including a growing number of Republicans feel one way about it and the President will look at you straight in the eye and tell you he sees it another way. Is that a bubble, or is that just seeing it a different way? If a bubble is defined as not having a whole lot of contact with normal people, well, that’s a big fence around the White House.
Matthew Felling: What about the White House press corps, following around a man in a bubble? Does that mean that the White House press corps is in a little bit of a bubble itself?
Jim Axelrod: I don’t know. I’ve got three kids. I spend a lot of time on soccer fields and in coffee shops, elementary schools. I talk to people, my friends across the country in different businesses; have civic obligations; belong to a synagogue. I’m not in a bubble. I’m a very regular guy who spends 8, 10 or 12 hours at an office that’s either in the White House or right across the street from the White House. But that’s not where I’m living my life.
Matthew Felling: What do you make of the New York Times decision to stop attending correspondents’ dinners and other places where they fraternize with the people they’re covering?
Jim Axelrod: I take people to lunch all the time; I talk to people on the phone all the time. The nature of any business is relationships. The nature of journalism is access and relationships and honestly, how else is it going to be done?
But that said, the correspondents’ dinner? What is that? Is it a Hollywood thing? You’re jamming a thousand people into a ballroom for … I’m not quite sure what the point is. Look, it’s a fun night. Do I like going out? Sure. Does my wife like going out and seeing Teri Hatcher and Sanjaya and George Clooney? I sat at the table next to Clooney last year and my wife didn’t talk to me for two hours, she was ogling over my shoulder because Clooney was in her line of vision. I’m not sure what that has to do with covering the White House. I do think you need to take a look at the correspondent’s dinner. I don’t think it’s an issue that it’s damaging the republic any. I don’t think it’s changing the way journalism is practiced or reporting is conducted or a threat to our culture. But in the narrow since, as to ‘what are we doing here,’ I think it’s grown into something it wasn’t intended to be when it was started.
...As if the crowd at Starbucks have any hold on reality.
Jim, what could I possibly tell you that you shouldn't already know?