How A White House Thinks About Major Interviews
Getting an interview with a president is a pretty big deal for any news organization, and an opportunity no journalist would ever turn down. While just about every outlet has a standing offer on the table, all the real action happens on the other side of the equation. Who gets the big chances depend on the big wheels inside the White House.
It's hard to know all the reasons a network or paper lands or doesn't land an interview. Those reasons could range from personal comfort with a particular president with a particular anchor or editor to anger at an outlet for the way it covers a certain issue or story. Sometimes it may just be their turn in line. Whatever the reasons for whom they select, we wanted to get a look inside the thinking of a White House about the interview itself. So I asked Don Baer, former Communications Director and Chief Speechwriter for President Clinton and here's our exchange:
From the perspective of the White House, why would it be preferable to give one major broadcast interview before an event like the State of the Union rather than all of them?
From the standpoint of the White House, what matters is breaking through. Presidents tend to get coverage, no matter what they say. But giving an exclusive is a way to highlight and elevate a message -- the difference between a rock star giving just one major concert vs. multiple concerts in the same location on the same night.From what you know, what types of factors are considered when deciding who gets such an interview? Is it a matter of rotation, with each network or outlet getting its turn? Is an outlet's audience -- size or demographic makeup -- part of the consideration? Do you think news outlets are ever rewarded or punished for their coverage in other areas by the granting or withholding of an interview by the White House?
In picking an interview, certainly you're trying to make sure over time that all your major outlets are used. Size of audience matters, and sometimes demographics can matter, although that is rarely a factor in choosing among broadcast networks, which tend to have the same demographics. That factor might come into play if you were trying to reach a younger demo and wanted to go somewhere like MTV. Some interviewers are seen as being more of a fair shot than others, although that doesn't always pan out. It is almost always a mistake to think you can punish someone by withholding access. It will almost certainly come back to haunt you.Based on your experience, are presidential interviews relatively easy to prepare for? It seems that most questions that a president would be clear -- in this case, the war in Iraq, the NSA eavesdropping, etc. How does the White House prepare a president for surprise questions?
It is always a mistake to take any interview or public presentation for granted, and it would be a form of communications malpractice to do anything other than take every public statement very seriously. White House communications staffs spend a tremendous amount of time going through Q&A prep sessions before almost every public appearance. And technically, there is no way to prepare for a surprise -- otherwise it wouldn't be a surprise. Which is why you have to go over a tremendous number of options to make sure you are covered on every conceivable front.Do White House communications planners generally see interviews like this as a valuable way to get a message across or more as a necessary part of the job?
It depends. Typically White Houses don't do interviews unless they really want to. So while they may view the incessant requests for interviews as a necessary part of the job, if they agree to an interview, it is almost always because they view it is more advantageous than not.