Why Surprise The President?
Seems we have a kerfuffle among journalists and bloggers or whatever about the possibility that the Obama administration "planted" a question. You can read about it here. The details don't matter to this post, though. I'm more interested in the mechanics of how we should question the president or any journalistic subject. I've mentioned before that I'm a journalist, so this stuff is of particular interest to me.
Very often when you want to interview somebody their PR people will want to know what you want to ask about. They'll sometimes ask for a list of questions. When I was younger this really bothered me but not so much anymore. I know it sounds wrong, to submit questions in advance but I'll do it under the condition that I'm not expected to adhere to the list, that I can add or subtract questions at any time and that the conversation can go where the conversation goes with everything on the record unless we mutually agree that it's not.
But yes, I'll give an idea of what questions I want to ask. Why? Because there's little value in the interview as pop quiz. Most of the time if people don't know the answer to something they'll say they have to get back to me anyway, so it's no good to me to stump them and while you can catch people not knowing stuff that maybe you think they should know, that's not the stuff great stories are made of.
A presidential presser is different because it's not a one on one conversation and you only get to ask one question. So why a journalist would want to surprise the president is totally beyond me.
At issue here is that the Obama administration asked a reporter who had been gathering questions from Iranians to pick one and ask one. There's some accusation that Obama's people "planted" a question. Well, that's not what happened (they asked for a type of question -- one from Iranians, from a reporter they knew had been gathering them, not a specific question) but... what if they'd asked for a specific question? Would it have been a tragedy?
I generally end my interviews by asking "Is there something I should have asked you by now or that you wish I'd asked?" I often get the best answer to that. But I am inviting the subject to interview themselves. I am asking them to plant a question. Obviously, we don't want all the questions written by the White House but to have the White House suggest what it would like to discuss is not awful. For one thing, it's very revealing of the administration's priorities and for another thing, it happens anyway so it might as well happen in the open.
The point of an interview is to get information out. That's not always best done with surprise questions that function to make journalists look clever but often don't reveal useful or important insight.
That writers and bloggers are having the fight detailed in Swampland suggests that everyone's missing the point about what journalists, writers and cultural critics in every medium are trying to do -- we should be trying to bring clarity to a Byzantine system.
Very often when you want to interview somebody their PR people will want to know what you want to ask about. They'll sometimes ask for a list of questions. When I was younger this really bothered me but not so much anymore. I know it sounds wrong, to submit questions in advance but I'll do it under the condition that I'm not expected to adhere to the list, that I can add or subtract questions at any time and that the conversation can go where the conversation goes with everything on the record unless we mutually agree that it's not.
But yes, I'll give an idea of what questions I want to ask. Why? Because there's little value in the interview as pop quiz. Most of the time if people don't know the answer to something they'll say they have to get back to me anyway, so it's no good to me to stump them and while you can catch people not knowing stuff that maybe you think they should know, that's not the stuff great stories are made of.
A presidential presser is different because it's not a one on one conversation and you only get to ask one question. So why a journalist would want to surprise the president is totally beyond me.
At issue here is that the Obama administration asked a reporter who had been gathering questions from Iranians to pick one and ask one. There's some accusation that Obama's people "planted" a question. Well, that's not what happened (they asked for a type of question -- one from Iranians, from a reporter they knew had been gathering them, not a specific question) but... what if they'd asked for a specific question? Would it have been a tragedy?
I generally end my interviews by asking "Is there something I should have asked you by now or that you wish I'd asked?" I often get the best answer to that. But I am inviting the subject to interview themselves. I am asking them to plant a question. Obviously, we don't want all the questions written by the White House but to have the White House suggest what it would like to discuss is not awful. For one thing, it's very revealing of the administration's priorities and for another thing, it happens anyway so it might as well happen in the open.
The point of an interview is to get information out. That's not always best done with surprise questions that function to make journalists look clever but often don't reveal useful or important insight.
That writers and bloggers are having the fight detailed in Swampland suggests that everyone's missing the point about what journalists, writers and cultural critics in every medium are trying to do -- we should be trying to bring clarity to a Byzantine system.
