Bush at his last prime-time press conference, in April. (AP File photo)

Mr. President, will you answer the question?
COMMENTARY

President Bush has a special talent for avoiding tough questions and reporters who ask them. Here's what the White House press corps should do to smoke him out.

This article orginally appeared on Salon.com.

 

By Dan Froomkin

froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org

 

George W. Bush has held far fewer solo news conferences than any president in the modern era. And when he does meet with the press, he avoids direct answers so brazenly that there is scant little value in it anyway. It's time the White House press corps did something about it.

 

How? In interviews, a half dozen of the best White House correspondents of the recent past have offered up some suggestions for the reporters who will be covering Bush's second term. And one place they can start is by reminding the public of a number of important, outstanding questions left unanswered about Bush's first term.

 

Covering the White House has always been a challenge, but this administration has been particularly reluctant to answer questions. This president even seems to have an aversion to being in the same room as people who might disagree with him. Bush's news conference track record, while frankly not the most important example of these two tendencies, is one of the most overt -- and is the easiest for the press to do something about.

 

The president is not averse to questions, per se. It's a matter of who's asking. During the campaign, Bush took questions almost daily -- from carefully screened and adoring supporters. Their questions tended to be real tough, like this one at an "Ask President Bush" event in Niceville, Fla.: "Mr. President, I was wondering if you were a Christian?" But according to figures compiled by Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University, when it comes to solo news conferences, Bush has held only 16 during his first term -- a far cry from the 43 Bill Clinton had at this point in his first term, and the 84 by Bush's father.

 

It seems unlikely that Bush, in his second term, will adopt John Kerry's pledge to hold one press conference a month if elected. In fact, it's entirely possible that Bush will try to hold even fewer than he did during his first term. It's not as if there was a voter backlash for avoiding the media's questions -- so why should he subject himself to more than he absolutely has to? There was a hint of this in Bush's obligatory post-election news conference on Nov. 4, when he only half-jokingly suggested that the "will of the people" now entitled him to establish more restrictive rules with the press corps. And you'll note that since then, he's only been seen in short, carefully controlled photo ops and joint sessions with other world leaders, who serve as unwitting foils.

 

And for Bush, questions from the press are not so much inducements to deliberation as they are cues for carefully massaged sound bites that, often as not, the assembled reporters have already heard time and time again. Only very rarely does Bush actually engage a question and break new ground with his answer. And although it has come to the point that no one in the press corps really expects a direct answer anymore, that doesn't mean they should give up on trying to get one.

 

Even more of a charade these days are the daily briefings held by White House press secretary Scott McClellan, whose robotic adherence to repeating the predetermined messages of the day -- no matter what questions come his way -- has driven some correspondents to despair. Only narcissists and cranks could possibly feel they are getting much out of asking a question at a McClellan press briefing. Not coincidentally, the cranks are increasingly sitting at the front of the briefing room and getting called upon, in part because some big media organizations don't even bother to fill their assigned chairs anymore. What's the point?

 

It's true that news conferences, even of the presidential variety, have never been the most important tool for covering the White House. Deflecting tough questions and instead delivering a pre-planned message is a long presidential tradition. Like those before him, Bush goes in heavily briefed by his staff on the likely questions -- most of which are predictable -- and girded with related, but not necessarily responsive, responses. He picks the questioners, he doesn't brook interruptions, he sticks to his message.

 

Lou Cannon covered the Reagan White House for the Washington Post. "News conferences have always been a forum for the president to say what he wants to say, not for us to get the information that we want to get," Cannon said in an interview. "Occasionally some nugget will come out, but the news conference is really controlled by the president." But Sam Donaldson, who covered the Jimmy Carter and Reagan White Houses for ABC News, said Bush abuses the format more than any of his predecessors. "I think they have it tougher than I ever had it," he says of the modern press corps. "This president has memorized what he wants to say, which he makes fit almost any variation." For instance, Donaldson says, "If the word 'Iraq' comes up, you are going to hear what you've heard 14 or 15 times before. He's not going to really engage in answering the question."

