WaPo wonders: Why won’t Obama give us an interview?

posted at 12:41 pm on February 11, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Usually you see this kind of cri de coeur from blogs on the Left and Right over a lack of access to major political candidates and officeholders.  Among all newspapers, the Washington Post would be the least likely to complain about being ignored.  It’s the big dog in the Beltway and drives the news cycle as much as any other newspaper with the possible exception of the New York Times.  An yet, Paul Farhi wonders why Barack Obama has avoided the Post in particular, and print media in general:

“Entertainment Tonight” scored one last year. The New York Times did not.

“The View” has gotten several. The Washington Post hasn’t had one in years.

Albuquerque radio station KOB-FM’s“Morning Mayhem” crew interviewed him in August. The last time the Wall Street Journal did so was in 2009.

America’s newspapers have trouble enough these days, what with shrinking ad revenue and straying readers. But the daily print-and-pixel press also hasn’t gotten much love lately from the biggest newsmaker in the business: President Obama.

When Obama does media interviews these days, it’s not with a newspaper. TV gets the bulk of the president’s personal attention, from his frequent appearances on “60 Minutes” to MTV to chitchats with local stations around the country. Magazines — including the New Republic, which recently landed an interview conducted by its owner, Facebook co-founder and former Obama campaign operative Chris Hughes — are a distant second, followed by radio.

There are a few things going on here that probably have little to do with the Post in particular.  During the campaign, I criticized Obama for dodging the serious political press, especially in eschewing press conferences, and I was hardly alone.  One could count on one hand the number of formal press conferences Obama had in all of 2012, and got ridiculed by his opponents for giving exclusive interviews to lightweight entertainment venues instead.

That turned out to be a pretty good strategy, however.  Instead of focusing attention on the readership of newspapers, which are more politically attuned and probably in Obama’s camp already, Obama focused on media outlets that catered to the less-engaged and less-informed.  That gave him an opportunity to sell his agenda without facing tough questions from politically-engaged and informed reporters, making the sale even easier.

Even his interviews in more traditional outlets came with reporters who aren’t exactly inclined to get tough with Obama.  He chose CBS’ Steve Kroft because Kroft wasn’t going to surprise him with tough questions — as Kroft himself admitted to Piers Morgan.  Farhi also notes that Obama’s interview in The New Republic, normally a politically sophisticated magazine, was conducted by new publisher and former Obama adviser and volunteer Chris Hughes.

So far, newspapers and other traditional media outlets have let Obama get away with it.  Few have even bothered to criticize the strategy, and almost none bothered to do so when it might have mattered — during the presidential campaign. Only Jake Tapper made it an issue in August, after which the White House called a rare press conference to quell the resentment.

Simply put, Obama isn’t going to change his media strategy as long as it works and he doesn’t pay a price for it.  Why should he?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wham bam thank you ma’am.
He doesn’t need you anymore, honey.

RovesChins on February 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Media outlets like WaPo did what Obama needed them to do; they’re the political lapdog equivalent of a one-night stand.

Boo-hoo!

Funny–the geniuses in the MSM should have seen this coming.

Liam on February 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

WaPo wonders: Why won’t Obama give us an interview?

“What’s a WaPo?”
/The Preezy

Bitter Clinger on February 11, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Water carriers without getting a pat on the head. It’s pathetic the way Obama treats his slaves.

HotAirian on February 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM

WaPo should be thankful.
The Preezy gave Chris Leaky Leg Matthews the clap.

RovesChins on February 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM

The pictures of Obama prove that he is the baby of sex btw. Lenin and Moussolini.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM

WaPo, continue to eat Obama’s sh*t. It ain’t Beluga caviar, you derelict fools.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM

If the WaPo brings the warm soapy water and pre authorized clothes, Obama would allow them to wash his feet.

portlandon on February 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM

He will. If you promise to stick to praising him and telling him how wonderful he and Michelle are. Otherwise get in line.

pat on February 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

It’s an effective media strategy designed to make all the little guys think they have a shot at access while keeping the big guys desperate for access. It maximizes favorable, fawning coverage from both groups.

The fact that it allowed Obama to focus on image and fluff rather than policy is just a bonus.

forest on February 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

In my early to mid 20s I read the Washington Post nearly every day. At least the sports, style, and some of the national & metro news.
It was 25 cents for twice the paper you now get today, which costs $1.25.
When they introduced the slogan “if you don’t get it, you don’t get it” – that was a signal to me that they’re on the highway to Newsweek land.

22044 on February 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Why should he?

exactamundo

no whining…you wanted him, you got him…suck it up

cmsinaz on February 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Haha.

thebrokenrattle on February 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

switch you name badge to people and you in like flynn

cmsinaz on February 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

He’s just not that into you.