Advertisement
Moreover, the Presidential press conferences are essentially useless. It's a game where the President states several versions of his basic themes and talking points, and the press tries to elicit a controversial remark. In no way are Presidential press conferences, or Press Secretary briefings for that matter, intended to be a source of information about the matter being discussed.
June 29, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It made me angry when there were planted questions at carefully crafted campaign rallies, but that's artificially creating a "Person on the Street" aura that really does feel like the campaign is lying to the public. Given that the White House Press Corps reports in a "posting notes from the meeting" sense, more than an "investigative journalist" sense, I guess I don't have a problem with planted or co-created questions. I agree, this doesn't seem like a planted question at all, but the idea of the Press Secretary's staff collaborating with reporters really just seems like business as usual...
June 29, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think you've hit on the real distinction. If Obama say, pays me as a private citizen to show up at a rally and ask "What's if like being so wonderful?" then he's trying to create a false aura. But if his people say to a reporter "look, ask what you want but the President has a lot to say about healthcare today" then I don't have a problem with it.
June 29, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, Presidential press conferences are for the purpose of obtaining and publishing facts on important issues. Thus, it makes sense to me for the President to have the ability to have the data needed.
'Gotcha' questions regarding personal matters or crafted in an attempt to ambush for the purpose of a sound bite provide nothing but blather.
Appreciate this post. Thanks. Rec'd.
June 29, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are degrees and distinctions to be made. Overall, I think your point is very valid. However, deception is deception. I don't think this particular case falls into the category of "deception", but if a President does want a particular question asked, I think s/he should be upfront about it. Then there's the whole regular planting of a fake journalist (e.g., Gannon) type of thing.
Just to be clear, having a known accomplice in the audience wouldn't be deception, so that'd be OK. It might make bad PR, but I personally wouldn't have a problem with it.
June 29, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nebton, this can't even get near the category of deception. The blogger was posting about it on HuffPo, which is not exactly a tiny little blog that nobody's ever heard of. The whole thing was never meant to be a secret and it wasn't. It's the wingnuts making a big deal out it because they can't believe something like that wasn't supposed to be a secret, which is how they operate.
Good post, Destor. Informative and useful. That's how we operate. :-)
June 30, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this was not a case of deception, but I was trying to address Destor's larger point about whether planting questions in general is acceptable. I think it is, as long as it is not being done deceptively.
June 30, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have strong feelings about this issue, but I would suggest the following. First, the public should understand how it works, so that they don't have the false impression of a "pop quiz". On the other hand, a "pop quiz" element to some of the questions is not a bad idea, considering that the Presidents gets to talk about his own priorities before the questions begin. Anyone as adept as Obama should be able to make an inappropriate question look foolish, and if the question is appropriate and important, he should have at least a partial answer to it. He can then add that he will follow up with further details later.
June 29, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Destor, good post.
Remember when w had the 'fix in' and called on the guy who ended up being porno king instead of a journalist? hahahahah
The 'fix' asked a question like:
Why do you think we all feel so lucky to have a president like yourself?
June 29, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a huge difference between interview anyone (entertainer, athlete, celebrity) and interviewing a politician.
A politician is a bit like an insurance company in healthcare: minimum outlays, maximum revenue.
In other words, politicians by nature will only do as much as they are pushed to do. The public can only hold them accountable based on the information available.
So it's inevitable that there are conflicting agendas at play at pressers like these: a politician needs to present himself in the best possible, most flattering light to voters. And the press, the "watchdog", must be critical, questioning and unrelenting.
This also creates two unfortunate outcomes:
- politicians plant questions to show themselves as men of action, intelligence and god-like command of all issues at all times
- journalists develop a passion for sport of "gotcha" questions, where "gotcha" trumps any other objective. Of which Tim Russert was an indisputable supreme master.
June 29, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, I'm going to have to disagree. If you let the President direct the flow of questions, then it's basically just a press release. But if you have reporters asking difficult questions about things the president might not want to answer, his unwillingness to answer, or his evasiveness, becomes the story, and that's an important story.
For example, the other day when Helen Thomas broke into Obama's lofty rhetoric about the way Iran is treating its citizens, to ask how he squares that with his opinions about the way he's treating detainees - that's something the president doesn't want to talk about. He blew her off and the press corps had a big laugh, because they don't like uncomfortable, off-topic questions either. It makes them look like they're not doing their jobs, and it totally bums out the cocktail party.