 

White House news bombshells have pretty much always come from aggressive reporting and leaks, rather than from the president's own mouth. And when presidents are revealing, it's typically in one-on-one interviews, especially longer ones with interlocutors who are prepared, nimble and brave. Nevertheless, as Hearst columnist and legendary White House press corps veteran Helen Thomas puts it: "The presidential news conference is the only forum in our society in which the president can be questioned. If he doesn't answer questions, there's no accountability. He can rule by edict -- which he is very much doing these days… We speak for the American people. We have a direct contact with the president of the United States and they don't."

 

So what's a press corps to do? For one, White House reporters should become more assertive in demanding that the president make himself available. They should raise the issue every day in the daily briefing with McClellan, instead of only once every few weeks. In fact, they should also bring it up every time they get in earshot of the president. ("Mr. President, why won't you meet with us once a month?") Correspondents are sometimes loath to appear too activist or hectoring. But there is nothing inappropriate about the press demanding accountability from the president of the United States.

 

And they should ask better questions.

 

Some folks who should know -- because they've successfully asked tough questions of previous presidents -- say there are several ways the current White House press corps could get more value out of even infrequent press conferences. Their advice to the current crew, in a nutshell: When your turn comes to ask a question at a presidential press conference, don't worry so much about how smart you will sound asking it, and resist your urge to ask more than one thing at a time. Instead, try harder to ask one question that will actually get an answer. The question should be simple and direct enough so that everyone, including the president, understands precisely what is being asked -- and so that if the president doesn't answer it, it's clear to everyone that he has chosen to avoid it.

 

Consider one modest example of what not to do, from Bush's Nov. 4 news conference. Here's what the first reporter Bush called on did with his opportunity to elicit information from the president. "Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops, or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?" Even Bush was taken aback at being asked all those questions at the same time. "Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule," he said. "That was three questions." Possibly encouraged by the corps' sycophantic guffaws, Bush -- after a smooth-sounding response that didn't directly answer any of the three questions, by the way -- announced a new rule: "No follow-ups today."

 

Putting the appropriateness of Bush's bullying -- and the press corps' accommodation -- aside, the irony is that the one-question rule would actually serve the correspondents well. The no follow-up rule, however, could be fatal. Talking to Cannon, Thomas and others, the same critique emerges over and over again: Of course the president doesn't want to answer tough questions -- but reporters are making it easier on him than they should by asking questions that are entirely too long-winded. Anything lengthy or multipart makes it easier for the president to deflect, distract and filibuster. Plus it gives him more time to collect himself for his response. "One of the things that happens with long questions is they chew up a lot of time. Presidents love long questions," Cannon said. "The best questions are those that are asked simply and asked with the least windup."

 

And of course long, amorphous questions effortlessly lead to longer, more amorphous answers. So ideally, questions should have concrete answers. John Herbers, who covered the White House in the 1970s for the New York Times, thinks "When did you learn about it?" is often a good thing to ask. Shorter questions that require only short answers also mean there's time for more questions. If the president deflects a really good and important question, the reporter should follow up. "You should always have a follow-up question in mind," Cannon says. "Instead, they ask six questions in one and then they say they have a follow" -- but it's actually a seventh, unrelated question. If need be, other reporters should follow up, rather than sticking to their scripts. "We should listen, and not be so ego-attached to our own questions," said Thomas.

 

And reporters shouldn't be afraid to look a little disrespectful if that's what it takes to get an answer. "This is not a social engagement, this is a business transaction. The president knows it's business, believe me," said Donaldson. Being aggressive carries a slight risk: "It makes your bosses nervous, when they think of all their relationships, including the state dinners they want to be invited to," he said. "But I never had to worry that my boss would not back me, as long as I was doing something legitimate."

 

Even the two- to four-question Oval Office photo ops that Bush has at times held fairly frequently could be much more useful if the questions were stronger, said Ann Compton, who has been covering the White House for ABC News for most of the past 30 years. "The questions they ask in the Oval Office photo ops are weak and predictable -- going for just a quick headline," she said. Reporters should stop asking superficial "What's your reaction?" questions, and instead ask "What are you going to do?" or "How can you explain?" questions, she said. "One of our greatest failings is in not asking questions that are deep enough." Shouting out questions when the president is passing by, the old Donaldson standby, doesn't work well with Bush. He tends to just glare.

