Ryan Lizza writes, if not a hatchet job, a distinctly unflattering piece on Obama in the New Yorker.
The next week, Lizza--along with the majority of other reporters--does not get a seat on Obama's plane during his Middle East tour.
And suddenly every reporter and his brother-in-law are shocked--shocked--that maybe Obama would be engaging in payback.
"This is not the change we have been waiting for," sniffs Jeff Goldberg.
Rachel Sklar wrings her hands and calls it a "worrisome signal."
Joe Gandelman lectures, "If this was mere happenstance, then it's an example of poor and short-sighted staffing."Give. Me. A. Break.
First, it's not clear that there was any payback here, but please: the press got this from the Bush Administration every day for eight years, and only now it's getting the vapors? Please.
And no, it's no good to say, as Gandelman does, "Some partisans will invariably say: 'Well, this happens under Bush.' And then talk about change."
I realize that this will come as news to the privileged reporters of the Beltway elite, but: change is not about you.
Change is about the nation's priorities. It is about policy. It is about whether the President cares about the thin slice of the super-rich, or about the broad American working class. It is about whether we will face up to the upcoming climate crisis, or ignore science in the face of the energy industry's agenda. It is about whether we look at facts in foreign policy, or pretend that what we want is what exists.
It is not about whether elite reporters get their favorite donut flavors aboard Air Force One.
One of the biggest challenges reporters--especially political reporters--face is the problem of access. Journalists are dependent on sources for information. Sources use that to get spin--they punish reporters who print things they don't like.
The Bush Administration has been famous for its punitive attitude towards journalists, and this makes it look like Team Obama has been studying their tactics. Being on the campaign plane matters for someone covering the campaign; this is not a matter of what flavor donuts are on the plane. Mr Zasloff's sneer is like comparing censorship to an argument about whose name comes first on the article.
It's no defense that the Bush administration does it--when the Bush administration does it, they are wrong. So is the Obama campaign, and frankly, I'd expect Zasloff to know that "the Bush administration did it" is not exactly the bar we want to set for our politicians.
To quote Tom Stoppard, "Information is light". Politicians like to make policy in the dark; it's the job of journalists to force them into the sunshine where we can watch the bastards. If you excuse petty punishments of reporters on the grounds that all that really matterrs is the policy, you'll soon find that you've lost not only the reporters, but the good policy. Half the sins of the Bush administration were committed because they were so successful at hiding their actions from the media.
Fix your blockquote; the post makes no sense otherwise.
100s of reporters apply for 50 seats on a plane. Is it really so unimaginable that a magazine with a tiny readership isn't included amongst them, over cable bigwigs, anchors, and major papers from swing states?
Good grief indeed.
Megan,
You must be very supple.
That would be the only way that you can get your head so far up your you know what over obama or as Dan Rater referred to him "Osama Bin Ladin"
thedaddy
"Half the sins of the Bush administration were committed because they were so successful at hiding their actions from the media."
Could you be more specific? A few examples would help.
Its quite telling to see how upset reporters get over this incident. Political reporting in this country is like one endless episode of "90210".
Am I really supposed to believe that Ryan Lizza would have brought some groundbreaking new information on Obama's trip that's going to be missed by the other planeful of reporters?
I will say that watching Andrea Mitchell's temper tantrums over not being one of the popular kids is highly enertaining. If Obama could find a way to similarly piss off David Gregory I'll have to up my contributions.
But if you are Barack Obama would you not play these games. I guess if there was some reliable force that would make this a bad idea for both campaigns then you might not do this. But in the real world no such force exists and as a result both Obama and McCain play these games. Obama should be criticized for what he is doing, but he is doing the right thing.
I highly recommend the articles Is Journalism Official and Separation of Information and Security. This practice of using subtle ( or not so subtle) means to control journalists goes back a long a way. It dates at least to the Hoover administration when the executive branch seized ownership of the airwaves. The overall effects have been absolutely devastating.
Markets in everything, Megan.
A couple serious points:
1. If Lizza had gotten a ticket, some other journalist would not have. That journalist, presumably, would have a similarly credible claim to punishment. (She might work for a publication that's trying to break in, rather than one that's trying to stay on top.) In any case, unless there's an empty seat on that plane now, the quantum of access remains the same.
