Media Question of the Evening
Ana Marie Cox wrote this as part of a Spring Cleaning series at the WaPo (institutions that could be thrown out):
It’s not that the reporters covering the president are bad at their jobs. Most are experienced journalists at the top of their game — and they’re wasted at the White House, where scoops are doled out, not uncovered. The day of a typical White House correspondent consists, literally, of waiting to be told things. Legitimate security concerns and a tightly scripted political world keep the presidential press corps physically corralled and informationally hostage.
She may have a serious point here. The very high value reporters that are assigned to the WH reflects a (perhaps) anachronistic prestige of covering the WH AND the need of news organizations to be seen as giving the WH very high profile coverage. The later being more of a ratings argument, I think.
What do you think? Is the WH Press Corps (as it is currently staffed) a tradition ready to be ditched?
Tags: Media
Hmmm….that’s a good question. I think assigning the WH press corps gig to an up-and-comer would probably be more appropriate. I think she’s right that very little breaking news is uncovered by the WH gaggle. I think the WH beat is just another reflection of the problem of modern journalism – it’s become “access” journalism rather than “investigative” journalism.
Hell yes. The print and online media should leave it to Reuters and the AP.
The problem with limiting the WH press corps is that you would begin to have a more intense Stockholm Syndrome reporting than we do now. Worse case is that we would rely on the WH only for photos and video which is sort of propaganda.