American
Political Science Association / White House Historical
Association
Woman’s National Democratic Club, Washington,
D.C.
October 9, 2003
Moderator:
Martha Joynt Kumar, Professor,
Dept. of Political Science, Towson University
Panelists:
Dan Bartlett, Assistant to the
President and White House Communications Director
Mike McCurry, Former Press Secretary
to President Clinton
Bill Plante, White House Correspondent,
CBS News
Alexis Simendinger, White
House Correspondent, National Journal
Kumar: . . . Our panelists
represent the best of both sides in the relationship
between the White House and the press. We have two White
House practitioners in the art of communications and
two White House correspondents who cover the President
and also the White House in a thorough manner and who
both have the perspectives of several administrations
and all of our panelists were chosen because they were
so very good at what it is they do. . . .
. . . I’d like to begin with some quotations from
the first transcribed press conference and this is a
press conference of Woodrow Wilson . . . He was the
first President to hold regularly scheduled open access
and equal access press conferences with reporters. His
first session was not transcribed but his second one
in which he talked to reporters about what he would
like from them is one that could be very contemporary
in its feel . . . And I’ll just read you part
of it. Wilson said and this is March 22nd 1913, Wilson
said, and this is March 22nd 1913:
“I feel that a large part of the success of public
affairs depends on the newspapermen, not so much on
the editorial writers because we can live down what
they say, as upon the news writers because the news
is the atmosphere of public affairs. Unless you get
the right setting to the affairs, disperse the right
impression, things go wrong . . .”
Bartlett: It’s stunning
to hear that because it’s conversations that we
have in the White House to this day and it’s something
that we spend a lot of time thinking about, is how best
for the public to have a keen understanding of what
the President is thinking at any given time, what his
ideas are, what his policies are and how he wants to
promote those policies to the public. . . . it is a
two-way street, we need the press and the press needs
us and we both understand that. I think there is a deep
level of respect for the two institutions. The challenge
for the White House, I think, particularly for the modern
day White House is the nature of the news cycle and
how the news cycle has changed dramatically, particularly
in the last decade. . . . it’s literally a news
cycle that goes from hour to hour with the Internet,
with cable news. . . . It makes it difficult to find
the most effective way to communicate to the public
in a consistent way . . . On the other hand, the challenge
of the White House Press Corp is to find and report
the news on any given day. Now sometimes those two things
are consistent. What we’re trying to communicate
to the public and what they’re trying to report
as news. Sometimes they are inconsistent and that’s
when we have to find the happy middle ground . . .
McCurry: . . .You start with
the proposition that this relationship on both sides
has a co-equal goals. The press on its part believes
its mission is to seek truth, report accurately, inform
the public and hold those in power accountable. In theory
any White House wants the press to do exactly that,
to report fairly and accurately because they believe
if the right information about the program is presented
to the public, surely the public will see the political
wisdom or the benefit of the argument and will be agreeable
to the course of action. But that’s of course
not the way the relationship unfolds. The big difference
now in addition to all the things about technology and
the pace of the news cycle and the accelerated nature
of the news that Dan correctly points out, the other
big difference is of course the culture of that relationship.
It has changed so dramatically since the time of President
Wilson. . . .
Kumar: Bill, you and Alexis,
from the press point of view, what do you think of the
type of partnership that Wilson envisioned for the press
with government?
Plante: I think that most
presidents, if not all presidents, since Wilson have
shared the notion that they could enlist the media to
advance their agenda. I suspect that the reporters to
whom Wilson was talking almost one hundred years ago
were far more invested in the process because they at
the time were the sole representatives of the press,
the sole transmission belt to the media. . . . But if
all presidents come hoping to establish the kind of
relationship which will allow them to project their
agenda, they are all disappointed. . . . The relationship
is adversarial, it remains adversarial but it is the
president himself, and one day herself, who’s
most responsible for the image which the President creates.
It isn’t the press. . . .
Kumar: . . . if you look at
[the relationship] there’s certainly tensions
on the surface but there [are] also cooperative aspects
to it. The White House does give out news that the reporters
ultimately want, the reporters may have to work at it
to get the information out. How do you all see the relationship?
If you have to characterize it, how would you characterize
it?
Simendinger: I think that
there is always, regardless of which party or which
administration, as some of the folks have already said,
there is always the friction between the desire on the
part of the White House to control what it is that we
as journalists are going to produce and they certainly
want it, regardless of party, regardless of president,
to conform to their idea of what displays their message
in the best light and what it is we are being asked
to do . . .
Plante: The key element here
is that, as the title of this symposium has it, we are
competitors. We do not exist to cheerlead for the President
and the White House is often not generally pleased with
the way we cover the President, which makes their cooperation
with us difficult at best. . . .
|