Televising Press Conferences?

I'm not a TV news junkie by any means, even though as I work through the day there is indeed a news channel on the TV ten feet away in my office.  But I suppose I have enjoyed having the daily White House press briefings in the early afternoon as an appetizer, or amuse bouche, or whatever is the appropriate metaphor, according to the Food Network.

It would appear that this White House is mostly changing the pattern of those daily briefings, so that instead of a daily, cameras-to-the-ready TV-packaged broadcast, the press secretary will answer questions in a public, but not broadcast, "gaggle" with the various networks' White House correspondents.

So, is that a good idea?

Well, if you have not seen any of the public briefings in the Trump era, I can probably give you an idea.  The press secretary, Sean Spicer, whose job I would never want, would make a statement for a few minutes, indicating what was on the president's agenda for the day, whom he was meeting with, and what had been accomplished between the executive branch and Congress that day or that week.

When that was over, the correspondents from the various networks would simply ignore anything that was briefed by the press secretary, and ask questions about the hoax involving President Trump and Russia.  Then they asked more questions about the hoax, or about obstruction of justice, or whether [fill in the blank] should resign, again, none of which involved the actual news of the day.

So the question is, if the press is generally going to use the press briefing for the purpose of asking questions for which they already know the answer, about made-up stories that have no basis in fact and have no relationship to the needs of the public the president was elected to serve, then why have the briefing at all?

OK, there is no reason to have them, if the press members are going to embarrass themselves by trying to be the story, trying to be the one asking the question on camera that is the "Gotcha" question of the day.  And remember, the press secretary and his deputy are more than smart enough not to embarrass their boss.

So now that fellow Acosta from CNN, the network whose leader already is on tape saying that they were pushing the Russia hoax regardless of its lack of veracity, is complaining that somehow "access to the White House is diminished" if the press briefings are not on camera.  That, of course, is idiotic.  Access is exactly the same, and the press will get the same amount of access whether or not the cameras are on them.

What the complaints by CNN are about is not access by the press to the White House, it is about wanting to be on camera themselves asking questions.  It is not the answers that are being hidden by no-camera rules, it is the video of the reporters asking the questions.  The USA will get the answers as long as the press asks the questions and prints the answers.  If they feel that they can only ask questions if they have makeup on, well, that's not my issue.

So while I will certainly miss the daily briefings for their entertainment value, the media's pomposity in whining about one fewer option to be on TV is enough to get me to go along with the White House on this one.

Have a nice weekend!

Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.