Criticizing Obama, WSJ editorial falsely suggested Bush didn't use a preselected list of reporters to call on at press conferences
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal editorial falsely suggested that, unlike President Obama, former President Bush never used "a list of reporters preselected to ask questions" when deciding who to call on at presidential press conferences. In fact, Bush also used such a list, as former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in a March 2003 press briefing.
A February 11 Wall Street Journal editorial falsely suggested that, unlike President Obama, former President Bush never used "a list of reporters preselected to ask questions" when deciding who would be called on at presidential press conferences. In the editorial, the Journal wrote that Obama, at his February 9 press conference, used such a list, and that his staff "had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out." It later stated, "We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors." In fact, Bush also used such a list, as then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters in a March 7, 2003, press briefing.
Further, during the February 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fleischer was asked by host Bill O'Reilly if "George Bush came in ... with a list of guys he was going to call on." Fleischer responded, "Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream." Fleischer added: "And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, 'Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you.' "
From the March 7, 2003, White House press briefing, the day after Bush held a primetime presidential press conference:
Q Last night, after the fifth time has looked down at an apparent list of reporters, [Bush] smiled and he said, "This is scripted."
MR. FLEISCHER: Are you going to complain he didn't call on you?
Q No, no, no. No, no. Which surely suggests that he did not write that script which gave two questions to one network, two questions to one wire service, and one to other vague and wealthy media -- but left all the rest, including Helen Thomas, ruled out in advance of any chance to ask, and left to serve only as window dressing.
And my question is, since you are always fair, Ari, in recognizing all of us, who was it that wrote that script that the President confessed to? Was it Karl Rove or Karen or who?
MR. FLEISCHER: It was me who gave the President a suggestion on the reporters to call. And the President called on all reporters, the President did not call on any columnists.
[...]
Q Two quick questions. First of all, without regard to who the President called on last night, what's the reason for working from a prepared list, as opposed to doing it in a more spontaneous --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because, as you know, from many of the people who have covered the President's pool sprays, this is nothing new to you. The President just thinks it is actually a more orderly news conference, rather than to have the usual cacophony of everybody screaming, where the person who gets called on is the person who has the loudest voice. I thought it was actually a very -- it was a long news conference, it was a solid news conference. Reporters were called from all over the place.
Many people rushed out and bought new --
Q Nobody from --
Q No, Ari.
MR. FLEISCHER: Many different outlets. The President noted many people went out and bought new shoes. The President was pleased to have done it.
Q Is that what I did wrong? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a personal question, Ken.
From the February 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. Now, the press, in general -- and the press corps follows this at the White House -- are notorious front-runners.
FLEISCHER: Yeah.
O'REILLY: That if you -- you're doing OK, and your approval rating is high -- you saw that after 9-11 --
FLEISCHER: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- that President Bush was not challenged very much in his anti-terror strategies, the press corps -- and they were criticized for it later for being lap dogs and this and that.
I think we're in that stage now. But I do think that Barack Obama is -- look, he had those guys listed, written down, who he was going to call. He had them written.
FLEISCHER: Yup.
O'REILLY: Now, in other press conferences, they just look around, and they go, "Oh, right, right, right." And they go, "This one, that one, this one." Correct?
FLEISCHER: Well, George Bush never did that, and I don't know how Bill Clinton did it, but it's a bad idea to reward the guy with the loudest voice.
O'REILLY: OK. So --
FLEISCHER: Writing it down gives the president more control.
O'REILLY: So George Bush came in with a -- with a list of guys he was going to call on?
FLEISCHER: Yeah, I used to prepare it for him. I would give him a grid, show him where every reporter is seated. And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream.
O'REILLY: Like the Huffington Post -- gets called on.
FLEISCHER: And I used to put them all out in one section. I would call it Siberia. And I told the president, "Don't call on Siberia. Just stay right here and call on these people on the grid in front of you."
O'REILLY: All right. Ari, we appreciate it very much. Thank you for the inside baseball.
From the Wall Street Journal editorial titled "Obama's Press List":
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"
The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.
Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.
Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.
OK, now that is LAZY reporting. I guess because it falls under "editorial" that WSJ accepts that kind of baloney?
I cannot believe, as well, that the MSM used the "in the name of transparency" line again against Obama saying that using the list of reporters was not "transparent".
This is not a good sign for our 4th estate
I'm afraid that our 4th estate has been in the crapper for some time now. It may have started with the O.J. trial, then hit rock bottom with its nonstop coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It has yet to recover.