 

Finally, in the absence of answers, the press corps should do a better job of reminding the public of all the outstanding questions from Bush's first term. Aren't some of these questions important enough to keep asking, even if no answer is forthcoming? And isn't it worth reminding our readers and viewers that we have been denied the answers? For instance:

 

• Who was responsible for the faulty intelligence about Iraq's WMD, and why haven't they been held accountable?  
• What has changed about the administration that would give the public the certainty that if we go to war again, it won't be based on faulty intelligence?  
• When did Bush become aware of the memos written by White House and Justice Department lawyers sanctioning torture and the circumvention of the Geneva Conventions in certain circumstances? And did he support or reject them?  
• Does Bush know who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative? Who did it?  

There are many more. And there are also now a growing number of questions about Bush's ambitious but amorphous plans for his second term that should be asked until they are answered. Among them:

 

• If current workers are allowed to invest some of their Social Security taxes, that amount will have to be made up in some other way, unless the government reduces payments to current or future retirees. So what's it going to be? 
• How can the government reduce the deficit if it won't increase taxes and it doesn't reduce spending?  
• If the tax code overhaul is to be revenue neutral, and one goal is to reduce the tax rate on savings, what taxes go up?  
• If preemptive war against Iraq was justified, what other nations might merit preemptive action?

At this point, the best thing reporters can do is ask questions so simple and direct that Bush's almost inevitable evasion is obvious to everyone. And then they should repeatedly remind their readers and viewers that the questions remain unanswered. Maybe Bush can be prodded and shamed into meeting with the press more often. And maybe White House reporters -- who are, after all, among the best of their profession -- can craft the occasional question that actually prompts the president to reflect upon a decision, recall an event or reaction, give some insight into his judgment, or even spill some beans.

 

But more realistically, the best outcome we can hope for is that better questions themselves will help the media and the public focus on the vital issues of the day -- so that the president's minimally valuable responses to them can at least appear in well-researched, consequential news reports full of context and facts.

Dan Froomkin is the deputy editor of the Nieman Watchdog Project. He is also Washington Bureau Chief for the Huffington Post. E-mail: froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

Repeat the question Posted by Norab Baronson - 12/03/2004, 12:05 PM You note that, "If need be, other reporters should follow up, rather than sticking to their scripts." As a news watcher and taxpayer, I think that's an excellent point. I recall the press conference where Bush was asked about his biggest mistake. When he failed to think of a single mistake to answer the question the first time, a couple of other reporters pressed the issue when they got a chance to speak. I don't know if they were giving up on the questions they'd planned to ask (though that's how it seemed to me), or if they'd planned to ask it anyway. Regardless, by hammering the question again and again, they turned it into a Big Deal. Personally, I think the refusal to admit a mistake has been blown out of proportion. (President Bush doesn't say that he's screwed up? Shocking! Most presidents are so forthcoming about their errors...) But if that kind of reaction was achieved over a small issue, imagine what could happen if reporters refused to drop the issue of the torture memos until he answered the crucial questions (what he knew, when, and how did he respond). Even if the president never gave a substantive reply, it would cry out to the world that the American people (or at least, our journalists) take the matter seriously. Thanks for your great work at Neiman and with WaPo. I try to read your online column daily.

Why doesn't the press challenge the President? Posted by David Tancredi - 12/03/2004, 12:06 PM I don't understand why the press doesn't question the President on this very issue. Such questions could be straightforward and simple. "Mr President, you've held a small number of press conferences and take limited questions from reporters in your term. Will you continue this trend even though the nation is in a time of war?" (If he makes any incomplete promises for more press conferences ask a follow up for specific dates or schedules.) "You don't read the newspaper. You've shown disdain for unspecified news organizations. What specific news organizations do you dislike and why?" "Most Americans would agree that transparent democracy is important to instill faith in goverment. Yet your administration rarely opens itself for questioning. Do you think this lack of transparency hurts your administration at home and abroad." Until the press challenges him on this issue the others can't follow. You can't ask a hard question about the war, social security, or taz reform unless you have the opportunity to ask that question in the first place. On a final note I recall when C-span ran the interview a year or two ago that the President had with an Irish reporter while in England. That's must see viewing if interested in this issue. She asked the tough questions our press wouldn't asked. He was obviously perturbed by the questioning. It stood in contrast to the press conference before the Iraq war, when a reporter asked the fluff question, "How has your faith helped you through?" One reason the press got things so wrong in Iraq was that they were unwilling to ask the important questions.

