Obama prescreens reporters at news conference

[dphantom]

As the article says, a President can conduct a press conference anyway he/she wants.

WSJ Link

What I find interesting is that an assertion of openness in this administration is really not present. By preselecting who gets to ask questions, it has the potential to intimidate other reporters or at least those reporters not priviledged to be allowed to ask a question from really digging in and finding out the facts. Being critical of the President could get you a one-way ticket to a seat in the corner.

Instead, we have a situation where the reporters who do get selected are those who will treat teh President with "kid gloves" not necessarily asking tough, pointed questions. In other words, we get only the favorable side of the story at a press conference or rather the side that Obama wants out without the opportunity for real questioning.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Maybe the WSJ wasn't on the list. UHH-WaaHHH!

Too bad we can't stimulate the economy constructing wahmbulances- we'd already be well into another bubble.

The questions obviously weren't staged, which is the important part, and something we're not accustomed to, at all...

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Maybe the WSJ wasn't on the list. UHH-WaaHHH!

Too bad we can't stimulate the economy constructing wahmbulances- we'd already be well into another bubble.

The questions obviously weren't staged, which is the important part, and something we're not accustomed to, at all...

The liberals on this board would have been screaming bloody fucking murder had Bush done this.

Considering that I don't support either party, it is hilarious to see the hypocrisy from the democrats and the republicans.

Prime example right here.

 

[RKDaley]

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. [...]

Bull. Shit.
From an OReilly Factor segment:

O'REILLY: So George Bush came in with a -- with a list of guys he was going to call on?

FLEISCHER: Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream.

O'REILLY: Like the Huffington Post -- gets called on.

FLEISCHER: And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, "Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you."

 

[RichardE]

I remember the WSJ writting an article after the NYT was not allowed in to White House Press conferences pretty much saying "they deserved it". I'll see if I can dig it up as it should be good for a few lulz

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. [...]

Bull. Shit.
From an OReilly Factor segment:

O'REILLY: So George Bush came in with a -- with a list of guys he was going to call on?

FLEISCHER: Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream.

O'REILLY: Like the Huffington Post -- gets called on.

FLEISCHER: And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, "Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you."

A bit different than preselecting. Being provided a seating chart so one can be called by name is different than going down a list and asking the reporter to ask you a question as is purported to have happened.

I have no problem with Obama putting in Siberia the fringe elements if he wants.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. [...]

Bull. Shit.
From an OReilly Factor segment:

O'REILLY: So George Bush came in with a -- with a list of guys he was going to call on?

FLEISCHER: Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream.

O'REILLY: Like the Huffington Post -- gets called on.

FLEISCHER: And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, "Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you."

So I guess that makes it better ?

apollogist

more of the same

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: RKDaley

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. [...]

Bull. Shit.
From an OReilly Factor segment:

O'REILLY: So George Bush came in with a -- with a list of guys he was going to call on?

FLEISCHER: Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream.

O'REILLY: Like the Huffington Post -- gets called on.

FLEISCHER: And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, "Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you."

So I guess that makes it better ?

apollogist

more of the same

Who, exactly, said it made it better?

My point was the point made (which I bolded above so you can perhaps see again) is wrong in their assertion.

And before you start calling someone "apollogist" maybe you should learn how to spell it correctly first.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: dphantom

A bit different than preselecting. Being provided a seating chart so one can be called by name is different than going down a list and asking the reporter to ask you a question as is purported to have happened.

I see no evidence that he "preselected". He had a list of names of the reporters present. It's possible he looked at the list and then decided who to call on. No big deal, IMO.
The important thing is that the questions were not preselected.

Originally posted by: dphantom
I have no problem with Obama putting in Siberia the fringe elements if he wants.

Well, that's where we differ. I would have a problem with that.
And that includes Fox.

 

[MovingTarget]

Nothing new here for the most part. Besides, there is a practical concern as he would be answering questions all night if he didn't somehow limit who he took questions from. I hardly think that is malice.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Nothing new here for the most part. Besides, there is a practical concern as he would be answering questions all night if he didn't somehow limit who he took questions from. I hardly think that is malice.

Agreed. For ma ny years, Helen Thomas always got the first question. major outlets like NYT, WSJ, NBC etc normally get picked as well. No problem there either. It's more the idea of having a preselected list of who gets to ask questions. I know the distinction may be larginal to some, but I don;t like the idea of someone sitting around a table deciding person x from NYT gets to ask a question while person y from Nat Review does not because Nat Review doesn't agree with me.

A presidential press conference is and can never be completely random, but there has to be the knowledge among reporters that they can ask tough questions and know they will still get called on in the future. If everything is preselected, my point is that only those reporters who ask "good" questions will get called on while all others will be ignored.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Nothing new here for the most part. Besides, there is a practical concern as he would be answering questions all night if he didn't somehow limit who he took questions from. I hardly think that is malice.

