Politico writers Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen are on to something with their feature published today about President Obama’s mastery of the mainstream media. Their conclusion that the president and his staff have broken new ground in manipulating journalists and shaping favorable coverage of the administration is so obvious that it is almost inarguable. As I have argued several times over the past four years, no president since John F. Kennedy has enjoyed the sort of advantage or lack of serious scrutiny that the president has received. Vandehei and Allen are right when they point out that the calculated leaks and softball interviews combined with a command of social media and other methods that limit press access have combined to build the Obama juggernaut that won him re-election as well as give him an edge in any battle with Congress.
Yet Vandehei and Allen’s insistence that this has nothing to do with the conservative belief that “a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated” ignores some of the same facts that they amass in discussing the way the president has played the “puppet master” with the media. No matter how smart the strategies employed by the White House, the president’s ability to skate through four years without getting seriously challenged by the mainstream media would not have been possible if most of those being played were not willing accomplices. Due credit must be given to the administration’s ability to take advantage of technology as well as their brilliant if unscrupulous game playing with journalists. But without the liberal bias of most of the mainstream outlets that let the president play them like a piano, he would come across as a bully and a demagogue rather than the reasonable nice guy seen in those “60 Minutes” interviews he loves to give.
Any analysis of the president’s media advantage must start with the understanding that his historical status as the first African-American president has given him far more leeway than any of his recent predecessors when it comes to scrutiny from the mainstream press. The broadcast networks as well as the liberal-leaning cable channels have treated Obama and his family as being above criticism. This has created a Camelot effect unseen in Washington since the days when the press was ignoring JFK’s personal immorality while turning his family into national icons.
The White House has ruthlessly exploited that willingness to portray the president in the sort of stained-glass light usually reserved for statesman of the past. But, as Politico rightly points out, they have doubled down on it by limiting access to the working press — even those from generally friendly liberal outlets — and going directly to the public via social media and White House-created content. That has been combined with cleverly staged leaks to journalists who then dutifully do the administration’s dirty work for it on a host of issues. All this allows the president to pose as the voice of reason on domestic issues and to generally avoid any pointed scrutiny on foreign affairs even when — as in the Benghazi fiasco — the duty of the press to focus on his lack of answers would seem obvious.
Politico is right that among those most frustrated by this are members of the White House press corps who may be liberals but are still eager to do their jobs. However, the only reason this has worked so well is the willingness of the editors and publishers who employ those frustrated reporters to roll over and play dead for the president. The unavoidable fact that Vandehei and Allen do their best to ignore is that the hamstringing of the working press’s ability to hold the president accountable dovetails nicely with the editorial stands of the vast majority of those outlets. That limits the time and space they are willing to give their staffers who might wish to push harder on an administration that is so careful about limiting access.
Just as important to the success of the White House’s puppetry is the eagerness of much of the liberal press to play ball with the president when given the opportunity to do so. As Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” admitted, the reason why Obama loves to go on the CBS show is that he knows he won’t be “made to look stupid” or be subjected to the same “gotcha” kind of questions for which that television institution was so well known in the decades when it established its long since undeserved reputation as the gold standard of broadcast journalism. Though few other liberal hacks have been as honest about their bias as Kroft, the same rule applies to virtually every outlet that has been granted the same kind of access such as the recent Obama puff piece published in The New Republic.
It barely needs to be said that had the George W. Bush administration tried the same tactics as Obama has employed, it wouldn’t have worked a fraction as well. That is not just because Bush was not as comfortable in playing the role of inaccessible puppeteer as his successor. His administration, like everyone that preceded it, had its own strategies for coping with the press and did its best to outwit those tasked with holding it accountable that were not always unsuccessful. The Obama administration didn’t invent leaks even if it has perfected them into something approaching an art form.