The entire theme of this point is ludicrous. Did Bush call on Gannon to get hard-hitting questions? How about the pre-screened audiences at campaign stops, and the loyalty oaths? How about paid shills like Armstrong supporting NCLB? Softball interviews on FOX?
As if Bush would never try to control the message or anything.
As far as I know, Bush called on Helen Thomas once...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ZuQndRLTU
And then came the freeze out...
http://www.slate.com/id/2080034/
Don't forget that he restricted protesters to "free speech zones," apparently forgetting that all of the United States is a free speech zone.
...apparently forgetting that all of the United States is a free speech zone. - historygeek
You may be confused. That stopped on 11 Sept. 2001.
Oh, how silly of me to think that the Constitution still applied!
who is 'he' here? Bush or Obama? Thanks.
Bush. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/bursting-bushs-bubble-o_b_81530.html
What do they want? Who did he leave out that he should have called on? He called on a guy from FOX for god sake. Kudos to Fliescher for being honest straight about how things worked in Bush's press conferences.
He even had a Hannity supporter ask a question when he gave his town hall in the midwest. Heck, If you so much as had a vote democrat sticker on your bumper, you couldn't get into a bush town hall. Heck, I'd go so far as to say everyone at those town halls had to go through a vetting process and sign an affidavit claiming they were 100% republican before they were let in!
They did a couple of sketches on Little Britain where the Prime Minister would call on reporters at a press conference and they'd stand up and identify themselves as being from Puzzle Weekly or something like that but they'd all ask serious questions. The punch line was always when he'd call on somebody from the Guardian or whatever and they'd ask soemthing like 'Who's your favorite Spice Girl?' Reminds me of Chuck Todd or that idiot from Politico.
Or the idiot from the Washington Post that asked Obama about A Rod!
Or the idiot from the Washington Post that asked Obama about A Rod!
I heard second-string radio wingnut Mike Gallagher this morning, outraged that some "rabid left wing radio host" was at the presser. (I think he was talking about Ed Schultz).
MG acknowledged that he was among many right wing radio hosts who had access to the White House during the Bush Occupation, but insisted that was different because those were private meetings, not some "journalist-controlled press conference".
Amazing.
And then a caller to Gallagher pointed out what he called a "subtlety" of Obama's; He noted the employers of some who he called on, but didn't mention Fox when calling on Major Garret. I thought that was nice of Obama to leave that out. Garrett could pretend he was with a News organization.
I think you'll appreciate seeing actual rabidity in action, Col! I personally enjoyed the attempt to spew "half african" as an insult!
Fox guest gets death threat after calling GOP 'one trick dog' David Edwards and John Byrne
Published: Wednesday February 11, 2009
A liberal Fox News regular received a death threat and a slew of hate mail after calling Republicans a "one trick dog" on Fox Business Channel Tuesday.
Mike Papantonio, an Air America talk show host and defense attorney, lambasted Republicans who've come out in opposition to President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan.
"You know what the problem is?" Papantonio declared. "The American people know that the Republicans have no ideas. They're like dinosaurs. They have one talking point. You know what it is, Stuart? It's the same thing I hear you say on this show. Cut taxes and deregulate. You're a one -- Republicans are a one-trick dog." At another point, he called Republicans "boneheads."
This didn't sit well with listeners to the upstart business channel. Ironically, those who appeared to be most upset with Papantonio's name-calling, resorted to attacks themselves -- only far more extreme. One even wished Papantonio dead.
Emails provided to Raw Story display a torrent of ire from those who felt personally insulted by the Air America host's choice of words. Out of privacy, Raw Story has withheld the emailers' names.
"Mike Papantonio," wrote one listener. "May you die a horrible death from brain cancer you frigging scumbag [sic]."
"Better hope you're on a bail-out list when you start feeling the pain that the great-half-african icon, y'all put up there in Our face, falters again, and again, there won't be enough stimulus to keep your sad voices on the air," wrote another.
"Hey Mike, too funny!" typed a third. "Saw you on Neil Cavuto today. What a frigging communist you are and now we all know it. The more of you who speak out, the easier it is for we Americans to stop you from finishing the job of communizing America. Keep up the good work. Ha!!!"
A fourth was terse: "You frigging treasonous pig."
Nice, Snoop. Why do so many hardcore republicans appear to have given up on readin' & writin' at about 3rd grade?
Oh, I guess that one sort of explains itself, if you get the cause & effect right.
