Media Gets Tough on POTUS
One of those pundits on cable TV news somewhat naïvely commented the other day that the media is finally starting to ask tough questions of the president. That’s true. Things are different.
Journalists are asking good, solid questions of Mr. Obama, and he is responding … in depth. He is also operating without sarcasm, harshness or vindictiveness that the press corps had been intimidated by over the last eight years, especially during Presidential news conferences.
This is how it worked in the Bush White House – if a reporter asked a tough question during a news conference, it would be the last question they were permitted to ask. Period. For high profile reporters who depend on face-time of being seen asking a question of the President, it would hurt careers to be permanently snubbed. The Bush White House played hardball as never before.
Things have changed.
Category: Featured, News Media
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
I am certainly glad the press is growing some backbone to ask President Obama tough questions, but it would be misleading to think that the press had no responsibility in the relationship it had for the last eight years.
It takes two to tango and the press accepted the rules of the game set by the Bush administration. When Bush administration officials would snub a reporter, it should have been the responsibility of the next reporter to ask the same question until it was answered. Cowering to the administrations intimidation is what lead to unasked questions of WMD and Al-Qaeda links in the run up to the Iraq War. Instead, we had a press that played second fiddle to the administration’s agenda resulting in very little critical analysis of underlying assumptions of issues.
Some have yet to understand the change in the rules of the game. What national importance does President Obama’s feelings about A-Rod’s confessions of steroid use have for the country when people are losing their jobs, houses, etc.
What are some of the pressing issues today? Take for example the Israeli-Palestinian issue. While we constantly repeat our commitment to Israel’s security, there is very little critical analysis of the paradox of supporting a state that institutionalizes segregation based on religion/ethnicity. Is this something that is consistent with our values? Another is our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. The press is convinced that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, despite the fact that our own NIE on Iran, and IAEA’s investigation states that there is no evidence of a weapons program. Nor do the press point out that as a signatory of the NPT, it is Iran’s right to implement the full uranium enrichment cycle domestically. In the meantime, except for Helen Thomas, the press is silent on our refusal to acknowledge Israel’s nuclear arsenal in the region or what effects the nuclear deal with India will have on NPT.
The press has a lot of tough questions to ask. I am hopeful about the change I see so far, but it is not enough.