But the difference is that the White House press corps as well as their editors and publishers were never prepared to lie down for Bush in the way they have done with Obama. The Bush team could never look for the sort of softball interviews that Obama’s staffers know to rely upon. They also knew that any tactical victories it might achieve in getting their message across would be countered and often wiped out by the liberal institutional bias of the networks and newspapers that Obama never has to worry about. No matter how much the Bush White House would have leaked to the New York Times, there is no way that would have generated the kind of fawning coverage the Grey Lady has given Obama.
That’s why the lessons of Obama’s press strategies are of only limited utility to Republicans. They can learn from the methods he uses to go directly to the public without the filter of the media. His command of social media and smart use of content created by the White House should be emulated by every politician who wants to win. But no conservative will ever be able to manipulate the media the way Obama does because of the simple fact that the liberal press will not allow it as they do with Obama. This doesn’t mean Republicans are doomed to perpetual defeat, but it does remind them that they have a steeper hill to climb than their Democratic counterparts. As much as the GOP has to get into the 21st century when it comes to technology, the liberal press will never give them the free passes it hands out to the Obama White House every day of the week.
Joseph Gobbles would proud of the Obama administration and the way the Lame Stream Media fawns all over them. I don’t if it’s this bad in the Soviet Union? I actually think that the Soviet New Agency ITAR-TASS News would be proud of Obama. n nIn fact Obama resembles many of the third world dictators when he speaks… The many press conferences and the fawning media, I mean repeaters, and then Obama never allowing any tough questions follow up after his propagandist speeches… I am surprised we don’t see his picture everywhere like you do in other socialist authoritarian dictatorships. Obama would fit right in, in the Middle East.
The three major networks should be charged an huge amount for their airwave space and another huge amount for their in-kind political contributions to Democrats.
And they want to have a fairness doctrine.
I guess the media's argument boils down to this: We're not prostitutes, we've been seduced!
The same folks who would say that they are not prostitutes also say they are not biased. n nI say they are all biased prostitutes.
I often wonder if everyone has it backwards. Maybe Obama is the puppet and the MSM is the master. His policies are always exactly what the Media Elite want,aren't they?? So, of course the MSM gives Obama fawning coverage – he is their boy.
Indeed, Obama is not smart enough to manipulate a dinner fork unaided. He is more of a ventriloquist's dummy for the ultra liberal media class.
Don't forget the Banksters, who are of the Elite who own the Media. Under Obama, the Banksters are too big to jail.
I see two extremes in coverage of Obama. The one extreme worships him as incredibly brilliant in every little thing he does, which is nauseating, not only because it's disgusting to worship any political figure, but also because the person who worships Obama that way is often someone who secretly is a racist, who fears that blacks might be intellectually inferior, and is trying to bend over backwards to hide the fact that he suspects that to be true — perhaps to hide that suspicion even from himself. So he leaps to call Obama the most brilliant thing since Einstein. That's one extreme of coverage of Obama. n nThe other extreme says the kind of thing you said, "mOderateGuy." You said — he's "not smart enough to manipulate a dinner fork." n nBoth extremes are surely wrong. Obama is probably as bright as many people who have become president — which is to say, not brilliant, but brighter in several respects than the average person. I'd guess that Obama's I.Q. is at between 120 and 135, not bad at all, but not a genius.
I disagree. I think there is an incredibly important lesson for Republicans. They must go after the MSM editors / owners HARD. We are not talking about providing 'favorable coverage' for one candidate – I get it, the MSM leans liberal. Instead, what we are talking about is misinformation. n nThe Republicans are fools if they think they will eventually return to power and forget about the MSM misdeeds. The MSM have crossed a line that is dangerous to this country as Patrick Caddell (a democratic pollster) has pointed out. n nThe Republicans need to follow the money and make the weasels pay. The US is like King Theoden, while the MSM have been Grima Wormtongue.
