All Blog Posts from Public Eye

"The relationship between the President and the press is a unique relationship, and it's a necessary relationship. I enjoy it. I hope you do. As I say, sometimes you don't like the decisions I make, and sometimes I don't like the way you write about the decisions. But nevertheless, it's a really important part of our process."

-- President Bush, at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new briefing room this morning, befriending the filter.

The relationship between the press and the White House can be seen every day in the briefing room (or temporary briefing room, as the case happens to be), where the press corps meets with Press Secretary Tony Snow. Of late, the gathering has gotten more attention than usual because some think the level of contentiousness has reached a fever pitch. It's been awhile since our own visit to the briefing room, so we decided to ask White House Correspondent Jim Axelrod -- who's there every day, front row – how he approaches the job:

In terms of yielding worthwhile answers -- from Snow or anyone speaking at the podium in the briefing room -- what works and what doesn't?

The presumption in the briefing room is that Tony Snow is there to explain the administration's point of view. That makes him an advocate. Sure, he can tell you facts -- who the President met with that day, what the subject of the week's radio address might be, or where the Bush family will spend Christmas. But the bulk of his job is to explain why the President is doing what he's doing -- and answer questions from reporters who are often trying to glean more information than the White House wants to share.

I generally have one chance to ask a question or a series of questions at the briefing. I know that if I ask a question like, "so what's the President's new way forward in Iraq?" it's not going to yield much. They'll announce that when they are ready, and not a moment before. However, I can ask questions designed to peel back a layer or two of the onion. For instance, yesterday I asked if the White House is factoring in the feelings of the American people in devising a new strategy. Either answer is going to provide a little better sense of how the process of crafting a new way forward is unfolding. That's all I try to do.

Read full post…

The temporary off-grounds White House briefing room has been the subject of quite a bit of chatter lately. White House Correspondent Bill Plante tells us about the facility's most recent development that has everyone talking -- a somewhat inconspicuous video camera.

Is Karl Rove watching? Or does he have better things to do, like trying to save the Republican majority in Congress?

Well, Karl, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and other senior staffers CAN watch a video feed from the Briefing Room - even if it’s one of the briefings (also known as “gaggles”) which are not normally made available for TV.

There’s a small TV camera mounted on the ceiling of the temporary White House briefing room. It’s black, matching the TV lights – and consequently, unobtrusive. I noticed it a few days after we moved into the new space a month ago.

But today, during the 9:30 a.m. gaggle, as my colleagues and I went back and forth with Press Secretary Tony Snow about whether the President’s Oval Office address last night was “political,” I watched the camera swing from questioner to questioner. A quick glance to the side of the room confirmed that the White House Communications Agency Technician who handles the audio for the briefings was also controlling the camera.

So, as it hovered in my direction during another reporter’s question, I began waving. Isn’t that what everyone does in front of a camera?

Tony Snow, distracted, stopped in mid-sentence to ask me why I was waving.

“Hi Josh,” I volunteered. “Hi Karl.”

Read full post…

The Washington Post's Peter Baker reports that White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten "might stop allowing its daily news briefing to be televised in full in hopes of discouraging posturing for the cameras and toning down the confrontational atmosphere":

Bolten said he would leave it up to new press secretary Tony Snow to decide whether to reverse that. "It's worth considering," Bolten said. "I think that will be Tony Snow's first test to see what kind of power player he really is and whether he's able to establish the right kind of relationship with the press that we need going forward."

Would banning the cameras be a good idea? Not according to the Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman:

Note to Mr. Bolten: the fact is that televised press briefings are now a part of the political/news media culture — and they have been for many years.

If you decide to end them now when the President's poll numbers are languishing it will be widely interpreted, perceived and portrayed as a sign that the White House is going into hiding mode — trying to avoid the public scrutiny that voters see when they watch a press spokesman stand up to tough (if at times inane and lack-of-follow-up) questioning.

But the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes disagrees. One of his pieces of advice for Snow:

Ban TV cameras from the daily White House briefings for the press. These events have turned the press room into a battleground and the press is winning. Reporters grandstand and showboat and hector. They ask questions that won't elicit information, but may make them look tough. The effect is to make the White House look far more embattled than it really is.

Read full post…

David Sanger of The New York Times is the latest to question the value of the daily White House press briefings:

After nearly seven years of covering the White House, stretched over two administrations, four press secretaries, endless hours tinkering with the fractured hinge supporting the New York Times seat in the second row and hundreds of questions that have resulted in artful and artless evasive answers, I have come to a few conclusions.

One is that the press secretary is not likely to return as a major force on the White House stage anytime soon. The second is that the daily briefings now have less to do with covering the White House than ever, and their value is diminishing every year. At some point between Monica and the missing W.M.D., the sparring came to obscure the imparting of information about how and why decisions were made.

Read full post…

We don't mention it one time in Public Eye history, and now here we are referencing "The Swamp," the Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau's (pretty solid) newish blog, twice in one day. But, hey, how could we resist this, from today's gaggle?

Why was the White House relying on a Texas rancher to get the word of Cheney's hunting accident out over the weekend, asked [NBC News Chief White House Correspondent David] Gregory, accusing [White House Press Secretary Scott] McClellan of "ducking and weaving.''

"David, hold on… the cameras aren't on right now,'' McClellan replied. "You can do this later.''

"Don't accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras,'' the newsman said, his voice rising somewhat. "Don’t be a jerk to me personally when I’m asking you a serious question.''

"You don't have to yell,'' McClellan said.

"I will yell,'' said Gregory, pointing a finger at McCellan at his dais. "If you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I don’t appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that’s wrong.’’

"Calm down, Dave, calm down,'' said McClellan, remaining calm throughout the exchange.

"I'll calm down when I feel like calming down,'' Gregory said. "You answer the question."

Take that, Scotty! Now here's our question: who looks worse, the flack or the hack? (That is, the press secretary or the reporter. Ahem.) Seems like it could be a wash: Some will surely see a hyperactive gotcha-type reporter needlessly haranguing the President's spokesman while others will see a slick professional spinmeister doing everything he can do avoid answering the simplest questions.

Read full post…

When The New York Times reported last month that President Bush authorized NSA surveillance and wiretapping of Americans without first obtaining a warrant the story was an inevitable topic for reporters at that day’s press briefing. As Romenesko noted that day, however, it came as “no surprise” that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would not discuss the story:

Q: The New York Times -- they sat on a very important story about possible breach of our Constitution for a full year, and they reached an agreement, I guess, with somebody in the White House. I'm wondering if you could give us a tick tock about how the White House reached --


MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've already said that I'm not going to get into discussing any matters relating to ongoing intelligence activities. And that means not getting confirming or denying such reports.

This is but one example of the exchanges that seem de riguer for the White House press briefings and the morning gaggle, which begs the question, what is the point? How effective is the gaggle and the press briefing as a venue for the exchange of information between the White House and reporters?

Read full post…