Story location: http://archive.pressthink.org/2007/09/14/a_letter_arrive.html
The reporter whose letter I quote from works in the White House press room with the rest of the crew. “I wrote this with posting in mind,” this correspondent said, “but where, when, how, etc, is, I think, up to you… It’s really your call (your blog).”
Here’s what hack had to say, with replies
I’m writing in response to your post about the president’s trip to Iraq, and some additional thoughts that you shared about covering this White House. After reading your column, I sent a somewhat heated email to a friend who’s a press critic — and a long-time reader of your columns on HuffPost and Press Think — and he suggested I reach out to you directly.
Excellent.
First, I have to tell you that your suggestion that the White House press corps - or its “pool” representatives - not cover the president when he goes into a war zone struck me as curious.
Why?
Well, there are two phrases that I’d like to pass along to your readers. They mean more or less the same thing. “Body watch” means covering an event that will produce zero news on its own because you need to make sure the president doesn’t collapse. The other is SSRO — “suddenly shots rang out” — which is basically equivalent, just a bit more dramatic.
I think melodramatic would be right.
I didn’t know about SSRO, so thank you. But the body watch, yes. I think you are absolutely correct to emphasize it as the base line for daily coverage of the President. Here’s what I told PressThink readers (March 6, 2005): “By concentrating where it did, and making the President himself, his every move, the object of attention (with the post-1963 ‘body watch,’ obsessive attention) there is no doubt the modern press helped to create the office George W. Bush holds, including the hold it has on public attention, and the parts of it that are imperial, glamorous, mythic.”
When I emailed this to my friend, he asked whether we were responsible for the president’s safety, so I assume that others will have the same question. What we are responsible for is making sure that, if he collapses, or is shot at, we are in a position to get that information to our viewers/listeners/readers.
From what I know, a correct and concise statement of what the body watch is.
Think about how much JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace, Squeaky, and Hinckley have shaped the logistical reality of White House coverage. The history of journalism is littered with stories of reporters who called it a day a bit too early, like the guy from the New York Times (if memory serves) who decided to head back to NYC hours before Wallace was shot.
I’m sure this is a huge factor in the daily conduct of the beat. What if the bullet flies, and we have no one there? is the kind of thing that would petrify editors and reporters alike. Intimidate them, even. So, yeah, the body watch explains a lot. But then you are agreeing with me that the White House press is past the point of making an independent decision on whether to extend coverage. The body watch is in force. It commands the movement of troops.
Second, as I’m sure you realize, that doesn’t make the reporting off-limits to criticism. You can call into question the way someone covered a press conference without calling into question their decision to attend it. I’m eager to draw that distinction because I don’t want this message to be viewed as a blanket defense of media coverage.
There is a clear difference between criticizing the coverage and criticizing the decision to cover.
Third, I’d like to thank you for building on the Moyers/McClatchy argument.
Means Moyers here. And Warren Strobel of Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) here.
You’re much, much closer to the truth than Moyers was.
Uh, I doubt that, but…
Moyers mostly misread the point, because he was building an indictment of the White House press corps specifically. The reality is that McClatchy covered the White House much the way that the rest of the press corps did. What made their overall coverage so much better was that they decided that the White House wasn’t The Story.
That last part is right. Big part of The Story was in the accounts of people who were staggered by their encounters with the White House. Another way to say it is outside-in reporting can sometimes achieve more than inside-the-castle coverage.
It’s really one of the biggest problems in journalism today: An overreliance on the White House press corps, and political journalists in general, to tell major national and international stories.
Yes, but why would this happen? I can think of one “cultural” explanation; it’s related to the “have you seen the cables?” method of intimidation. It’s probably true that the diplomatic correspondent or the guy in China should cover the President’s trip to China, (let’s say…) but editors might go with the White House reporter because they believe in getting inside the sanctum, where the real secret cables arrive, and the real decisions are made. It’s a mystique effect. They like to feel “wired” to power centers. (They like to tell higher-ups the inside scoop.) Failing that they think political reporters are better connected to the chatter in Washington, from which they may pick up signals about what the White House intends to do. This is part of what I called the cult of savviness in Washington journalism.
