Now that he's on his way to the White House, terrorist-by-satire Barack Obama stands accused of leaning farther toward the center than his left-wing Democratic primary self did. Some might argue that comes with the territory as any candidate progresses into the general election. Fine.
But there's another marked change going on in the Obama camp, and it has to do with his relationship with the press. We noticed three distinct policies that are becoming status quo inside the Land of Change, and they're all rules the press corps now has the grapple with.
Mess With Obama And Get Burned
The New Yorker is a recent shining example of how the Obama camp will treat its frenemies in the media. Last week's now-infamous cover depicting Obama as a Muslim, and wife Michelle as a fist-bumping terrorist, was met with a tepid response from Team Obama. They weren't happy with the cover, illustrated by Barry Blitt to accompany a story by Ryan Lizza. So how did Obama respond? By not finding any space for The New Yorker on Obama's flight to the Middle East and Europe for this week's tour of the regions. Some 200 members of the press corps applied for spots; only 40 were granted passes. Lizza was not among them.
Foreigners Don't Matter
While Obama is supposedly running a wide open campaign, it's no secret he keeps the domestic press at bay. (June's secret meeting with Hillary Clinton is a shining example.) But if you're among the foreign legion, don't expect any relationship with Obama's campaign. Washington-based German correspondent Christoph von Marschall, who wrote a (admittedly) "sympathetic" book on Obama, notes in the Washington Post that not a single member of foreign press is aboard Obama's plane this week, and he's made zero effort to answer questions from reporters abroad. (In the spring, one foreign correspondent tailed him in Ohio in Texas.) Says von Marschall: "E-mail inquiries get no reply, phone calls are not returned. My colleagues and I know: We are last in line. We don't matter."
The Least Watched Get the Best Access
Know who's getting the first face time with Obama during his overseas trip? CBS News, unarguably the least watched among the broadcast networks. Lara Logan scored the first interview (parts of which aired yesterday on Face The Nation and the CBS Evening News), while CBS's Katie Couric beat ratings winners Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson for first network news anchor to get access. Couric's interview is tomorrow, while Gibson goes Wednesday and Williams on Thursday. Is Obama using Couric to practice his stump in his first trip abroad?
Editorial Director
This just proves that if Obama becomes President he intends to shut down the media and take over the country. John McCain is the only thing standing between us and tyranny!!! Barry Hussein must be stopped!!!
Grrreat satire their tony the tiger.
THE MEDIA, CONTROL AND BALANCE
By Ronn Torossian, President & CEO, 5W Public Relations
Working in public relations and, in particular, crisis management, there is a tremendous balancing act between projecting clients’ images and agendas and, at the same time, protecting them – essentially keeping the press at bay. Often, as it is, the purpose of PR and wrangling with the media is to encourage positive coverage for whomever or whatever you represent. If the story is not going to be positive, then it is best just not to do it. The job of a good PR person is to protect his clients and make them look their best in the media and in public.
It is for this reason that I found myself agreeing with the recent Obama campaign's decision to ban a reporter deemed to be from a publication believed to be less than objective for Obama from his press plane on this week’s International “foreign policy” trip. Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of reporters wanting to travel with the presidential candidate – as the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane, of which they were able to grant only 40 – so why grant space to a publication who has previously hurt the campaign, and who may skew coverage in place of someone less inclined to do so? It is hard to imagine the New York Yankees allowing a Boston-minded sports reporter unfettered locker room access.
Candidates and clients as well, offer access to media with the hope, and perhaps even the expectation that media will present a positive narrative. Yet, anyone worth his salt in public relations knows all to well that media access by its very nature presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story. So, if there is choice, why ante-up with media deemed to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists one can gamble on to better the odds?
Equally as reporters at the top tier publications want exclusive information, unique off the record comments and the like, so too must there be a very fair and real expectation for them that if they present a negative or seemingly prejudicial story then the possibility of being excluded is very real – especially when there is a major issue at stake, like a presidential election, and especially where the candidate has the luxury of choosing any media he prefers. Indeed, he cannot avoid bad coverage from someone inclined to do so, but he does not need to offer a seat on his plane.
The banned reporter in question, Ryan Lizza of New Yorker Magazine learned that Obama had earned a reputation of "'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.'"[i][i] This is not an issue of Freedom of the Press; Lizza can write what he wants, but Obama is not obligated to open his arms in welcome. Outrage by media over such policies is also hypocritical, as stated in The Huffington Post, “Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate.” No, it is not chilling – it is valid. As journalists are arbiters of fate, they should expect that those on the receiving end of their opinions or ideals be cautious.
I find myself agreeing with this statement from Anita Dunn, an Obama advisor, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give,” Ms. Dunn said. “We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.”[ii][ii]
I understand those of us in the public relations business who feels that media must not be allowed to simply run rampant over clients - especially those who garner tremendous media attention. It does not mean that we should not cooperate with media – We do, but while we would love totally positive coverage, we generally seek what we can expect to be fair and objective.
[i][i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....13969.html
[ii][ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06.....ref=slogin