The Briefing And The Gaggle: Worth It?

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.

That was among the questions posed to four panelists – Dr. Martha Joynt Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University, Mike McCurry, the former White House press secretary during the Clinton administration, Alexis Simendinger, White House reporter for the National Journal and Helen Thomas, White House columnist for Hearst News -- at the National Press Club last night.

For those who are not well-versed in the annals of White House communications, the morning gaggle, which typically takes place at 9:45 a.m. -- often later -- is less formal than the briefing. It lasts about 15 minutes, is not on camera, and a transcript is not distributed to reporters (although White House Correspondent Bill Plante tells me that the White House does make the transcript available to reporters with special requests). The afternoon briefing takes place at 12:30 p.m. -- again, often later -- and offers more time for reporters to questions, which are often more detailed. It is on camera, and a transcript is posted online. For a description of one day's briefing and gaggle, you can read my recent post that detailed the genesis of a White House story.

For Simendinger, the gaggle and the briefing are not particularly useful – partly because she works for a weekly magazine that doesn't depend on news of that immediate nature, and partly because the Bush administration doesn't disseminate much information during either, she said during the panel. "In this administration, the briefing is considered a no-news zone," she said.

The briefing is "part of the daily ritual," said Plante, when I spoke with him later about his own impressions on the matter. "It's of limited usefulness, because not a lot of information is actually offered, not a lot of news is made."

Plante described the adversarial relationship between reporters and the White House as such: "All press secretaries come out with guidance," said Plante, "and the game is to try to get them to move just one iota beyond that guidance."

"The tenor of the briefing is largely determined by the ability of a press secretary to keep things on track and to handle the flow of questions," he said. "It is in our interest to interrupt, to interject, to demand, and if a press secretary can't control that, it's out of hand for him but good for us, because then we can get him to react. And we're more likely to get him to react in a way that he doesn't wish to."

The gaggle is "marginally useful," said Plante. The White House informs reporters about what is on their minds for the day and the White House is provided with an "early warning of the herd mentality in the press room – what the reporters are interested in." The gaggle also allows the White House to prepare itself for the afternoon briefing and inform other cabinet agencies on what reporters are asking about, so the administration can articulate a consistent message. "In this administration," said Plante, "staying on the same page is very important."

"The Clinton administration tried to stay on the same page," said Plante, "but it never could, because there was no penalty for … not staying 'on message.' In this administration, there is. They notice."

These factors considered, does it make sense to simply do away with the briefing entirely? During the panel, McCurry said that while the briefing is valuable because it holds the president accountable, there is a "strong argument" to do away with it as it now exists. It was McCurry who in 1995 agreed to televise the briefing, and he said last night that he regrets the decision. The televised briefing serves "no real useful purpose," he said, and has turned into "theater."

Plante has covered the White House since the Reagan administration, when the briefings were televised for five minutes at the beginning only if there was a special announcement. He said while "there is no question that having them open [to cameras] has made them theater," he wouldn't want to remove that access. "It's really not a question of how much more information you'd get, because I don't think you'd get a lot more information if they were not televised -- because it's a public, on-the-record briefing."

As far as doing away with the exercise entirely, Plante said that, "institutionally speaking, I think you've got to have [the administration] on the record and available for questions, so I wouldn't do away with it."

McCurry suggested during the panel that there "needs to be more of an institutional sense of responsibility for the public's right to information," and to accomplish that, the briefing should be structured entirely differently. He threw out ideas such as having multiple press secretaries conduct them, holding them in several locations and using available technology to better connect reporters all over the country with administration officials.

Ultimately, said Plante, "to get any info around here it's always been true to deal with your sources one to one, privately…then the burden is on the reporter to use them correctly. And then, reporters are asking for the readers' and the viewers' trust."