Is Obama trying to avoid the White House press corps? Articles published last week and this in the New York Times and Washington Post suggest that the president's team has been less than willing of late to organize meetings with those news outlets who have traditionally covered the

"President Obama hasn't held a full-scale news conference since July," said WP's Howard Kurtz. Rather, said NYT's Peter Baker, he has "taken questions from unemployed workers in Ohio, students in Florida and a cancer survivor in New Hampshire. He took questions from YouTube users, Senate Democrats and even House Republicans." But not from the White House press Corps, and this decision "is no accident," according to Kurtz.
Shutting out these reporters is "what every modern president may have wanted to do but never did," said Baker, and talking directly to the people via YouTube means "no annoying follow-ups of the kind posed by real, live journalists," said Kurtz. "He has fundamentally altered the way a president deals with news media," Baker added, noting that Obama prefers one-on-one interviews, particularly TV, and gives far more of these than his predecessors (161 interviews in his first year compared with Bush's 50 and Clinton's 53.)

The day after Kurtz's article appeared, Obama did in fact make a surprise experience in the White House briefing room to speak to reporters. Kurtz's response, on Twitter, was "Obama holds presser day after my column on not holding pressers. Coincidence? Ha!"

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told WhoRunsGov, the Washington Post-owned blog focusing on DC politicians' activities and incorporating user-generated content, that the decision to hold the press conference was not related to such criticism, and that he president's appearance in the briefing room had in fact been planned for about a week.

This aside, should it be a matter of concern that Obama is generally favouring talking directly to the public or to reporters outside the traditional White House circle? The dedicated press corps reporters are undoubtedly among the most knowledgeable when it comes to political developments, and therefore arguably more suited to playing a watchdog role with regards to the president's activities.

Discussion of the White House's attitude towards traditional media has taken place since Obama's inauguration in January 2009, as it committed to "the most open and transparent" administration in history. It has been claimed that the president has made a specific effort to target 'friendly' media, and the Columbia Journalism Review voiced the concern that Obama's brand of "direct democracy" could veer into "direct publicity."

However, as Baker noted, "the president's strategy reflects the changing nature of the media:" the major traditional news outlets are now "hardly the only filter for news." As YouTube and Twitter grow ever more popular, and a service like Facebook grows more and more important as a way to access news, it is not surprising that Obama's team feel that this is a suitable way for the president to reach his public.

Slate's Jack Shafer maintains that recent US presidents have always attempted to bypass the traditional media, looking to local and regional reporters instead. He quotes a 2003 New York Times article that said "the tactic is nearly as old as the presidency itself." Shafer's conclusion is that the White House press corps is a "gang of miserable, whining whiners" who fear that their privileges are being canceled.

Maybe the Washington press corps will have to accept that the exclusivity of their role has been diminished by the spread of new media, but hopefully such a realisation will not stop them in their dedication to playing watchdog in the most effective way possible.

Source: New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, WhoRunsGov