DeLong: The Current Situation (as of April 24, 2009): Econ 196 Lecture
A Statement by Brad DeLong

The White House Press Conference

Dan Froomkin has a modest proposal:

Send Krugman to the Press Conference: President Obama holds a prime-time press conference tomorrow night to mark his 100th day in office, and if the major news organizations really want to make it interesting, they won’t send their White House corrrespondents.... [N]ews organizations should send the beat reporters — or even columnists — who have the deepest knowledge and expertise in the subject at hand. This would not only result in more probing questions, but more thoughtful and challenging follow-ups. What I want to see are tough, detailed exchanges driven by people who really know what they’re talking about and aren’t too intimidated to push back and drill down when necessary. So if the New York Times or The Washington Post decide that their top priority tomorrow night is to probe Obama about his highly speculative bank bailout proposals, they should send someone who could really mix it up with the president — like Paul Krugman, or Steven Pearlstein....

White House correspondents, by contrast, are generalists — and most of them are former political reporters.... They are also beholden to the press office for the continued access they need to do their jobs.

I’m not saying, by the way, that Obama’s previous two prime-time press conferences were a total loss. He was commanding and resolute at his first, on February 9. He deftly used his second.... He’s always erudite and articulate — such a change from his predecessor. But he also tends not to say anything new. His talking points, as it were, are vastly more extensive and fully developed than those of the last guy, but he sticks to them with the same tenacity. A press conference, however, should be the occasion for reporters to probe beneath the placid surface of a president’s regular pitch in search of a clearer view into his thought processes....

[T]he White House press corps just isn’t up to it. Ana Marie Cox wrote earlier this month in The Washington Post’s Outlook section that the modern White House correspondent’s job is, well, a joke: “Here are some stories that reporters working the White House beat have produced in the past few months: Pocket squares are back! The president is popular in Europe. Vegetable garden! Joe Biden occasionally says things he probably regrets. Puppy!” She explained: “It’s not that the reporters covering the president are bad at their jobs. Most are experienced journalists at the top of their game — and they’re wasted at the White House, where scoops are doled out....”

And that’s the generous view...

I am not sure that it would work--or, rather, I am not sure that Robert Gibbs would let it happen. Could Obama go toe-to-toe with either Pearlstein or Krugman if either of them were in a cranky mood and wanted to trip him up? I have never seen the aftermath of a hostile oral exam by Krugman or Pearlstein. I have seen the aftermath of a hostile oral exam by Summers: the candidate hid under the desk, whimpered, and would not come out until coaxed out by pizza and his significant other brought by taxicab from 30 blocks away...

If I were Obama and if I were to be questioned by subject-matter experts, I would insist (a) that each press conference be confined to one fairly narrow issue area, and (b) that I have five lifelines--phone-a-friend, double-dip, ask-the-press-audience, and ask-the-nationwide-tv-audience, and the ability to answer any one question with "puppy!!!"

That said, I think it would be a major win for the country if Dan's proposal could be put into effect. And I note that it looks a lot like the old "Meet the Press"--where there would be three questioners, all of them journalists who cared and knew something, rather than one Tim Russert- or David Gregory-like character.

Comments