Snoop,
I tuned in Mike Malloy last night and listened to a 10-15 minute rant where Malloy wants to murder the Republican Party. He repeatedly used word 'murder'. He also said to 'take them out in a field in cut of their head'. Another quote, if I remember correctly was that 'They need to be killed', and 'rat bastards' to discuss elected Republicans. There were more but it was getting monotonous.
So while there are some nutjobs out there emailing death threats, there are radio personalities on the left inciting the same.
Good thing I am the only one who was listening. ;-)
Gasp! There are nut jobs on the left? Well that makes all the nut jobs on the right OK I guess.
MiddleL,
Why you would purposely misstate the menaing of my post is beyond me. I only pointed out that the nutjobs on the left incite 'murder' via the airwaves as a comparison. It one thing for someone, who through the anonimity of email, sends out threats, and another when one does it openly on the air. Both are reprehensible, but the comments by Malloy in that short period of time are 100 times worse than I've ever heard coming out of anyone on the right, including the few times I listened to Savage or Levin.
I disavow and condemn the vitriolic emails sent to Papantino. That was disgraceful. Do you or anyone else here on the left also condemn those words by Mike Malloy on Air America?
After what the Republican Party has done to this country in the past years, murder seems just about right : )
I think the technical term is euthanasia.
It would be wonderful if you would actually post a link to the script so we could read it!
That's what I was thinking, AA is asking people to condemn somebody's words as interpreted by AA. The one time a copy & paste would have been useful, and he goes freestyle.
In all fairness, AA is being pretty accurate about Mike. Malloy is the left wing equivalent of any given right wing eliminationist.
Where AA is being a typical Republican apologist is when he lies that he has never heard such scandalous rhetoric from the right. Hell, MMFA has documented worse on these very boards.
I'd be willing to bet AA's own right wing authoritarian preacher has delivered more death obsessed screeds about liberals than Savage ever has. People like AA don't just happen, they are created by blood thirsty, manipulative, lying thugs; be they parents or trusted 'pillars' of their community. It's always the people who engender trust among their flock, from the child molester to the serial killer, who dupe the greatest amount of saps.
AA is little more than a juke box of Republican bs.
But while you're looking for it, please enjoy this italian american stereotyping, union bashing video made by Rep. Cantor who's known for (in his own words, anyways) never cursing!
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rep-eric-cantor-sends-out-anti-italian-
AA,
Source and transcript please of Malloy's words? An audio/video clip would be nice, but a source and transcript are fine.
Ok, so I am a huge Obama supporter, but I don't think he should bring a list of reporters to call on in an interview. I understand the point of the article. Once again, the rightwingers are trying to criticize by omitting that they did the same thing. I just don't think Obama should be doing much of anything that Bush did. I mean, seriously, let's not justify bringing a list of names by saying "well Bush did it!." Bush shouldn't have and neither should Obama.
Why not bring a list? There were probably a couple hundred reporters and they all wanted to ask questions, but there's not enough time for all of them. Why not be organized and have a list of reporters to call on?
TopekaMan,
I am in favor of open questions whether it be a Republican or Democrat sitting in the White House.
It seems to me that if you have pre-selected who you will call on, you don't need the others you won't be calling on.
However pressers are as much political gamesmanship as anything. Obviously the Prez is trying to get his message across and can call on anyone he chooses. (Just so long as he has not been given the questions in advance.)
IMHO there needs to be more pressers and it would be great for our country if those in the press were all given a chance to ask their questions. I wish it were logistically possible.
I am in favor of open questions
As opposed to closed questions? There are far more reporters present that can possibly ask a questions. How should he picked them? The one that yells the loudest? It's "his" press conference not an official governmental process.
"Thanks for coming see you next time".
I meant open questioning. I agree that it is a challenge. The problem with pre-selected choices is just what the WSJ opined. It can be used as a reward or punishment by the President to pick favorites and ignore critics.
Frankly, I think it would be a lot more revealing to pick those out in 'Siberia' as Fleisher called it to see what type of questions they would ask.
No matter what you think of him, it is generally agreed that Rev. Rick Warren asked much better and more penetrating questions of Obama and McCain than any of the MSM moderators in those debates.
Perhaps a random number generator for each assigned seat?
I am all for being organized but bringing a list smacks to closely of pre-selecting the persons and questions he will take. I was very upset the way the Bush administration only called on certain people in the press and the way he shunned journalists who asked questions he did not approve of. That was one of the tactics he used to control the questions and the message. Does Obama really need to use such low-brow tricks? I think Obama is smart enough and articulate enough to handle the press, so why give even the appearance of favoritism (even if that appearance is false).