2. Like the rest of us, reporters have to earn their keep. Journalists never look so ridiculous to the rest of us as when they complain about not having business put in their laps. You depend on access for your livelihood? Big whoop. That doesn't imply anyone is required to serve it up to you like mom's cookies--no more than anyone is required to walk through a car dealer's doors or hire my dad to design their building. The rest of us understand a journalist's job as finding stories, not being admitted to press junkets so they can write prefabricated news.
3. Even conceding the implicit point that journalists are entitled to access, this isn't the access they're entitled to. The important access (seems to me) is not having a seat on a plane or a good perspective from the press box, it's having your phone calls answered by the campaign, getting policy papers and fundraising numbers and fresh video of major events, and getting campaign reactions to breaking news. In short, the access that's useful to the enterprise of journalism is the free flow of information, not the personal proximity of reporters. And for this extensively covered trip, Ryan Lizza can get all the info he needs sitting on his couch in D.C.
That journalist, presumably, would have a similarly credible claim to punishment.
No, they wouldn't have, unless they had also published a *critical* 11 pager.
The rest of them are doing this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/time_publishes_definitive_obama
'Time' Publishes Definitive Obama Puff Piece
NEW YORK—Hailed by media critics as the fluffiest, most toothless, and softest-hitting coverage of the presidential candidate to date, a story in this week's Time magazine is being called the definitive Barack Obama puff piece.
Frankly I think it's better that someone that someone who's willing to write an unflattering piece on Obama doesn't have close access to the candidate. There's no better way to kill a journalist's willingness to engage in hard-hitting reporting than to befriend them.
So sure, keeping Liza off the plane reduces his access, but what's he going to learn that the other 39 reporters on the plane won't? Much better (for us anyway--I can see why Liza would want a round the world junket) for him to be home and digging around.
Frankly I think it's better that someone that someone who's willing to write an unflattering piece on Obama doesn't have close access to the candidate. There's no better way to kill a journalist's willingness to engage in hard-hitting reporting than to befriend them.
So sure, keeping Liza off the plane reduces his access, but what's he going to learn that the other 39 reporters on the plane won't? Much better (for us anyway--I can see why Liza would want a round the world junket) for him to be home and digging around.
Frankly I think it's better that someone that someone who's willing to write an unflattering piece on Obama doesn't have close access to the candidate. There's no better way to kill a journalist's willingness to engage in hard-hitting reporting than to befriend them.
So sure, keeping Liza off the plane reduces his access, but what's he going to learn that the other 39 reporters on the plane won't? Much better (for us anyway--I can see why Liza would want a round the world junket) for him to be home and digging around.
This is why McCain will win. As the media even says themselves, the press is McCain's base. They go to BBQ's at his place, bring his wife flowers, laugh at all his jokes, and never report his temper tantrums.
Imagine if Obama hosted a BBQ for the press and they brought his wife flowers? The constant screams of the biased liberal MSM would drown out all other sounds in America for the next 3 months. But, if Obama kicks one off the junket, they scream at that too.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Why does every one keep saying that the Lizza article was negative?
The piece shows that Obama is a shrewd, calculating politician who was willing to do what it took to get elected. As far as I'm concerned, it actually improved my opinion of Obama, and showed me that in no way shape or form could he be considered a naive idealist.
"The piece shows that Obama is a shrewd, calculating politician who was willing to do what it took to get elected. As far as I'm concerned, it actually improved my opinion of Obama, and showed me that in no way shape or form could he be considered a naive idealist."
I think that many people have a complaint that can be summed up with the old phrase "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining." If he's going to campaign on little more than hope and change, it can come as no surprise that it aggravates both his supporters and detractors when he engages in politics as usual-- even when it's the logical or unsurprising thing to do. That you never believed his strange claims to herald unrelenting idealist change is in that regard not particularly reassuring-- no more so than the observation by some observers that they never believed McCain's "secure the borders first" immigration policy is to many of his conservative detractors.
