Towson
White House essay

Another essay for the course on White House communications operations:

The President and the news media have a relationship that is characterized by conflict and cooperation. Explain the source of the conflict and identify the elements of cooperation exhibited by both partners. Then discuss four ways in which Presidents have used news organizations to accomplish their goals.

The relationship between the president and the news media is complex. "The President of the United States ordinarily is brought to you by the news media" ("Portraying" 1). For that reason, conflict and cooperation can both be apparent. A depiction of a 1996 economic speech is one example of it. "President Clinton and the assembled group of reporters were facing one another in the Rose Garden through the need each side had for the other. President Clinton wanted the public to have the good economic news and reporters wanted to satisfy the news interests of their readers and viewers" ("The White House Beat").

Conflict is a topic the media thrives on. "Communication experts often note that the media are preoccupied with conflict. By the media's own definition, news is drama, and drama thrives on conflict" ("Spin Control" 1). So in that respect, some conflict is a result of what is considered "newsworthy." "The nature of the news business is that conflict is news," Bush campaign director Mark McKinnon said (Auletta). Bush political advisor Karl Rove said that the President believes the media has other interests. "He understands their job is to do a job. And that's not necessarily to report the news. It's to get a headline or get a story that will make people pay attention to their magazine, newspaper, or television more" (Auletta).

"...It would be a mistake to view the relationship as basically antagonistic," the book Portraying the President says in an introduction. "The adversary elements of the relationship tend to be its most visible aspects. Cooperation and continuity are at its core" (Grossman 1).

Every administration works with the press in different ways. Correspondents stationed at the White House presently have complained about the relationship. Bush chief of staff Andrew Card summarized the current administration's view of the press corps: "They don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election...I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function" (Auletta).

While the media may not be considered "the fourth estate" by the Bush team, the administration uses the media to accomplish their goals in several ways. "[Modern presidents] must try to master the art of manipulating the media not only to win in politics but in order to further the programs and causes they believe in; at the same time they must avoid at all costs the charge of trying to manipulate the media. In the modern presidency, concern for image must rank with the concern for substance" (Maltese 238). These concerns result in attempts to use the media's communication abilities to their own ends. This is accomplished through agenda-setting, message-melding, and off-the-record-informing.

Agenda-setting
The President and his staff can ‘set the agenda' for official Washington by communicating a message at certain times or in certain venues. For example, the President's Saturday morning radio address can determine the topic of conversation on Sunday morning talk shows and newspaper front pages. "From the White House perspective, control of the agenda is an essential component of successful policy-making" ("Spin Control" 6).

Speeches or statements by the president can result in hours of television punditry and pages of editorializing. Seemingly every notable issue nationwide receives comment from the podium of the James Brady Briefing Room. Recent examples include the space program, gay marriage, and education reform.

The President's annual State of the Union address receives an enormous amount of press attention. In fact, some would say the amount of coverage is disproportionate to the actual speech. Well-placed leaks preview key announcements day in advance; the speech text is released shortly before it is read, so reporters can share highlights prior to 9:00 p.m.; then a series of events in the days after help reinforce the message. "You...have a State of the Union address which will include much of our agenda for the year and a lot of what we do during the year is then live up to, carry out, implement, follow through on that State of the Union," a senior staff member said ("Presidential Publicity").

Message-melding
The President has a variety of opportunities to communicate his message. And when he does so, attention is paid to each and every detail. Karl Rove notes that it is a complex task. "I think in the post-1980 era we all owe it to [Michael] Deaver who said turn off the sound of the television and that's how people are going to decide whether you won the day or lost the day, the quality of the picture. That's what they're going to get the message by, with the sound entirely off" ("Communications"). No detail is too small; new podium was developed by the Bush team to ensure that the backdrops designed by administration advance teams are more clearly visible.

An administration's attempt to keep the White House in the news started when television arrived on the scene, Helen Thomas said. "[Truman] already realized the power of television," she said. "The unseen visual audience started with President Truman...When he gave interviews that happened to be televised, he always wanted the White House in the background...I think he was very perceptive about that." It is now a constant goal of any administration.

Ann Lewis explained that backdrops assist with conveying the message. "We give you the opening paragraph, we give you the closing story and we even give you the headline. That signage is our headline. But it's all because we're talking to an audience where we're in heavy competition for their attention and we need to use very possible means to break through" ("The Office"). She notes that "we're going to get, if we're lucky, a minute on the evening news. Everything about that minute ought to emphasize and re-emphasize the same message. That's why what the sign says, what the audience says, what the setting says, all of that is part of what they grasp as well as the words" ("The Office").

This message-melding reaches out beyond the President's own events. The White House Communications office seeks to ensure that key players stick to the "talking points" e-mailed or faxed to them each morning. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank explains that they have "talking points that they e-mail to friends and everyone says exactly the same thing. You go through the effort of getting Karl Rove on the phone and he'll say exactly the same thing as Scott McClellan" (Auletta). From the administration's point of view, that is exactly what should happen. But it frustrates the press corps. Ken Auletta quoted New York Times correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller as saying the administration "never get[s] off their talking points," then notes that "what Bumiller calls a ‘wall,' Mark McKinnon calls ‘a funnel for information.'" And that is the goal: To funnel information effectively, thereby offering one succinct, standard message, despite the media's objections.

Off-the-record Informing
One strategy often employed by the White House is not-for-attribution conversations. "Off the record" chats, "deep background" briefings, and similar practices are all too common in official Washington.

Bush spoke to five network correspondents on "deep background" during the first week of March. This means that the information can be used, but not attributed to a particular source. The conversation lasted 80 minutes. The Washington Post picked up on it the next morning. "Several people provided accounts of it to The Washington Post but spoke only on the condition of anonymity because, in the view of the White House and by the agreement of the networks, the conversation never officially occurred," the journalist wrote (Allen). As a result, television reporters could stand at pebble beach and act as if they could read the President's mind. "...Keep an eye on those networks in the coming days for oddly attributed but authoritative sounding pronouncements about what Bush is thinking," the Washington Post's online daily briefing said the next day (Froomkin).

A typical complaint among White House correspondents is a lack of access. The free-wheeling first weeks and months of a campaign are replaced by a strict lock on the "message" by inauguration day. Helen Thomas noted that this wasn't always the case. "We were much more able to understand what the President was like in those days [decades ago]," Thomas recalled. "We got a chance to be very able to understand [and] get close to what was going on" (Thomas).

Often times, the press is briefed by a "senior administration official" when important news is made. This benefits journalists, who receive more information on an issue, and the administration, who ensures that their side of the story is heard. However, it can create a challenge for the news media, who would prefer that all sources be quoted on the record and with full identification. As an example, the Washington Post recently reiterated its guidelines on the matter. "We realize it can be frustrating for readers when we publish information attributed to unnamed sources, even when we are confident that the sources are knowledgeable and reliable...Like our readers, we would like all sources of information in this newspaper to be named. We are restating this preference in our new policy statement, and we are reminding our reporters to try to put government officials and other sources of information "on the record" by name whenever possible, even if it means objecting to traditional Washington practices such as "background briefings" (Downie).