Beware of whatever comes out from the White House staff. Yes, even Joe Biden's staff. In fact, especially Joe Biden's staff.
Anyone who reads this knows how glad I am that the present president is, in fact, the president. So much tension has been reduced. But not all his ethics are 100% clean.
That's because of a practice that, truth be told, ramped up during Barack Obama's presidency; in fact, it was known for it. I lived in DC during part of Obama's second term, and the discomfort of the press with Obama's staff was palpable enough that a former member of the Washington Post's editorial staff (Leonard Downie, Jr.) wrote a well-documented report (published 10/10/13, through the Committee to Protect Journalists, cpj.org) and held a press conference complaining about it, with printed testimonies and the whole bit. It put the strong contradiction to Obama's previous claim that his administration would be far more transparent than that of Bush-43 even though he gave lip service to allowing journalists to do their jobs.
It was also done during the last presidency, but with nowhere near the sophistication and thoroughness than Obama or Biden, probably due to a lack of experience (which would, I'm quite sure, be well addressed if the last president gets another shot at it, hostile toward the press as he generally was) and a surfeit of leaking that went unaddressed. One of the many things that our ex- lost track of was the degree to which people were telling tales of disorganization and undermining as soon as they knew them.
But now, any White House staff who are interviewed for any kind of story have to do so with "background with quote approval." This means, very simply, that anything they say must be run past the Biden communications team--which decides whether or not to allow such comments or edit them.
Which means: Any information you get directly quoting a member of the White House staff has been laundered and might not be the reaction originally expressed--unless, of course, it's okay with their bosses. This is, simply put, control of the news and a direct abrogation of the First Amendment.
Stories are supposed to be genuine. They're supposed to be a direct representation of what someone being interviewed thinks. Otherwise, who is actually doing the talking? We don't know. It could be good-natured, but it often isn't, especially when the news being revealed puts the government in a controversial light, which is far more often than not.
At first (says Politico Playbook), White House reporters accepted the practice because they thought it was being done with the best of intentions--you know, cleaning up inaccuracies. But when they came to see that it was actually being done to twist the reality of the original comments so as to obscure their meaning, they began to show some concern.
Something like this has taken place from time immemorial. But the negotiations about what gets into a story and what doesn't has normally been between the reporter and the person who's being solicited. Often, that person doesn't want anyone to know they're leaking information, so it's agreed that it's going to be revealed "on background," which means that the reporter will promise not to use names if the information is accurate.
It's a great way for reporters to get and retain sources. It's also a great way to get scoops, if the person doing the leaking is in a particularly sensitive situation. The leaker clearly wants to reveal the information, but also wants to hang onto the job they've been appointed to: that comes with considerable prestige. Deep Throat, a.k.a. Mark Felt, who was the center of the information leak that became known as Watergate, was one such person.
It's a game, one that reporters and sources have played forever (and doesn't just exist at the White House; plenty of such arrangements get made all over the country, at all levels of government). "On background" really began with FDR, when he would get reporters all around his desk and just start commenting. He refused to be quoted directly, but would allow information to be revealed by "sources close to the White House," or some such moniker, meaning himself but frustrating his enemies. Henry Kissinger, too, was a master at the practice.
A lot of things can get moving, or at least discussed, due to revelations: whether or not a bill will get vetoed; whether the administration will take some kind of action; whether or not someone within the administration is meeting or not meeting the approval of the president. The result is often to speed up processes or direct them such that some decisions will be made and the act of governing gets untangled, albeit temporarily. There are bars and restaurants galore within shouting distance of Capitol Hill, including lunchrooms within the office buildings themselves; that's where much of this takes place. Congress is full of leaks, some intentional, and some of the best reporting gets done there (Try the Punchbowl News, for instance).
Inside the NEA, there was often an attempt to hide information for best-timed release, so I understand the need. But it almost never worked. There was, or had to be, a mole inside the building who would tell a guy named Mike Antonucci. He was uncanny at getting information within 24 or 48 hours, despite members of the Executive Committee being told behind closed doors with obvious remonstrance to keep things quiet (I was briefly suspected of being the mole, but as God is my witness, that never happened. He contacted me once, in the limbo period before I got on the Executive Committee, but I did not respond.). Antonucci was, and is, staunchly anti-union, our sworn enemy. He delighted, I'm guessing, in running the information online in his blog. It was maddening. And the leaker had to be good, because I don't recall anyone finding him or her.
But that's the point: Antonucci hung on to that source and milked it well. We had our own Deep Throat.
The reporters' choice, of course, is to get in some room, or to approach someone, which they like far more than whatever information that's revealed, however indirectly. But wide usage of the practice of "background with quote approval" is seen as unfair, which is beginning to get under the skins of White House correspondents. The specter of Big Brother looms, and that makes them--and should make us--pretty uneasy, regardless of who's at the top.
And Biden will exploit this as well as he can. As user-friendly has he's presently being, there's a limit. He understands the way reporters work as well as anyone, so he'll put up sufficient firewalls to make sure that one message will be told, one conduit will be used, and one meaning, however clear or unclear, will be understood. Just because he's a nice guy doesn't mean he isn't crafty--and because he's been around Washington since 1973, he's among the craftiest of them all.
What can reporters do? Nothing, as long as they remain self-competitive. If one does not follow the prescribed formula, he or she stands to be excluded from any information--as long as the Biden White House staff goes by the same concept as well. Or, any reporter can keep looking to find inside leakers, of which there will be far fewer in this White House, due to aforementioned savviness. With less monkey business going on, ironically, like the type happening inside the last White House, it will be more difficult to do so. But then, that's good for all of us. Kinda sorta.
The only other way through this is for a significant number of reporters, if not all of them, to refuse to play ball, refuse to go by the idea of "background with prior approval." Then whatever information they'll get will be had genuinely, without screening for phraseology that might be more than vanilla. It also means that it might be tougher to get, but that's what they're hired for. Leakers weren't disciplined much in the last White House; I think that will be the opposite with this one.
Just because the government has the philosophies and policies that most of us prefer right now doesn't mean that the basic nature of government-versus-press conflict isn't still there. Please remember: It's government's preference that all information released be its own and on its own calendar so it can control the message. It's the press' preference that information is fought for and released if and when it's most significant--as long as it's accurate--so that the voters can decide whether it's really using their tax dollars well.
I've previously praised the Cabinet as functioning well and serving the greater interests of the public, as opposed to the last one, which seemed to defeat that purpose from the get-go. The only way to insure that it continues is through a vigorous and inquisitive press, one that doesn't get along with government sources so much that they always seem to be on the same page. Then they're no more than obedient mouthpieces. If Biden and his ilk have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?
Biden's positive rating on the virus hit 70% last week, so it seems to me that he doesn't need carefully screened news to continue that. Not that he'll pay any attention. Or maybe he's trying too hard to maintain it. Governments, whether democratically and legitimately elected or not, usually do.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask indoors for now. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment