Jul 2, 2009
Go Helen, Go Helen, Go Helen
Legendary journalist Helen Thomas nailed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday regarding the process of asking President Obama questions for an upcoming town hall meeting.
Focusing on the White House requirements to electronically submit questions for consideration by the President (more likely his staff) BEFORE a public meeting, Thomas expressed amazement at what she termed “tight controls” for “you people who call for openness and transparency”. She told Gibbs she sees a pattern of controlling the press, stating “formal engagements are pre-packaged…by calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on. That is shocking.”
Gibbs’s flippancy, combined with his sarcasm and rude laughter, in the press conference produced no answers. And talk about a pattern – his behavior toward the press should no longer be tolerated. Yes, he has an extremely difficult job that became painfully noticeable when Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination in February for Secretary of Health and Human Services. But his shuck-and-jive, in-your-face, weak-attempt-at-humor banter with reporters needs to stop. He’s not doing himself or the President any favors.
In the meantime, as we celebrate our country’s independence this weekend, let me say “Thanks, Helen Thomas” because you remind us to let freedom of the press ring.
I’m trying to decide if this is different than our asking reporters for questions in advance, so we can prep our CEO clients before an interview.
From the dialog, observations of Gibbs’s overall dealings with the press, and the President’s penchant for teleprompters, I sense a responsibility on the part of the Press Secretary to not just prepare, but protect. Understandable – that’s his job. But the baffling part to me is his attitude toward that responsibility and the very people who can help him or hurt him, AND the President.
[...] This post was Twitted by utopr [...]
Video of the exchange is here: http://ow.ly/gm6v (via Breitbart TV)
I really enjoyed your post. Coming at this from a Canadian perspective (that is the outside looking in), I think it’s understandable to ask for questions in advance (as Gini points out, we, in PR, sometimes do).
It is also helpful to get the gist of an interview beforehand in order to be prepared.
However, in our new more social world, if a person is authentic, honest and transparent and has built relationships based on respect and trust, they should be able to answer any questions thrown at them without hiding behind a veil of control.
The American people need to understand they voted a socialist president into office. It is no wonder town hall neetings and every other event that Obama participates in will be faked. Obama himself is a fraud. With the help of the liberal press, the agenda he has planned for this once great country will be hidden from real questions as long as he can pull it off. God bless Helen Thomas
Watching one of Gibbs’ press conferences is like watching a game show or tennis match. The back-and-forth seems to be full of competition, distrust and lack of answers. In a way, I feel sorry for the guy, but then I don’t when I see the condescending way he treats people. In reference to Gary’s comment, maybe this is how they act in a socialist country, and we just don’t recognize it.
Same song, second verse . . . this is the same m.o. that resulted in President Obama’s staged question to the Huffington Post last week. Of course, in fairness, President Bush also faced scrutiny — albeit with a much more fervent media outcry, as I recall — with a similar incident involving a right-leaning blogger or media outlet attending press conferences late in his presidency.
The bottom line — and what the public relations profession needs to be examining on what constitutes an acceptable best practice — comes down to the fight for control on two different levels from the press secretary standpoint: 1) simply trying to be as informed and prepared as possible in advance to respond to questions and issues (which I think is a legitimate PR aim) and 2) seeking to manipulate what kind of issues are “allowed” to be examined via media access to the information source, i.e. the president of United States, a CEO, etc. (which inherently interferes with a public’s right to know, particularly in situations involving government information and the public sector).
RE: Gibbs, I was not overwhelmingly pleased with PRSA’s choice to name him Public Relations Professional of the Year at this year’s Silver Anvils. Of course, he didn’t even bother to show up (yeah, I know, he’s busy) or — despite PRSA’s request — even videotape an acceptance of the award, which shouldn’t have been a brain-surgery endeavor involving more than seven minutes of his time. Glad to see the award — and, seemingly, PRSA’s values as an organization — mean so much to him. Just the kind of person we need to be honoring.
I’m glad I’m not the only person who questioned PRSA’s award decision to Robert Gibbs. As I understand, the award was based on Gibbs’s innovative use of social media as an effective tool in the presidential election. Several points: the award appears as though Gibbs did all the work; if social media is so highly regarded by the organization, why aren’t national and members embracing it more; and the recognition smacks too much of politics. The fact that he was a total no show dilutes the very meaning of the award. Maybe the 2010 process can rectify the situation.
I can’t help but wonder when, if ever, the media will recognize their own role in helping to elect this fraud. Now that they are being stonewalled, I eagerly await the outpouring of righteous anger on the day that (collectively) they turn on him. Kudos to Chip Reid and the irascible Helen Thomas for FINALLY having the, uh…spine to stand up against this circus!
I was clear on the point of the post until I started reading the comments. I don’t know anybody in public relations who has asked for questions from the media prior to a press briefing. Clarifying the subject matter and line of questioning from reporters is fine; but if I were a reporter, and the PR person asked me for questions in advance, I’d be insulted. Just as Helen Thomas pointed out, I’d question the process, and definitely the transparency of it.
I see no issue with outlining the terms of engagement when it comes to setting up an interview. That could be anything from, what’s the focus of your story, who else are you talking to, where do you want to conduct the interview, are there specific facts you’ll need from me, how much time do you need?
But asking for specific questions won’t work. It robs the reporter of their role in the interview. Their role is to observe, listen and respond to the interview subject.
In the arch of an interview the reporter has to build to a point where they’ve established empathy, understanding and trust with the interview subject in order to accurately tell the story.
What happens if the reporter needs clarification on a specific point but that follow up question wasn’t on the list?
Along the way good reporters respond to what the interview subject has to say and how they say it. It’s all a part of the art of an interview. To do their job properly they need to be free of the handcuffs of a strict set of questions.
If you have the reporter on a tight leash in the interview, then be prepared to watch the story take off in another direction.
Rather than just get the opposition’s perspective, the reporter will start to work even harder at getting additional expert opinions that discret the merits of the message from the White House. After all reporters are human and they respond the same way anyone else does to being over managed.
A more effective way of limiting the scope of the interview is to reduce the amount of time a reporter has with the interview subject. In the case of the President don’t expect anymore than a couple of minutes. And if it works for him, the same can work for the head of any company.
Helen Thomas is right.