A divide between me and many of the people who follow me on social media is the claim that "toughness" in its various forms will fix it. Tough questions, tough follow-ups, keep asking, call him a liar to his face, next reporter called on asks the question he did not answer, etc.
About the White House briefing, press conference, follow-ups, rules of the game, etc. They — the people running the joint — have the power to break it, and they broke it. This is what they chose to do. The press can try to make broken rituals work, but reality has its claims too.
Origins of the White House press corps: Reporters in the late 19th century would hang around outside the building and buttonhole visitors as they came and went so as to ask them what's up. Then an aide had an idea: invite them in and give them a room to work from. A fateful step.
You can see how seductive that is. Inside the circle of power! The aide who suggested bringing the press in from the cold knew what he was doing. Now they're almost part of the executive branch. Now they have something to defend. Short jump from there to the @whca dinner, right?
In from the cold came the reporters. And in that instant a new fact was created. Today we call it "access." But access is only defensible in so far as it reveals truth. You can fight for access and wind up working against truth if what you have access to is a propaganda show.
Says @ddale8: "In 2017, he averaged three false claims per day. In 2018, it is about nine per day. In the month leading up to the midterms: a staggering 26 per day." Lying on this scale turns anyone who would interview him into an accomplice, clearing space for more mendacity.
In an interview with Vox, @GeorgeLakoff provided political journalists (and their "why can't you be tougher?" critics) an unwelcome insight. By distributing Trump's false claims in order to debunk them you are assisting in his project. He gets to frame things, then gets attacked.
A crucial exchange:
Vox: So you’re saying that the president has created a situation in which journalists, by merely doing their jobs, are reinforcing his entire communications strategy.
George Lakoff: Right... But you see, there’s still a question of what the media’s job is.
Vox: So you’re saying that the president has created a situation in which journalists, by merely doing their jobs, are reinforcing his entire communications strategy.
George Lakoff: Right... But you see, there’s still a question of what the media’s job is.
In that moment, @GeorgeLakoff was asking journalists to choose what matters more to them: doing the job they have defined as theirs, or having the effect they say they want to have. You can amplify, then "check" the president, or you can inform the public. Not both. So pick one.
I can tell you this: The people who report on the presidency (and their editors) never thought they would be in this situation. Nothing in their background or training prepared them for it. A president who breaks their routines and trashes their rituals, forcing them to rebuild.
To return to our beginning: that "toughness" with Trump is an answer for the press is a fat fantasy. But its roots in American culture run deep. They stretch from crime fiction to Hollywood to the NFL— and on to the briefing room. An alt view would value agility over toughness.
I do not think the press has faltered by failing to be tough enough with Trump. Rather, it has not been agile. A more agile press would be less predictable. It would not always be where he expects it to be. It could invent new routines on the fly. It could think in real time. END