People aren't required to dance for the press. Posted by Abe Froman - Media Consultant 12/03/2004, 12:44 PM Prior to becoming a consultant, I worked both as a reporter and as a public affairs officer for the federal government. And, I can say with all honesty, that if I was the president or a high level federal official I would say as little to the press as possible. There is no benefit in it and it generally does more harm than good. Every word is analyzed to death and every speech given a hidden meaning. I believe in a transparant goverment and there are mechanisms in place for citizens and the press to obtain information. There is nothing, however, that requires officials to speak to the press.

End of "handout" journalism? Posted by Kevin Broom - Senior Writer RealGM.com 12/03/2004, 01:52 PM The passage about major media outlets not even covering the press secretary's briefings is encouraging to me. I don't think there's a lot of news coming from those events. Instead it contributes to "handout" journalism -- where the reporters wait around in bunches for an official government representative to come out and tell them what's going on. Perhaps the president's reticence to answer questions from reporters can spur journalists to some investigation. That would be a great thing, in my opinion.

three keys Posted by Eileen Smith - former D.C. editor/writer -- proponent of media reform 12/03/2004, 04:01 PM Dan, as you already know, I believe the answer to the problem you so eloquently cover here lies largely in returning the credentialing of WH correspondents to peer review, removing it from the WH press office where it has been since the end of WW2 when the White House Correspondents Association relinquished that power. Power can also be returned to the press through development of a Peoples Bill of Rights for White House-Media Transparency. Access of reporters covering Congress is codified -- why not develop some protection for WH reporters? To be precise: a president's dismissive behavior toward the people's right to hold him accountable can be modified by enacting three keys. The first is the return of the credentialing authority to the WHCA. The second key is some professional code of standards and ethics for WH reporters in dealings with the press office and WH officials that would restrict the WH political shop's ability to punish reporters and use them for political purposes. The third key is a requirement for a monthly presidential press conference. Obviously no one can force this on the executive branch, but I believe that a climate of pressure can be applied through public education and a broadly promoted Peoples Bill of Rights. Only the members of the press stand between the people and tyranny. Why are they allowing themselves to be cowed by this White House? Given some protection from retaliation by politicos, perhaps the Kool Kids would transform into the watchdogs democracy requires them to be. A working draft of my proposed Peoples Bill of Rights for White House-Media Transparency is at http://webdems.blogspot.com. ... Keep on keeping on, Dan! You are simply the best read each day.

perhaps common sense is useless here Posted by Andrew Choate - 12/03/2004, 04:29 PM Have the people that work in politics and journalism become so sequestered from the outside world that the very basic fact that the president should answer the press’s questions on any subject that has to do with his job/ the news/ what happens in his immediate vicinity is deemed too radical to even consider? It seems nonsensical to people outside your extremely tiny world that the president is so inaccessible (hence unaccountable) to the press/ public. Also, it is not the fault of a reporter if a topical question doesn’t fit into the narrow mold of askable/ answerable questions, so I have no problem with (I actually have esteem for) the reporter who asked about the security clash in Chile. There is obviously a problem with the way the press/public has a dialogue with the president if the form of that dialogue is severely limiting what (kinds of) questions can be asked.