In the end I suspect that this posturing will not matter much, as most of those people who are complaining on the internet already know who they are going to vote for, and most of the voting populace will become no more than vaguely aware of these kerfuffles.
I disagree with your analysis, Megan, but forgive you because you quoted Tom Stoppard. :)
I've watched Bush press secretaries pretend to respect Helen Thomas for years, even though she's a nasty, biased old crone. But Obama gets a pass here?
Hello all--
Although she thinks I'm completely wrong, I appreciate Megan linking to me. Here's my response:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_wayward_press_/2008/07/change_we_have_been_waiting_for_ryan_lizza_edition.php
For the record, I agree with the commenters that the Lizza piece wasn't all that unflattering. I was accepting for the purpose of making my point about the hypersensitivity of the press.
Jonathan Zasloff
or ignore science in the face of the energy industry's agenda.
Does anyone want to explain why the people supposedly in the pockets of 'big oil' are also the ones pushing the hardest for nuclear power?
Not giving Lizza a seat was wrong. Even if it was pure happenstance, or if Lizza wouldn't have got a seat even without the New Yorker piece, it was wrong. Why?
Well, if Lizza got a seat (at the cost of some other journalist who hadn't recently been in the news regarding their coverage of Obama), there'd have been no real impact either way.
However, since Lizza didn't get a seat, we now get to see a bunch of people arguing about whether it was payback or not. Even if the Obama campaign was in the right on the issue, this does the campaign active harm, which means they were wrong.
In short, the way I see it, either someone in the Obama campaign really was trying to payback Lizza, or they weren't but made the list without thinking about the obvious results of leaving Lizza off the list. Neither is good.
"I'd expect Zasloff to know that "the Bush administration did it" is not exactly the bar we want to set for our politicians."
You are absolutely right.....we need to aspire to the standard set by what his predecessor would've done.....OK, maybe not......
"If he's going to campaign on little more than hope and change"
This persistent meme is simply a willful disregard for the facts. Have you bothered to even briefly LOOK at the Obama website? Have you read any of the extensive position papers? Argue with the positions, but stop with the straw man that there are none.
Perhaps this link will enlighten you: Campaign Website Wonkery
Obama is as thin-skinned as Nixon, and he wants to campaign from 30,000 feet. If elected, he would take the same approach. That is why he is the wrong choice. The media want him desperately because it would be the news story of the first half of this century. To paraphrase the very apt false syllogism Megan used in her "tea" with The Economist magazine:
Something must change
Obama represents change
Therefore we must elect Obama
In short, your retarded. Next you're going to complain about the Obama campaign being too focused on "politics". ITS AN EFFIN CAMPAIGN. ITS NOT AN ADMINISTRATION!
The problem is that political correspondents are like unskilled labor. Because there is such a ridiculous oversupply, candidates can just toss them aside at a whim.
The solution to this is collective action. When a political correspondent is punished for doing his job, his colleagues should have his back. If a reporter is blackballed for asking a question, every reporter should ask the same question.
Conversely, reporters have got to be willing to "beat the scabs". When one of their number sells them out for personal benefit, crucify the SOB publicly. As it is, the reverse is the norm. Because so many sell out for access, it is taboo to comment on that.
You can't really blame the politicians for this. They are going to maximize their chance of success. As long as reporters are gutless and selfish, politicians almost have to take advantage of the situation.
The problem here isn't really the effect this type of thing has on the reporter at issue - it's the effect that it has on all other reporters. It sends a clear message - criticize the candidate and face reduced access. While this may or may not be good politics (after all, it allows the candidate more control over his "message" and the media more generally), I don't see how it's a good thing for everyone else that a candidate seeks to exercise this kind of control over the press/media.
Let's also keep in mind that this isn't just a problem for Obama's "Hope/Change" meme, but also for his longstanding reputation as an "Open Government" advocate. Given that so many of the problems with the Bush Administration have stemmed from its lack of openness, this is a valid cause for concern with Obama.
