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?
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 26 April 2009 at 8:10 pm:
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.
Comment by Anon Zoditate Stupid Dreaming on 26 April 2009 at 8:33 pm:
Hell yes. The print and online media should leave it to Reuters and the AP.
Comment by nemski on 26 April 2009 at 9:59 pm:
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.