Potted Plants Posted by Wayne Davis - 12/03/2004, 04:32 PM Dan: Thanks for your thoughtful column. I was with The Associated Press for 13 years, eventually becoming news editor of the Washington, D.C. bureau during the Reagan-Bush I era. Inside the AP and some other news organizations, White House reporters were known as the “potted plants.” This was because they were essentially stuck in place – forced to adhere to the president’s schedule and, most often, stuck in the White House press room. Like Pavlov’s dogs, they responded to a light that went on and off in that room – the “lid,” as it was known. When the lid was “on,” there would be no news for a specified period and they were free to go have lunch, or whatever. They, of course, had to be back by the time the lid went “off” again. On the campaign or travel trail, White House correspondents also were known affectionately to field reporters as the “trained seals.” This was because their schedules, and access to anything but their White House handlers, was severely limited. When the handlers called, the trained seals jumped. Get on the plane. Get off the plane. Stand here. Get back on the plane. And so on. Being a White House correspondent is one of the most coveted assignments in all of journalism. The prestige is enormous. But, in reality, most take whatever they’re fed. Expecting them to do more is expecting the impossible. Try, if you must, demanding that the president hold more news conferences. Try, if you are inspired, to demand that he actually answer the questions put to him. Then see how much information you get from Karl Rove, Andrew Card or Karen Hughes. Sooner or later, your bosses will look up and say, “Gosh, that potted plant we have over at the White House looks pretty shriveled up. We’d better replace it.” They were called potted plants because they had to be periodically “watered” by the presidential press operation or they would die, journalistically speaking. Reporters with no stories to file don’t stay on the beat very long, so they tended to take whatever drivel was being dispensed that day.

to Wayne Davis Posted by Eileen Smith - former D.C. editor/writer -- proponent of media reform 12/03/2004, 05:20 PM Thank you for your insights, Wayne. I really appreciate your "insider" contribution to this discussion. But I wonder why it is that the "potted plants" were able to summon up the strength to make Bill Clinton's life a daily hell by often inserting themselves into the prosecution of his personal failures and yet they have not been able to provide the American people with news about Bush that would properly inform hundreds of Americans in choosing their commander in chief and the keeper of their national reputation and treasury. It is usually argued by reporters that the press has no "news peg" if the opposition isn't making news about the actions of the administration. And so the lack of an echo chamber on the left (such as the right has in Rove-Rush-Drudge-Murdoch-Scaife-AM radio-Dobson-Scarborough) hampers coverage of real scandals. And yet it can also be argued that truth is truth and news is news and news outlets must find a way to inform that doesn't rely on merely channeling newsmakers. This used to be called "investigative journalism." What we citizens need and want are WH reporters who look like Karl Malden, think more about their sacred responsibility to the preservation of democracy than they do about the beautiful ceilings of the Cosmos or Alfalfa membership, and aren't about to let any pudgy politico scream on the phone about their reportage. What could be more prestigious, after all, than serving as the representative of the American people in the interest of liberty and the law? And, of course, courageous reporting requires news execs and editors with backbone. It's hard to understand why the backbone of the bosses was sufficient to attack the Clintons but not to address the actions of an administration that has taken America on dangerous paths in virtually every area of governance.

Bigger Issues Posted by Wayne Davis - 12/03/2004, 06:32 PM I agree that the attack-dog journalism toward Clinton, and the puppy-dog journalism under Bush, don’t leave anyone in the media looking particularly good. In my experience, front-line reporters are often fairly liberal, while owners are often more conservative. Perhaps there's a reason there. Still, that’s a much bigger issue than I was trying to address. My comments were directed only to Dan’s column, which seemed to focus primarily on White House reporting. My point was that we can’t look to WH reporters to solve the problem he discussed. They are far too dependent on the White House itself than to challenge the administration effectively. Battlefield reports from Vietnam, not presidential news conferences, turned public opinion against that war. Accurate, continued reporting of events in Iraq may do the same. Record deficits under Bush and an accompanying 40 percent decline in the value of the dollar (in essence, a 40 percent drop in the wealth of every American) are all issues that should be pursued. But I don’t believe they will be pursued effectively by any reporter working in the controlled, hothouse environment of the White House press corps. That will be up to the rest of the profession.