Some comments:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_wayward_press_/2008/07/change_we_have_been_waiting_for_ryan_lizza_edition.php
Highlight: "I suppose that McArdle's point is that had the administration been more open to the press, then their misdeeds would have come to light sooner. But that is wrong as well. Good reporters--like McClatchey, like Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe--were pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of the administration long before it was popular. Good columnists like Paul Krugman were pointing out for years that Bush's lies were, well, lies. And the mainstream press simply ignored these storylines, or dismissed their advocates as being "shrill." That wasn't because of the administration's punitive policies, and it wasn't because some reporters were left off of the plane: it was because the press simply was not doing its job."
Ryan W:
The two are disjoint sets. We use very little oil to generate electricity. Some of us do heat with oil, especially in the Northeast, but it's hard to switch to electricity. Most of the oil we import is used for transportation. We use very little electricity for transportation.
On the access issue:
Most "journalists" don't do their jobs. I don't know if they ever did, but they certainly don't do it now. If they did, they would be fact-checking every campaign press release. Instead, they fawn at the candidates' feet and wait for handouts.
Political reporting has turned into political sportscasting. They tell us who's ahead, who's behind, who stumbled, who recovered, who has a plan to turn things around. It's sickening.
"That wasn't because of the administration's punitive policies, and it wasn't because some reporters were left off of the plane: it was because the press simply was not doing its job."
But the members of the press who WERE critical of the administration were, by and large, people who never had nor hoped much to have access to the administration. Unfortunately, the people/news organizations with the greatest influence over American public opinion were also the people/news organizations with the greatest incentive to remain in good graces with the Administration in order to maintain their access. Cutting off access to a relatively low-profile but critical journalist in a niche market does wonders for sending a message to more high-profile journalists with a wider market (and thus more subject to competitive pressures).
Megan says that "The Bush Administration has been famous for its punitive attitude towards journalists." Zasloff says the same thing, and I keep hearing it from other sources. Sadly, many of those sources would repeat the charge whatever the basis for it. But I trust Megan. Can she provide some particulars?
BTW - I apologize for posting the link and excerpt from Jonathan Zasloff; I skipped to the end of the comments thread and posted blind.
Njorl:
"The solution to this is collective action. When a political correspondent is punished for doing his job, his colleagues should have his back. If a reporter is blackballed for asking a question, every reporter should ask the same question.
Conversely, reporters have got to be willing to "beat the scabs". When one of their number sells them out for personal benefit, crucify the SOB publicly. As it is, the reverse is the norm. Because so many sell out for access, it is taboo to comment on that.
You can't really blame the politicians for this. They are going to maximize their chance of success. As long as reporters are gutless and selfish, politicians almost have to take advantage of the situation."
IOW, for example, the press shouldn't have toadied to the Bush administration, and shouldn't have tolerated those reporters who did. And during the Clinton administration, once it was clear that the 'news' was actually generated by right-wing organizations, reporters should have revealed that, and demanded proof up front.
In both cases, they didn't. The press doesn't work that way (I guess it's the equivalent to the Neoclassical 'Econ 101' picture that so many right-wingers carry around in their heads).
I'm sure the Bush administration has used access as a reward. They aren't the first, and they will not be the last. Journalists who depend upon access aren't doing their jobs.
The closest we get to fact checking these days are attempts at gotcha! journalism. This produces idiot affairs like Dan Rather and his producer not noticing that the font on a supposedly typewritten document was proportionally spaced.
Hold on. Is Lizza really being punished for his piece, which struck me as a balanced look at Obama's political rise? Or, more plausibly, is this about The New Yorker cover, the kerfuffle over which, unfortunately, eclipsed the actual journalism, i.e. Lizza's nuanced, well-reported profile?
I thought Team Obama overreacted to the cartoon cover, let alone the pretty innocuous Lizza article. If this is really about the latter, then their skin is dangerously thin.
I don't have a problem per se with a little bit of hardball payback in the form of slightly petulant distribution of media credentials. So long as the punishment fits the crime. But neither the cover, nor especially the Lizza piece, rise to anything beyond a misdemeanor.
I almost skipped this story because I really really don't care.
However, I started thinking that this wouldn't be a problem if the reporters were paying their own way. If it didn't cost the campaign money to cart their behinds around the globe, a second plane could be arranged. Maybe they could even auction off the tickets so if you really wanted close access, you could instead of hoping you are favored.