I also don't want to put words in AA's mouth, but I think his statement "I am in favor of open questions" meant that he was in favor of an open and transparent process. Yes, it is his press conference and it is not an "official" governmental process; however, answering a variety of questions truthfully and honestly to the American people is an important process and press conferences are one of the main ways the President "talks" to the people.
PS. I am new here so my comment probably won't be approved before the thread closes, so my apologies if you can't respond. Hopefully, I'll log enough comments to get approved soon.
You disgusting liar.
"I am in favor of open questions whether it be a Republican or Democrat sitting in the White House."
How often did you defend the Bush press corp. plant, Gannon?
Besides, Obama has extended invitations to ALL of us to participate in our government. You can go to whitehouse.gov right now and have your voice heard on any range of topics.
As to your desire for more open government, we have that now. Obama addresses the nation weekly and you are welcome to ask him whatever you want on any given day.
Wake up and smell democracy.
Isn't this just minutia? Media sources are doing these sort of things everyday. At least on a news analysis show the guests can be honest while the host and his viewers have a chance to learn the facts.
FLEISCHER: And there are some reporters, you know, in that briefing room, as you can imagine, Bill, you get a lot of dot-coms and other oddballs who come in there who aren't really mainstream.
Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality."
Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."
LOL!
who aren't really mainstream.
Earth to Ari - dot.coms are quite mainstream in the 21st century.
But ain't the entire U.S. a "center-right" country? That's what Billo says. And Fox News is "fair and balanced;" it says so right on the label. Everybody knows that the librul press is pushing Obama and his socialist-communist-islamofascist-mooslim-turrurist agenda, and he's trying to use the porkulus bill to do "social engineering" and is part of the left-wing nuts like the ACLU (How dare they try to defend the Constitution!) and is a librul elitist (of course, all the Republican billionaires are jest reg'lar folks and work hard for all other reg'lar folks), and Obama's use of a media list just proves all this. Oh, and tax cuts are good for the economy, which the Bush economic boom proves.
Did I miss anything?
Did I miss anything?
Don't forget the excuse "conservatives" are using to excuse their support for 8 years of Republican government.
"I'm a conservative, not a Republican, so don't blame me for Bush. Yes, I voted for him twice, but it wasn't because I agreed with him, because he's not really a conservative. Oh, I'm not a Republican, even though I only vote Republican..... I'm a conservative..... (lather, rinse and repeat)
When considering the alternative to the Republicans, the choice was easy. :-)
As a conservative, my disagreement with Bush was primarily, with his out-of-control spending increases. The Republican Congress abandonded their conservative ideals, went along with Bush's 'compasionate conservativism' and IMHO suffered for it in 2006 and 2008.
Lets see how many here who excoriated Bush for his deficits have anything to say about Obama? (Soap in mouth, lather, rinse, and repeat.) :-)
Lets see how many here who excoriated Bush for his deficits have anything to say about Obama?
Bigi difference, buddy boy. Bush came in with a balanced budget and wrecked the economy. Obama has to do something to fix the damage. Again, apples and oranges. : )
Once a repug always a repug. The last 30 years are a repug nightmare.
"The Republican Congress abandonded their conservative ideals"
When have conservatives lived up to their ideals?
AA, if you buy it, you own it and the "alternative is worse" is NO excuse!
No matter how much you want to pretend, Bush and the Republicans party have placed this country on a downward spiral, no amount of "tax cuts" is going to cure.
Whatever Obama has to do to stem the downward spiral, common sense Americans are willing to try it. We cannot continue to lose over 500,000 jobs per month as we have SINCE September 2008 and we need to help those who've lost their jobs.
Common sense folks understand that Obama may not have all the answers, but he's willing to stick his neck out there and TRY! He's not hiding, he's upfront, saying he honestly thinks this will work. Totally unlike Republicans and Bush who for over the last 4 months can't seem to understand there is a problem and damn sure don't have any other solution except their parroted phrase, "tax cuts".
I say, it's time to shake and bake that damn Republican parrot!
Damn right, Pearlene. Bush IS conservatism. Reagan expanded government, too. All Republicans expand government while they lie to your face about their disdain for government. They lie about their deficit concerns while they create the largest deficits ever seen in the history of the world.
Republican voters are just plain stupid in their willful ignorance on that count.
You can't reason with elected Republicans, you can't negotiate with elected Republicans, you can't compromise with elected Republicans. They'll stab you in the back as you try to reconcile differences. Ask Obama about that hard learned lesson.