Moyers similarly uses a long-time Middle East correspondent’s entirely accurate criticism that the media minimized his contributions to The Story. It’s a slightly different version of the same criticism: Experts sidelined.
I see that. So, in other words: if you know something about the story, but your knowledge originates outside the White House, you’re less trusted with the base line narrative than if you know a little bit about the story, and your little comes from inside the White House. Seems to me this could be turned to White House advantage, along the lines of, “I wouldn’t get too far out in front on that story..”
Expanding on that, I’d like to add that sometimes the worst place to cover the White House is from the White House press corps.
Here, here. Well put.
We are responsible for the day-in, day-out coverage of presidential goings on. That’s an indispensable aspect of White House coverage, but it’s not sufficient. For one thing, while “accountability” is a term best left to describing voters, the media is supposed to supply the information that helps them do that.
Well, if you are not in the direct accountability business after all, and cannot yourselves “hold their feet to the fire,” as the newsroom saying goes, then I would suggest that your newsroom make a big announcement to that effect and maybe hold a presser. There would be a lot of interest in that.
I’d like to see media organizations have a “Charlie Savage” kind of reporter who is not responsible for, say, “Bush orders review into import safety” and therefore can do more investigative, contemplative, what have you, sorts of pieces. That is also indispensable, but also not sufficient.
You know what I would do with Bush? Routine stuff goes to the wire services and whitehouse.gov. Leave a skeleton crew behind, pull everyone else out of the castle and re-deploy as outside-in correspondents making runs and breaking stories.
Don’t like that one? How’s about: when the Charlies Savages figure out what the big narrative is they feed ideas, tips, directional signals and good questions with tons of background to the guys inside the castle. Outside-in acts of journalism. Worth a try?
In the case of the president’s Iraq trip, you need the on-the-ground person reporting back what the president said, but you also need to put those comments and the bigger picture in context.
Here the letter trails off, ending with:
I hope you will understand why our answer to [Stephen Hadley’s question] “would you rather we come here without you?” has to be a resounding “no.”
Well, if you’re saying…. Look, we’re just on the body watch here, that’s what being a White House correspondent means: you’re a body watcher, okay? … then, yes, under that understanding it’s GO WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS GIT, even if you expect to be used as a propaganda completion agency.
I think you may find more sense in the body watch than I do. If you have the body under surveillance, it does not mean you have the presidency under watch. Surely we can satisfy the Zapruder Never Again Society with a skeleton crew on watch duty, while everyone else makes a judgment call: am I better off at the White House, looking up, or coming down on it from the rim of the canyon?
UPDATE: Our correspondent, HackWhoWroteRosen. (his title) returns for more, responding to my commentary. My lines are in italics.
But then you are agreeing with me that the White House press is past the point of making an independent decision on whether to extend coverage. The body watch is in force. It commands the movement of troops.
Actually, I thought what I was doing was challenging the very core of your interpretation, which centered on our failure to tell the White House to take a flying leap when they invited reporters along to a war zone. “Prove that you’re independent thinkers by refusing to go” wasn’t fair, especially since you knew about, and apparently agree with, the importance of the “body watch” premise.
The other factor here, of course, is potential breaking news. Now, there’s something of a chicken-and-egg factor here, but what happens if the president wants to announce on the way over that he is, oh, nominating a new attorney general, criticizing Vladimir Putin, going to visit New Orleans, etc? I say chicken and egg because if reporters weren’t on the plane, the White House would just release a written statement or make other arrangements. But you’d rather have the man himself in front of you every time.
