POTUS As Press Critic

This is an article close to my news junkie heart: President Obama is an Avid Reader, and Critic, of the News. This is worth reading for the whole (short) thing, but I was intrigued that he read his news mostly via iPad (where you really could read all of the newspapers — take that Sarah Palin!) and that he watches very little TV news. And I admit intrigued because this is largely how I get my news — I can wade through the information, get a sense of the narratives out there without having to sit through the dumbed down shoutfests. But that’s just me. And the President.

Even more interesting is how he views the media:

The news media have played a crucial role in Mr. Obama’s career, helping to make him a national star not long after he had been an anonymous state legislator. As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.

Privately and publicly, Mr. Obama has articulated what he sees as two overarching problems: coverage that focuses on political winners and losers rather than substance; and a “false balance,” in which two opposing sides are given equal weight regardless of the facts.

Mr. Obama’s assessments overlap with common critiques from academics and journalism pundits, but when coming from a sitting president the appraisal is hardly objective, the experts say.

I’ll leave it to you to read the article for the obligatory, out-sourced she say part of the article. Which isn’t to say that the President is a totally disinterested observer, but then, who among us who want to be better informed are?

It is also worth noting that if you are a columnist or a more specialized reporter, you have a better chance at nabbing an interview with the President than one of the White House reporters assigned to cover him. Which, if it were a sane world, would send a flock of wonks to the WH to request interviews or get the current crop of reporters to get out of the horserace.

So here’s the question — what would it take for the current standard of political reporting to get out of the horserace business and into something abit more substantial?