ToddPA on February 11, 2013 at 12:59 PM

“Simply put, Obama isn’t going to change his media strategy as long as it works and he doesn’t pay a price for it. Why should he?”

That’s it in a nutshell. He went where those low-information voters live and he succeeded.

For one small example, we laughed at his interview with New Mexico deejays about the burning question of his favorite chili…

The president also gave his stance on the all important New Mexico chile debate.

“I think you’ve got to go with the classic red, although every once in a while green is solid,” Obama said. “I’m just going with red on this one.”

It worked and he’s laughing at us.

Drained Brain on February 11, 2013 at 1:01 PM

WaPo wonders: Why won’t Obama give us an interview?

You lick his rear all day without one, so why should he? He knows that you scum like being locked in closets. He gets a kick out of abusing you and seeing the rosy reporting you still do about his illegitimate, incompetent, and inconceivably anti-American tenure.

Barky prefers giving interviews to places like Al Arabiya – his first interview after he slimed into office which you and the rest of the MSM dutifully failed to really report.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM

why should he?

It’s not like you would ever actually report on any of his screw-ups, overreaches, lies or hubris anyway so why take the chance you accidentally expose his stupidity?

harlekwin15 on February 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Simply put, Obama isn’t going to change his media strategy as long as it works and he doesn’t pay a price for it. Why should he?

Indeed.

I was at a education fair this weekend for summer camps with my kid. At the University of Madison, of all places, one of the course offerings was the following:

Journalism: The Fourth Estate.

I laughed. My kid didn’t understand.

WisRich on February 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The money’s on the dresser.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM

The dreck Obama was, is, and always will be. Watch his face, the entire time. The good Dr. let the Punk have it.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM

How stupid can you get? Obama knows that the WaPo is his mouthpiece. Why do they need to interview him? Just write something glowing and adoring as usual and slam God, guns, goodness and the constitution. Job accomplished and Obama can stay in his Bengahzi hiding place polishing his halo.

Don L on February 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Because he gets the milk for free?

rhombus on February 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM

When Obama does media interviews these days, it’s not with a newspaper. TV gets the bulk of the president’s personal attention

Seems the old harlots have been traded in for their younger sisters.

Liam on February 11, 2013 at 1:10 PM

And take that one in a million 16.5 trillion chance you might ask a relevant question?

Go away kid, yer botherin’ me.

antipc on February 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM

“Hey Paul honey, you ought to put some ice on that lip”

DanMan on February 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Would rather have 60 minutes crew ask him “What makes you so awesome?”

fogw on February 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I gotta say Rush is a smart guy. Low information voters.

tomas on February 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

He really doesn’t like the death-stench of the print media stuffing up the nostrils. Fawning only gives off so much perfume, and it’s not enough.

Lily on February 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM

O/T Live video of funeral at Dallas Stadium for Chris Kyle:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/live-video/

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/02/10/patriot-guard-riders-honor-to-chris-kyle-across-state/

Pass this on other threads if you are able., Thanks.

Live shots shown now of Stadium

bluefox on February 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM

switch you name badge to people Reggie Love and you in like flynn

cmsinaz on February 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Archivarix on February 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Why does the for-profit WaPo think they are as important as humble public servant Obama? Are they helping the people is some way that is more important than all the ways in which the harried Obama does daily?

The people at the WaPo need to reflect a little on their what their purpose is in society and one purpose is not to be disrespectful of the President of the United States by thinking he should take the time out from helping people in order to give them an exclusive audience that they’ll just turn around and use to make money.

Dusty on February 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Arch…. heh

cmsinaz on February 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Go away, WaPo. There’s no more room under this bus.

creeper on February 11, 2013 at 1:26 PM

They’ve served Obama’s purpose. They helped him get elected, and then re-elected. He doesn’t need them anymore.

Bammy has more flexibility now.

AZCoyote on February 11, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Just laziness.

It’s not like WaPo is going to hammer Lord Barker on…anything…ever.

CorporatePiggy on February 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Your lap dogs. He has contempt for you. Jeez.

Hummer53 on February 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I gotta say Rush is a smart guy. Low information voters.

tomas on February 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I prefer “Low IQ voters”, as that’s who the Democrats have to rely on now for their votes.

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Obama would much rather Slow Jam Jimmy Fallon, sing a bar of Al Green and talk rap with “Pimp wit da Limp” then be constrained by a one dimensional publication. He’s too much of a talented, showboating performer, and there’s only so much of his “Barackness” to go around.

OxyCon on February 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

WaPo wonders: Why won’t Obama give us an interview?