Agreed. For ma ny years, Helen Thomas always got the first question. major outlets like NYT, WSJ, NBC etc normally get picked as well. No problem there either. It's more the idea of having a preselected list of who gets to ask questions. I know the distinction may be larginal to some, but I don;t like the idea of someone sitting around a table deciding person x from NYT gets to ask a question while person y from Nat Review does not because Nat Review doesn't agree with me.

A presidential press conference is and can never be completely random, but there has to be the knowledge among reporters that they can ask tough questions and know they will still get called on in the future. If everything is preselected, my point is that only those reporters who ask "good" questions will get called on while all others will be ignored.

So, uhh, you're projecting the conduct of the Bush Admin onto their successor?

I won't argue when and if there's a pattern of such actually established, but that hasn't happened, not from 1 (one, uno) press conference. So it's all just casting aspersions at this point, right?

 

[NeoV]

if you don't think this has been a common practice for a long time, you are an idiot

Find something tangible to bitch about please

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Maybe the WSJ wasn't on the list. UHH-WaaHHH!

Too bad we can't stimulate the economy constructing wahmbulances- we'd already be well into another bubble.

The questions obviously weren't staged, which is the important part, and something we're not accustomed to, at all...

The liberals on this board would have been screaming bloody fucking murder had Bush done this.

Considering that I don't support either party, it is hilarious to see the hypocrisy from the democrats and the republicans.

Prime example right here.

Did you ever consider the possibility that you lack perspective? Suppose what you had said was this:

The angels on this board would have been screaming bloody fucking murder had Devil done this.

Considering that I don't have a moral center, it is hilarious to see the hypocrisy from the Warriors of Light and the Minions of Darkness.

Prime example right here.

 

[Genx87]

This openness sounds like a bunch o crap.

 

[aceO07]

WSJ is under Rupert Murdoch, just like FOX News.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: NeoV
if you don't think this has been a common practice for a long time, you are an idiot

Find something tangible to bitch about please

Jeeez, you leftists sure are sensitive. I was simply making an observation, not casting aspersions as Jhhnn would think. I found it interesting how this press conference was setup and invited comment.

BTW, thanks for the insightful personal comment. Whenever one cannot support a point, simply use personal attacks against the messenger. You might want to consider a college level class on how to develop, support and conduct an argument.

 

[OCGuy]

Buuuuhhhh buhhhhhh buhhhh bush!


It is almost getting comical that every thread turns into "Bush did it", instead of discussing the topic on hand.

If Bush was the worst president ever, shouldnt we hold Obama to a higher standard?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: aceO07
WSJ is under Rupert Murdoch, just like FOX News.

Which means the article is false? What is your point?

 

[Jhhnn]

Righties are really, really reaching on this, and accomplishing a faceplant in the process. Obama deliberately seeks out questions from the Faux News guy, for example, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong...

This isn't like Dubya taking softballs from Jeff Gannon of the Talon News Agency, at all, and anybody with enough sense to scratch their balls when they itch knows it.

But, rave on, fools...

 

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: aceO07
WSJ is under Rupert Murdoch, just like FOX News.

Which means the article is false? What is your point?

It means there's a higher chance of bias or non-news. It's meant to make you feel something, think a certain way. Not always, but that's how it seems sometimes.

As others have mentioned, it's most likely common practice anyways, so why bring it up now? What are they trying to get at..?

 

[Xavier434]

This practice has been going on for a very long time. Probably longer than some of you have been walking this Earth. That doesn't make it right and nor does it make it wrong, but it definitely does not make it new so we shouldn't be reacting to it as if it were.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Righties are really, really reaching on this, and accomplishing a faceplant in the process. Obama deliberately seeks out questions from the Faux News guy, for example, but that's just wrong, wrong, wrong...

This isn't like Dubya taking softballs from Jeff Gannon of the Talon News Agency, at all, and anybody with enough sense to scratch their balls when they itch knows it.

But, rave on, fools...

**softballs.. LMAO ...

^^^^TY for reminding them about Gannon... lol... I think the White House even fought and lied to protect their guest list to not show when Gannon had been there OTHER than STAGED reporter events...

One of first sites found on Google for him
http://mysite.verizon.net/myk15/bushhugsmanho.html

He also checked into the White House 39 times when there were no press briefings, and at least 14 times when he didn't check out, most likely, to hide the fact that he slept over (the secret service isn't normally slack about keeping track of people.

WOW.. from that site.. WTF is this?
http://www.voxfux.com/features...x_coverup/franklin.htm

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, shocking. The president pre-screens questions at a press conference. The president has been doing this basically since the invention of press conferences. In other breaking news, the White House Press Secretary will continue to give misleading and bullshit answers to all the questions that reporters ask.

Bonus points for the obligatory :GOD IF BUSH HAD DONE THIS THE LEFTIES WOULD GO NUTS!!111... only to be told that Bush did do that, and the outcry was so deafening that you had never even heard of it until now.

 

[ayabe]

Can we go back to talking about how Obama is gonna ban Jesus and guns?

More entertaining and a little less puss.