President Obama last week managed to get Fox News and its
competitors on the same page.
The Obama war against the “news” organization prompted
representatives of ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC to come to the aid of Fox.
According to a transcript posted on the ABC site—it does not
appear in the White House transcripts—that network’s Jake
Tapper engaged in this dialogue with Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs at
a White House briefing:
Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that
the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our
sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell
the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you
explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a
news organization is not one—
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based
on some of their coverage and the fairness that—the fairness of
that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping
declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How
are they any different from, say—
Gibbs: ABC—
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they
any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9
o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion
programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking
about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media
organization, do not work for a “news organization” Why is
that appropriate for the White House to say?
It’s useful to note that Tapper’s alleged confrontation
drew plenty of skepticism (“Jake Tapper demands everyone
apologize for saying ‘Druidism is not a real
religion’”), in part because Tapper was not that principled
when the Bush White House was going after MSNBC.
Nevertheless, Tapper is right about this one.
Neither President Obama nor any other public official is entitled by
right to balanced coverage or to “objective” coverage,
whatever that is.
The notion of objective journalism is relatively new, and its
practitioners often are caught trying to pull the ladder up after them,
arguing that only their kind of journalism is legitimate. During
last week’s White House campaign against Fox, a panel discussion
of media coverage at the Truckee Meadows Democratic Alliance included a
defense of advocacy journalism by Reno radio reporter Christianne Brown
and our news editor Dennis Myers.
In fact, when the First Amendment was written, no objective
journalism existed. The amendment was written during an era of
post-colonial journalism that was unfair, slanted, vitriolic, partisan
and libelous. And the Founding Fathers wanted it protected. The
founders’ belief was that if all viewpoints fight it out in the
marketplace of ideas, the public can sort it all out.
They certainly did not have in mind a president getting to decide
who is and is not a journalist and which journalists can have access to
the public’s government, records and officials, as President
Obama has tried to do by barring Fox from a White House briefing on
corporate pay.
Journalism is changing. It’s never been one-size-fits-all. The
president should get used to the idea, back off and treat all media the
same—the fair and unfair, the objective and subjective, the good
and bad.