That’s sorta like Sandra Fluke wondering why the trick she turned last night hasn’t called when he said that he would.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Come on Barry, what not to like about the WaPo? They just wrote this for you.

Dusty on February 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I gotta say Rush is a smart guy. Low information voters.

tomas on February 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I prefer “Low IQ voters”, as that’s who the Democrats have to rely on now for their votes.

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I prefer the term parasites. Because these people are not low information nor are they necessarily low IQ. They are greedy stupid people who only care about what government can do for them and despite what it does to others or society in general. These people would beat you senseless if you tried to take away their Obamaphone or argued against THE single issue they care about (be it amnesty for illegals, sodomite relationships as normal, or the well being of Sandra Fluke’s womb). Yet at the same time the parasites don’t really care what they are doing to future generations by their greed and selfishness. They have no more value to society than Spanish moss on an oak tree in the South. Every couple of years people who matter pander to them for votes and then tell them to go away until their vote is needed again.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Come on Barry, what not to like about the WaPo? They just wrote this for you.

Dusty on February 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I was just coming here to post that:

Obama: Job of debt reduction nearly done

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-job-of-debt-reduction-nearly-done/2013/02/11/3e5b8008-7458-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_print.html

ITguy on February 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM

It’s funny how they wonder about this a few months after the election.

supernova on February 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Why should Barry grant them an interview? They’re his whores. He knows it. They know it.

GarandFan on February 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM

“Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit [over the next decade] by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt,” Obama said during his weekend radio address.

A total of $2.5 trillion over the next decade is an average of $250 Billion per year.

more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt

… or an average of $400 Billion per year.

So, the deficit in FY 2007 (the last all-Republican budget) was less than $161 Billion, the deficit in FY 2009 (the first all-Democrat budget) was over $1,400 Billion (over $1.4 Trillion), and Obama is making the claim that cutting $400 Billion off of that (to an annual deficit of $1,000 Billion or $1 Trillion) would “stabilize our debt”?

That’s complete B.S.!

You “stablize our debt” by not adding any new deficit spending each year!

Deficits were coming down under Republican majority control in FY 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Then Democrats took majority control, tripled the annual deficit in their first budget (2008) and tripled it AGAIN in their second budget (2009). And now the Dems want to act like cutting $250 Billion off of an annual deficit of over $1,400 Billion (over $1.4 Trillion) is some sort of great accomplishment.

I firmly believe that their gameplan always was to push FY 2009 spending as high as possible, (including the 2nd half of TARP, Porkulus, Cash for Clunkers, etc.), blame that all on Bush, and then claim that their small percentage improvements after FY 2009 was some outstanding accomplishment.

If the Dems want to impress me, get the annual deficit down to what it was when Republicans last controlled the budget process… less than $161 Billion.

ITguy on February 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

You wonder why Obama doesn’t care about you?

If you were doing the job that you claim to do, you would be worried about why he doesn’t care about Americans enough to quit trying to divide them against each other.

But you don’t, and that’s precisely why I don’t give a rat’s about you either.

drunyan8315 on February 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

“The View” has gotten several. The Washington Post hasn’t had one in years.

.
“The View” is COMPLETELY subservient to the SCOAMF’s “needs”. *

The WaPo thinks that spending a few minutes each day on their knees can compete with that level of devotion?

Absolute proof they are out of touch with reality.

.
.
.

*Does Babwa WaWa realize publicly servicing this POS destroys any credibility her career ever had?

PolAgnostic on February 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Water carriers without getting a pat on the head. It’s pathetic the way Obama treats his slaves.

HotAirian on February 11, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Actually, its pretty funny… too bad, so sad…

Khun Joe on February 11, 2013 at 3:00 PM

These left wing rags like The Washington Post just love being slapped around by Obama.

rplat on February 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

WaPo (among others) pandered to Obama from the get-go, even as the VRWC was pointing out the increasing number of folks and organizations being thrown under the metaphoric bus for Obama’s convenience; even as we pointed out Obama’s self-serving narcissism; even as we pointed out Obama’s absolutist self-worship.

This is not hard to understand. Why, after years of enabling Obama, is WaPo so confused about being treated the same as everyone else has been treated all along? Did they think that they were special?

ss396 on February 11, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Publicity management
 
Bribe the press
Secretly plant stories in the press

Retaliate against hostile media
Threaten the press with loss of access


Attack the motives of the press
Place defensive advertisements
Buy out the news source

jpcpt03 on February 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Obama always looks like a Leninist azzhole in pictures.

Schadenfreude on February 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

giving exclusive interviews to lightweight entertainment venues…

How better to reach his much valued low information voters? The rest of us, Left OR Right just don’t matter

E9RET on February 11, 2013 at 6:20 PM