Of course, that would impugn the character of reporters, as if accepting free airfare is not an influence </eyeroll>
Oh for God's sake! If you are going to complain that Lizza lost his seat because he wrote a piece on Obama, NAME NAMES!! Who's seat should Lizza have gotten? And then, convince me that Lizza marginal contribution would be so much more than that guy's.
yeah. its not like they had say 40 seats available to the press and about 100 journalists who wanted to go on the trip...
it HAD to be payback...
I've been trying to find the names of the 40 reporters who were allowed on the flight, without luck. Has anybody else found it? Are there any names that cry out, "You can't take him (her) instead of Ryan Lizza" ?
or ignore science in the face of the energy industry's agenda.
Does anyone want to explain why the people supposedly in the pockets of 'big oil' are also the ones pushing the hardest for nuclear power?
What was stopping Lizza from taking his own plane if it was that important? Megan's absolutely ABSURD analysis implies that the way you make sure you get on every airplane, ahead of anyone else, is to write negative articles.
Steve
THE MEDIA, CONTROL AND BALANCE
By Ronn Torossian, President & CEO, 5W Public Relations
Working in public relations and, in particular, crisis management, there is a tremendous balancing act between projecting clients’ images and agendas and, at the same time, protecting them – essentially keeping the press at bay. Often, as it is, the purpose of PR and wrangling with the media is to encourage positive coverage for whomever or whatever you represent. If the story is not going to be positive, then it is best just not to do it. The job of a good PR person is to protect his clients and make them look their best in the media and in public.
It is for this reason that I found myself agreeing with the recent Obama campaign's decision to ban a reporter deemed to be from a publication believed to be less than objective for Obama from his press plane on this week’s International “foreign policy” trip. Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of reporters wanting to travel with the presidential candidate – as the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane, of which they were able to grant only 40 – so why grant space to a publication who has previously hurt the campaign, and who may skew coverage in place of someone less inclined to do so? It is hard to imagine the New York Yankees allowing a Boston-minded sports reporter unfettered locker room access.
Candidates and clients as well, offer access to media with the hope, and perhaps even the expectation that media will present a positive narrative. Yet, anyone worth his salt in public relations knows all to well that media access by its very nature presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story. So, if there is choice, why ante-up with media deemed to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists one can gamble on to better the odds?
Equally as reporters at the top tier publications want exclusive information, unique off the record comments and the like, so too must there be a very fair and real expectation for them that if they present a negative or seemingly prejudicial story then the possibility of being excluded is very real – especially when there is a major issue at stake, like a presidential election, and especially where the candidate has the luxury of choosing any media he prefers. Indeed, he cannot avoid bad coverage from someone inclined to do so, but he does not need to offer a seat on his plane.
The banned reporter in question, Ryan Lizza of New Yorker Magazine learned that Obama had earned a reputation of "'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.'"[i][i] This is not an issue of Freedom of the Press; Lizza can write what he wants, but Obama is not obligated to open his arms in welcome. Outrage by media over such policies is also hypocritical, as stated in The Huffington Post, “Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate.” No, it is not chilling – it is valid. As journalists are arbiters of fate, they should expect that those on the receiving end of their opinions or ideals be cautious.
I find myself agreeing with this statement from Anita Dunn, an Obama advisor, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give,” Ms. Dunn said. “We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.”[ii][ii]
I understand those of us in the public relations business who feels that media must not be allowed to simply run rampant over clients - especially those who garner tremendous media attention. It does not mean that we should not cooperate with media – We do, but while we would love totally positive coverage, we generally seek what we can expect to be fair and objective.
[i][i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-revenge-emnew-york_n_113969.html
[ii][ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Megan: Did you ever blog about this when done by the Bush administration? Because if you did, and you can dig up the comments, we will have a wonderful natural experiment about the subset of regular posters here justifying and complaining about this action by the Obama campaign.
My expectation is that a great many people who found this stuff intolerable when done by a Republican will find it perfectly acceptable when done by a Democrat, and a great many people who found it perfectly acceptable from a Republican will find it awful when done by a Democrat.