Anyone who uses a Tolkien analogy gets a 'thumbs up' from me! Unfortunately, when we start talking about following the money, I find that it doesn't seem to discriminate too much between Dems and Repubs, particularly regarding those who are embedded in that culture. I've come to realize that I would rather vote for an honest politician that I don't necessarily agree with, rather than one who says what I believe today but might be 'persuaded' to change his mind a few months or years down the road…
This is why the MSM will never allow the Conservatives to have full control of the government ever again. The MSM knows that GOP elephants do not forget, and that there will be holy revenge against them (and their elite owners) if the Conservatives ever took control of the whole government. The powers of the Federal Government are truly vast, and a determined government can destroy any private entity if sufficient diligence and planning is brought to the task. Today's Democrats are nothing but servants of the Media and Financial Elite, and the Elite will do everything humanly possible to keep things that way, and their boys in control.
Today, the AX joined NBC to go along with the nut jobs at MSNBC. The fact is that since Cronkite, the MSM has been in the lap of the DNC and it is only in the last two decades that the general public is even aware of how leftist the media is. Education, unions, lawyers, all have added to this leftist majority. The MSM today is more like Pravda or Tass than the free press that Americans had until the New Deal era. By then, progressive media opeds began to bloom and the film, arts, literary fields were full of liberal opinions that skewed the nation's views on all subjects including war and peace, and the Constitution. Now with our Mussolini on the Potomac, the Left is flying high and since the GOP will not fight back, the conservs seem impotent to stop this Progressive socialist trend. If it continues, we will be Greece and no one will care as Hillary's cynical comment says:' What difference does it make? '
Thank God for Fox News, Commentary, and the Mormons. n nWithout them, we would never hear a right wing voice anywhere.
you mean you wouldn't have a self-reinforcing echo chamber which excludes any information that might conflict with your prejudices
If the Benghazi attack had happened under President Bush he may have been impeached (Rudy Guliani said this on Fox News). It happened on 9/11!!! Can you imagine the hue and cry if Bush had allowed this to happen? How could we not be prepared on 9/11 of all days? Every major news outlet would have been digging into that story post haste. Can you imagine Bush's Susan Rice going on the talk shows and flat out lying about a video gone viral causing the attack? There were pictures of Ambassador Stevens body being removed from the compound within days of the attack. The MSM would have provided us a minute by minute account of the attack and the lack of attention and action by the the Bush administration. This would have been the biggest story leading up to the election (along with consistent 8.0% unemployment). The first ambassador to die overseas since 1979. There is no way a Republican gets re-elected had Benghazi happened on their watch. The MSM would have made sure of that. And they probably would have been right if their had been this kind of cover up. Yet they completely abdicated their duties and let President Obama totally skate on this incident. Amazing!
there is nothing quite as amusing (in a revolting sort of manner) as the constant whining about media bias in favor of Obama
Judith Miller, NYT, wrote whatever Scooter told her to. The Bush Admin lied us into War & they didn't bother to check anything. Stenographers for Cheney, Bush, & minions. n nIt's appalling for you to complain after the number of people who were killed for your unwarranted WAR
The media fawning over Obama, overlooking anything negative and burying big stories like Benghazi is disgusting. The media has sunk any credibility the ever had for honesty. We will not forget.
Thank you, Commentary. You're finally getting it. Pres. Obama is not your ordinary president and that's been the way it's been from before November 2008. Mrodgers64 is right; it's time to go after the MSM's misdeeds and do so vigorously.
As the liberal media tries to force their agenda on the people, especially their relentless attack on the Constitution, they become more and more vulnerable if/when the fat hits the fan. We are very familiar with the location of their studios and broadcast facilities. It will not end well for them as they are on the wrong side of history.
I suspect the ascendancy of the progressives these days is part of a fairly long term pendulum swing. We had the Reagan conservative pendulum swing from 1980 through the election of GWB. I include Clinton in the conservative Reagan revolution, even though Clinton resisted in some ways — Clinton was forced to yield in many ways to the rising conservative views of the economy and welfare and a host of issues. The conservative pendulum swing thus lasted at least twenty years, if we say it was really petering out around the time of GWB's first election and first term. So the progressive pendulum swing, if that's what it is, might last about twenty years as well, though of course this is not physics, and things might not happen that way at all.