And now, despite the fact that conservative economics have nearly destroyed us, those idiots, like the dipstick who keeps pounding his head on the wall, insisting it will stop hurting next time, they want to keep doing the same thing again, again and again.
Here's a hint, AA: Corporate tax cuts do not create jobs. Americans don't hate immigrants. Gay people are citizens, too. Women are just as capable. poor people work hard and liberals love this country.
"Perhaps a random number generator for each assigned seat?"
Doubtful. Reagan tried picking random names out of a jellybean jar. It was a disaster, and it's not likely to be tried again.
and the confusion started when he said "licorice?....mr. licorice?"
I have never seen anything like what the so called Messiah did last night. All of you fools who totally turn your life over to him will regret it. Maybe not now, but soon. How can so many of you be so foolish to believe in this fraud. He had all questions a head of time so he could prepare for the answers. And no I have not seen a president do that before.
I agree, that's why I quit going to church a long time ago.
Other sights let people post and if they post something inappropriate they are taken off right away. Seems to me like you guys don't won't any conservatives posting on your sight. Is that true? Anyway, I see you guys take things out of context and don't provide the whole truth. Seems to be an on going thing for liberals. Your all afraid of the truth because it would make your messiah look bad, and it's hell fire and brimstone if he doesn't get his way. Come on, give me a break. Don't you guys see he is Nancy Pelosi's lap dog. Not sure I spelled her name correctly nor do I care enough to spell check it. How do you guys believe this stuff, are you really that brain washed.
Hi Holly,
Looks like you were wrong about this "sight" allowing dittoheads to post. You're probably thinking of the right wing websites, most of which don't allow any sane (liberal) people to post.
It's obvious that you really believed your comment wouldn't show up here. Otherwise, you may have bothered to actually say something, or at least do some proofreading for punctuation( you need more of these --->?) and babbling. Good try, though.
We welcome idiots to post here, too. As an example, your stupidity remains in tact.
Your conservative nonsense lost the last two elections, big time. So get over yourself and get out of the way of progress. You are a relic.
The choice was crystal clear. More tax cuts and corporate favors or public investment and effective government. America spoke and we demanded action from our government, that's what Obama is bringing.
We all get it, though. You have to root for his failure because when he succeeds people are going to realize what a pack of lies Republicans have been telling on the left, and your beloved, "go to Hell, America" philosophy will be rejected for a very long, long time. It's about preserving your political dominance, this Republican obstruction and you fools should be ashamed of yourselves to side with the partisans instead of the patriots who are working in earnest to fix this Republican mess.
Fix this republican mess? You have got to be kidding. If you believe that you are so brainwashed there is no hope for you. Do you even know what got us in to this trouble & who did it? Obviously not. But you have the right to your opinion & will never say anyone doesn't. Let me ask you, do you really want socialism in this country? Also you know that Japan tried just what we are by spending their way out & that didn't work. The new deal by FDR didn't work either. My biggest question to you is why do you want more government control, the government, no matter which party has been in office can't seem to run any type of program correctly. So what makes you think the chosen one will do any different? I was against the first stimulus package under Bush and I sure don't want to see this one happen. But what I want doesn't matter. I hope it works & saves this country, but don't see that happening. When you talk about patriots, are you talking about the liberal Hollywood crowd that meets with Hugo Chavez, I certainly hope not. I used to be a Democrat & I didn't leave the Democratic party, they left me. I still believe in the words of JFK, ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country. Some how that has been lost with the Democrats.
"Let me ask you, do you really want socialism in this country?"
"I hope it works & saves this country, but don't see that happening."
What happens when socialism saves this country? Won't that repudiate all the fearful rhetoric of the Republican party?
Give us all a break with the "socialism" nonsense. There is nothing socialist going on here at all, and you disqualify yourself as a reasonable poster by throwing that garbage out there.
You need to proof read before you post. You contradicted your own remarks. You say you hope socialism saves the country but don't see it happening. I agree, I don't see socialism saving the country either. But then you say what happens when socialism saves the country. Do you have a clue what you are saying? You then go on to say there is nothing socialist going on here lol. You sound like your true liberal that can't handle the truth and really has no idea what is going on in the government. I am sorry sir but this was one of the worst posts I have ever seen from anyone, and I am including the espn sports sights. Think before you post sir. It will give you more credibility in the future.
AA, so who do you think asked the best questions - Rick Warren or Jeff Gannon?
Heard from Jeff, Bush's choice for in-depth questions, lately? What's he up to? Shouldn't someone like him be on FAUX News?
Flagged for trolling.
Truth hurts, huh?
I'll let you know when you accidentally provide some.