June 29, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, journalists do need to be free to ask their own questions. But, assuming they are, does it matter if the president knows those questions are coming? I don't think so. It's not like he makes policy off the cuff so why do his off the cuff answers matter?
June 29, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They matter depending on the question. If the question questions policies the president would rather not talk about, his ability/inability and willinging/unwillingness to answer them is important.
But what's more important is following up on questions the president doesn't want to answer.
And sometimes it's important to ask a question, even if you know it won't be answered, just to show how hypocritical on inconsistant a particular policy might be.
June 30, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
A presidential presser is different because it's not a one on one conversation and you only get to ask one question.
Destor, is this true in all administrations? I just read where Bush did not allow follow-up questions, but it sounded like that was an exception, not the norm.
June 30, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops, this was not meant to be a reply to Mr. C. It was supposed to be a new post, not a reply. Sorry!
June 30, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare they object to Nico's question and not have even a sniff of derision at the "cigarette" question. I mean, you have one question to ask Barack Obama, and you ask a "gotcha" question to make him confess about a legal activity?
I didn't hear these fearless reporters asking Bush about his lies and distortions -- about his many illegal activities, including TORTURING PEOPLE FOR GOD'S SAKE!
But this asshole is jealous because a BLOGGER got to ask a question!
This is infuriating! and the mano-a-mano on CNN was completely lame. Nico won, if you ask me.
They sit there and let Cheney and his evil spawn repeat lies that we all acknowledge are lies and they don't challenge because the Cheney's are better than they are at bullshit.
But they BRAVELY confront Obama about his smoking? Truck nutz!
June 29, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, great perspective CVille, as always.
June 29, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truck nutz!??? HeeHeeHeeHee
Wahoowa
June 29, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Journalists gone meta.
Heh
June 29, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree.
The press is viewed as biased due to the perceived collusion with the questions. Journalists in the past asked relevant topical questions for which adept and informed pols would be able to respond extemporaneously. Even without a cue card, the questions are rarely difficult to predict especially in a daily press briefing.
On the other side of the coin, journalists should ask pointed questions which can be responded to with reasonable brevity.
Finally, the question asked needs to be answered concisely. Too many pols turn briefings into free advertising when they do not answer a question but respond with a continuation of their opening remarks.
June 29, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dickday,
Jeff Gannon was the male escort hired by W to ask softball questions. When his White House arrival/exit records were finally released under the Freedom of Information Act, he was found to have been in the White House on many days where there was no press briefing.
This includes an arrival at the White House at 11:30pm, with no record of his departure...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCfrVFfFtzU
June 29, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush Sr.'s White House also received late night visits from male prostitutes:
Tom Brokaw explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OJPeHCmhA&feature=PlayList&p=48A5158D1BD55E62&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17
Watch "Conspiracy of Silence" for the nauseating details:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=866739408240639313&ei=I4xJStiPH4WwqQLs_ISIBg&q=conspiracy+of+silence&hl=en
June 29, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plant a question, no, absolutely not, never. If the president has a question he wants to be asked he can simply say in his opening remarks, "There's a question I feel the American people need an answer to......" A press conference is not a play, reporters aren't supposed to be performers, actors putting on some show for the public. Their job is to ask the tough questions that hold public officials feet to the fire. You can bet that no one would ever plant a question that was difficult to answer. It sad that the fourth estate has performed so poorly and indulged in gotcha questions but it doesn't solve that problem by making a press conference some sort of scripted movie.
As for submitting questions before hand, I can see it in an in depth interview. But only if it was understood that there might be follow up questions based on the answers given. A press conference is not an in depth interview. I would hope anyone who is deeply involved in the legislation being discussed or aware of current events would have sufficient knowledge to answer a few questions on these topics. If they can't that itself is news and something the public should know.
June 30, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, when's the last time you heard any reporter ask a president (or any elected official for that matter) a tough question?
What really pissed off the WHPC is that the seniority was thrown off track - a reporter who didn't know his place in the pecking order got to ask a question.
June 30, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink