Aesop is credited with first observing that familiarity breeds contempt. The famous Greek writer of fables never got to witness a televised White House or Defense Department news briefing, but it was e-mail from MSNBC.com readers put off by what they see going on at those affairs that made me think of him the other day.
On one hand are the complaints from those like Hu Bonar upset with the news medias idiotic and repetitive questions with the potential to compromise the U.S. military over in Afghanistan. On the other are those like Pat McGuire of Stevensville, MI, who is always surprised at press conferences why the person at the podium is not challenged more, especially when the person is giving BS answers and everyone knows it.
It wasnt all that long ago that very few people had ever witnessed a news conference. They might see selected comments from one quoted in a newspaper or on television, but rarely the question that elicited the response much less a transcript or broadcast of all the questions and answers. The focus was on the end product the story that resulted from the news conference, usually supplemented by additional reporting on the subject rather than the process itself. And I dont think theres any question but that news media reputations have suffered in the transition.
Understanding the give-and-take of a press conference is one of those media literacy skills I think are becoming more important in the world of 24/7 news.
As Christopher Chip Scanlan, group leader for reporting, writing and editing at Floridas Poynter Institute, wrote recently on the organizations Web site, paraphrasing Otto von Bismark: To retain respect for sausages and journalism, one must not watch them in the making. (In the original, Germanys Iron Chancellor referred to sausages and laws.)
The televised press briefing almost certainly gives the organization or individual putting it on much more influence over the shape of the story that reaches the public. That may be good or bad, depending on the story and your viewpoint. But in either case, understanding the give-and-take of a news conference is one of those media literacy skills I think are becoming more important in the world of 24/7 news. (See “How to tell good news from bad and “A readers guide to judging the news.
News briefings have long ranked pretty far down my list of valuable reporting tools – a notch above the press release, certainly, but usually well below such devices as the one-on-one interview, first-hand observation, or searches of public records. And while providing the public with unfiltered public access to the comments of newsmakers, real-time, televised briefings have in other ways compounded the forms drawbacks.
Meanwhile, skepticism is not just a virtue, but a necessity for a good journalist.
Referring to a tendency for official battlefield reports to be highly selective, former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart is quoted in an October Los Angeles Times article as saying that the problem is not so much malign intent as the pressure of daily briefings and press deadlines amid the ambiguity of combat. I dont think its the government in a conspiratorial way deciding to deceive people, the article quotes Lockhart as saying. Its human beings who will jump on positive information quicker than they will on negative or neutral information.
Journalists ask questions to elicit new information, to clarify previous statements, or sometimes just to get a prominent newsmaker on the record regarding an issue of public interest. But they also preen, at times, and their questions are frequently put badly.
I dont recall ever covering a live, televised briefing in my reporting days, but even so I know I was usually conscious of how any question I might ask at a press conference would appear to my peers. Some of them could be pretty judgmental about a colleague whose question only gave the speaker a golden opportunity to put positive spin on his or her product or position a reputation-soiling softball in the vernacular. Im pretty sure I wasnt alone in that awareness, and Ive got to believe that the live, televised press conference only exacerbates the danger of self-centered concern getting in the way of more effective questions.
Poynters Scanlan quotes John Sawatsky, a Canadian journalist and teacher known within the trade for his theories on interviewing, as estimating that one-third to one-half of reporters questions suppress information rather than produce it. As an example, Scanlan points to the double-barreled question, so common at those Defense Department and White House briefings. The reporter is trying to squeeze two or more distinct questions into one, but in so doing undermines his goal of eliciting information by giving the briefer the option to pick and choose the portion of the question most comfortable to answer.
He also criticizes closed-end questions conversation stoppers that anticipate the subjects response and discourage more revealing answers. You can often spot those, Scanlan says, by the fact that the query is longer than the answer.
No matter how good the questions, however, I think the sausage-making analogy applies to the televised press briefing. The process is almost certain to get ugly at times, but a deeper understanding of whats going on and why may at least help stop your stomach from churning.
