Time to stop televising White House briefings?

Posted by Jeffrey Blyth on 28 February 2006 at 10:55
Tags: Journalism, Television, United States

Is it time to stop televising the White House press briefings?

The question has been raised in the aftermath of the acrimonious exchanges between some of the newsmen and White House spokesman Scott McClellan that followed the Dick Cheney shooting incident.

Many feel that the press came out badly, that many of the questions were rude and ill-mannered. Equally there are many who feel the White House was hedging and trying to cover up the story. The live daily briefings, which go back to the days of President Clinton (and the Monica Lewinsky scandal) were originally intended to give the White House an opportunity to speak directly to the American public and for reporters to ask on-the-record questions.

But they have deteriorated into what some call “sessions of mutual distrust�?.

“It’s constantly getting worse,�? says Ari Fleischer, who was President Bush’s earlier press spokesman. He even suggested that some normally civil reporters turn into barbarians when they get into the briefing room. The reporters, in turn, claim they are driven to aggressive behavior because the White House is so tight-fisted with information. Many concede they get lots of abusive e-mails following a particularly heated session.

Mike McCurry, who was President Clinton’s press spokesman and initiated the live briefings, says today he kicks himself for ever allowing the briefings to be televised live. “It was a huge error on my part�? he told the New York Times.

Nevertheless his current successor says he has no intention of unplugging the cameras. “They serve a purpose for both the White House and reporters�? he insists.