Yes, but why would this happen? I can think of one “cultural” explanation; it’s related to the “have you seen the cables?” method of intimidation. It’s probably true that the diplomatic correspondent or the guy in China should cover the President’s trip to China, (let’s say…) but editors might go with the White House reporter because they believe in getting inside the sanctum, where the real secret cables arrive, and the real decisions are made. It’s a mystique effect. They like to feel “wired” to power centers. (They like to tell higher-ups the inside scoop.) Failing that they think political reporters are better connected to the chatter in Washington, from which they may pick up signals about what the White House intends to do.
These are all part of the big picture. The China example actually highlights what I was trying to convey later in the message: You need a blend of coverage to have good coverage. It’s not clear to me that the China correspondent is a naturally better person to write about the trip to China…it depends on how technical the issues surrounding the visit are, how much local understanding you need (a standard narrative of the US president pushing China to, say, let its currency float on international markets doesn’t require the China correspondent to write the story). You’re more dismissive than I am of the “real decisions” issue, especially when it comes to covering breaking news (like, say, the president’s new pick for Attorney General). Sometimes, the White House really is the best place for that stuff.
I see that. So, in other words: if you know something about the story, but your knowledge originates outside the White House, you’re less trusted with the base line narrative than if you know a little bit about the story, and your little comes from inside the White House. Seems to me this could be turned to White House advantage, along the lines of, “I wouldn’t get too far out in front on that story…
That’s basically correct. Your rephrasing and your conclusion are basically sound. We’re back, in effect, to the superiority of McClatchy’s news judgment (or complaints from the WashPost’s national security team that their stories ran on A16). And you’re right about the potential spin factor (actually, not-so-potential), though at least in theory we’re supposed to be able to push past that.
Well, if you are not in the direct accountability business after all, and cannot yourselves “hold their feet to the fire,” as the newsroom saying goes, then I would suggest that your newsroom make a big announcement to that effect and maybe having a presser. There would be a lot of interest in that.
Can it be that you genuinely don’t understand how central “holding their feet to the fire” is to getting that relevant information out?
“What did the president know and when did he know it?” is an effort to get information to news consumers. Fact-checking presidential statements is the same. McClatchy’s superb pre-war coverage was the same. “For Bush, Facts Are Malleable” in the Washington Post was the same. NSA wiretapping story in the NYTimes? Dana Priest’s “secret prison network” stories? The same.
I guess I just think that final “accountability” rests in institutions other than the press. The Congress, the Courts, and elections. If I underplayed the role we have to play, that was my mistake.
You know what I would do with Bush? Routine stuff goes to the wire services and whitehouse.gov. Leave a skeleton crew behind, pull everyone else out of the castle and re-deploy as outside-in correspondents making runs and breaking stories.
This sort of ignores breaking news, like “President nominates new attorney general.” It also sort of ignores how large swathes of the news-consuming public - a majority, I believe - don’t want to go to whitehouse.gov themselves and sift through all of that stuff. It also ignores the fact that news outlets don’t like to rely on other news outlets (like the wires) for their final product.
How’s about: when the Charlies Savages figure out what the big narrative is they feed ideas, tips, directional signals and good questions with tons of background to the guys inside the castle. Outside-in acts of journalism. Worth a try?
You’re describing how this is supposed to work. Yes.
Well, if you’re saying…. Look, we’re just on the body watch here, that’s what being a White House correspondent means: you’re a body watcher, okay? … then, yes, under that understanding it’s GO WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS GIT, even if you expect to be used as a propaganda completion agency.
Your original premise was that we lack judgment because we sent a “pool” of reporters with the president, and that’s why I invoked the “body watch” concept. I didn’t say that this was our only function, and in fact I laid out some of my own criticisms and some of my own ideas and tried to explain some of our other shortcomings. Your final response is a classic misdirection play.
“If you have the body under surveillance, it does not mean you have the presidency under watch.”
Or, as someone else once said, “you can call into question the way someone covered a press conference without calling into question their decision to attend it.”
Once again, thank you very, very much for giving me the opportunity to communicate with you and your readers. I really appreciate it.
Our pleasure! Most informative.