Why would he bother? Posted by Jeff Gannon - White House Correspondent, Talon News 12/06/2004, 09:48 AM If the press corps was more interested in real answers instead of helping to promote a political agenda, perhaps there would be more press conferences. Don't forget it was John Roberts of CBS who confronted Dan Bartlett with the phony Bush service record documents and it was the New York Times that printed a front-page, above-the-fold article by Elisabeth Bumiller that was about a rumor that Vice President Dick Cheney would be replaced on the ticket. How many versions of "What mistakes did you make?" during a prime-time press conference should be tolerated? Remember, the previous president didn't admit his mistake until the DNA test results came in.

QUESTIONS FOR THE PRES! Posted by Richard Michem - "ALWAYS, LET PEOPLE THINK THAT YOUR ABILITIES, ARE LESS THEN THEY REALLY ARE, YOU WILL ALWAY HAVE THE EDGE". 12/08/2004, 01:45 PM First people, of the press, why do you have to wait until you can be with in ear range, of Bush before you ask him tough questions? Do it, in the respected editorial toys you press people play with? If you started, to publicly ask Bush tough questions, in your mags and newspapers. If you start a public ground cry, against certain questionable presidents type of practices. Bush's insecurely and doubt about how HISTORY, will showed his administration worked, will come threw> He will have to answer some questions publicly. No not forget member of the press. American, does not have a leader, but a little boy who happen to be the pres, who whole performance, as the president, seem to be trying to show up his dad experience as the president. That is the tough question, I am wondering why, members of the press is not asking? So here is the questions, I would like to ask Jr Bush? Mr, "son of a Good President", Bush> "IS IT NOT TRUE, THAT THE ONLY REASON, YOU WENT INTO IRAQ,WAS BECAUSE, YOU HAD TO PROVED, THAT YOU WERE NOT A DRUNKEN NOBODY SON, AND THAT YOU COULD PROVED TO YOUR DAD, THAT YOU HAD BIGGER (well you press people know what I mean), THEN YOUR FATHER? I am still waiting, for you members of the press corp, especially the ones basic in DC.(I am speaking to you WP). To ask about the son trying to please the father type of admiration, Bush seem to have.

A single question deserves a single answer, no? Posted by Rob Day - 12/11/2004, 08:46 AM It occurs to me to think, if the president/press secretary/whoever want to introduce and enforce a "single question, no followup" policy for each reporter, should the press corps also insist then that that single question be answered as it was asked, without dodging, weaving, tap dancing and obfuscation? It seems only fair that, if the administration is going to put restraints on the press corps in terms of acceptable questions, the press corps should similarly put restraints on what they see as acceptable answers. Thoughts?

Gannongate Posted by clement girault - 04/14/2005, 10:52 PM The comments by Jeff Gannon (two or three posts below mine) are priceless - in light of his actions and his recent, humiliating, fall from grace.

Need to Answer Posted by Stephen Campbell - 09/20/2005, 12:48 PM The need to answer a question needs to be created before these press conferences begin. Indeed the need to have the press conference has to be created by the press. If there is no demand by the media for the President to answer these questions he won't. There has to be repercussions in the mainstream news outlets for not making himself available to answer the tough questions and to avoiding those same questions when asked. The reporters covering the White House will never have any leverage with the President until their organizations back them up and publicly criticize him for not being more forthcoming. Maybe then the journalists can actually get back to doing their jobs, which is to scrutinize what the president says and hold him accountable for any deceptions, broken promises, omissions or other misconduct.

Did Katrina Change Anything? Posted by J Stanton - 09/27/2005, 08:48 PM I was abroad and out of touch with media during the initial stages of Katrina. When I finally checked into a hotel with TV access, I was shocked to see the antagonistic, agressive questioning of administration officials that characterized every interview and aspect of the reporting, at least on CNN. It seemed more than a bit overboard, but as events have shown, it probably wasn't. It also surprised me in the following days that the press was willing to finally highlight the Bush administration's penchant for always being "on message". I had always wondered why the media had ignored this aspect of the administration communications strategy. This time around, however, the media picked up on the ubiquitous, repreated use of "the blame game" to deflect hard questioning. It will be interesting to see if Katrina and the policy defeats of the second term are sufficient to give the press the backbone to do a better job of 'oversight' for this administration. At least it's a start. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list