lily
08-13-2006, 01:44 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101834.html?referrer=email
Increasingly, Bush Escapes the Media Pack
Press Cuts Converge With Closed Events
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 12, 2006; Page A01
GREEN BAY, Wis. -- On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle
with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the
American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in
Texas.
Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled
closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news
broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there
to convey the president's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a
few pool journalists who ride in the back of Air Force One.
When President Bush spoke in Wisconsin about the British terrorism
arrests, few reporters were present -- no press plane had followed him to a
private fundraiser. (By Evan Vucci -- Associated Press)
The idea that Bush could travel across the country without a full contingent
of reporters, especially in the middle of a war, highlights a major cultural
shift in the presidency and the news media. In the four decades since the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, presidents traditionally have taken
journalists with them wherever they traveled on the theory that when it
comes to the most powerful leader on the planet, anything can happen at any
time.
But increasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered
press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in
hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his
words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will
not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy
has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush
fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not.
"A lot of it is a reflection of the times," said C-SPAN's Steve Scully,
president of the White House Correspondents' Association. "The whole thing
is changing."
For veterans of past administrations, the changes are striking. "When the
president moved it was a big deal, and I can't even remember an occasion
when we didn't take a charter," said Ed Rollins, who was Ronald Reagan's
White House political director.
"Go back 20 or 25 years and say we're at war and the president is traveling
around the country and there are only, what, three people with him?" asked
Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton's White House press secretary. "That
would have been unthinkable."
In some ways, it may not seem to make much difference. Like presidents
before him, Bush still always travels with a small media pool that includes
wire services, television cameras and a single newspaper reporter who files
a report to others left behind. The advent of instant video feeds, cable
television, the Internet, e-mail and transcripts of the president's every
public word has made it possible to cover Bush without being anywhere near
him.
Yet fewer eyeballs on a president means less scrutiny, in the view of some
media and government watchdog groups. Fewer reporters, they say, means fewer
questions and fewer versions of what happens available to the public. News
accounts written from a different time zone invariably miss context and
texture. And in closing the doors of some fundraisers, the White House has
reversed a policy adopted under Clinton after fundraising scandals raised
questions about what donors are seeking when they hobnob with presidents.
Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition formed
three years ago that includes groups such as the American Library
Association, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Society of
Professional Journalists, called the changing pattern of coverage "quite
disturbing" and part of a "rising tide of secrecy" in Washington.
"It's another way of closing off responsibility and accountability and
shutting themselves off from public view," she said. "I think the public
would prefer that somebody be in the room who is not there for their own
interests to be served."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said there is nothing insidious about
closing fundraisers in private homes and noted that news organizations
choose whether to pay for a plane follow the president. "It's really all
about money," he said. "It used to be that media organizations had more
dough."
Increasingly, Bush Escapes the Media Pack
Press Cuts Converge With Closed Events
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 12, 2006; Page A01
GREEN BAY, Wis. -- On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle
with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the
American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in
Texas.
Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled
closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news
broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there
to convey the president's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a
few pool journalists who ride in the back of Air Force One.
When President Bush spoke in Wisconsin about the British terrorism
arrests, few reporters were present -- no press plane had followed him to a
private fundraiser. (By Evan Vucci -- Associated Press)
The idea that Bush could travel across the country without a full contingent
of reporters, especially in the middle of a war, highlights a major cultural
shift in the presidency and the news media. In the four decades since the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, presidents traditionally have taken
journalists with them wherever they traveled on the theory that when it
comes to the most powerful leader on the planet, anything can happen at any
time.
But increasingly in recent months, Bush has left town without a chartered
press plane, often to receptions where he talks to donors chipping in
hundreds of thousands of dollars with no cameras or tapes to record his
words for the public. Barred from such events, most news organizations will
not pay to travel with him. And so a White House policy inclined to secrecy
has combined with escalating costs for the strapped news media to let Bush
fly under the radar in a way his predecessors could not.
"A lot of it is a reflection of the times," said C-SPAN's Steve Scully,
president of the White House Correspondents' Association. "The whole thing
is changing."
For veterans of past administrations, the changes are striking. "When the
president moved it was a big deal, and I can't even remember an occasion
when we didn't take a charter," said Ed Rollins, who was Ronald Reagan's
White House political director.
"Go back 20 or 25 years and say we're at war and the president is traveling
around the country and there are only, what, three people with him?" asked
Joe Lockhart, who was Bill Clinton's White House press secretary. "That
would have been unthinkable."
In some ways, it may not seem to make much difference. Like presidents
before him, Bush still always travels with a small media pool that includes
wire services, television cameras and a single newspaper reporter who files
a report to others left behind. The advent of instant video feeds, cable
television, the Internet, e-mail and transcripts of the president's every
public word has made it possible to cover Bush without being anywhere near
him.
Yet fewer eyeballs on a president means less scrutiny, in the view of some
media and government watchdog groups. Fewer reporters, they say, means fewer
questions and fewer versions of what happens available to the public. News
accounts written from a different time zone invariably miss context and
texture. And in closing the doors of some fundraisers, the White House has
reversed a policy adopted under Clinton after fundraising scandals raised
questions about what donors are seeking when they hobnob with presidents.
Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition formed
three years ago that includes groups such as the American Library
Association, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Society of
Professional Journalists, called the changing pattern of coverage "quite
disturbing" and part of a "rising tide of secrecy" in Washington.
"It's another way of closing off responsibility and accountability and
shutting themselves off from public view," she said. "I think the public
would prefer that somebody be in the room who is not there for their own
interests to be served."
White House spokesman Tony Snow said there is nothing insidious about
closing fundraisers in private homes and noted that news organizations
choose whether to pay for a plane follow the president. "It's really all
about money," he said. "It used to be that media organizations had more
dough."