Will the press hold Obama to account?
When the Obama administration takes office, will it be held to account by the news media despite what critics say was apparent press favoritism toward candidate Obama?
Yes, says Dan Bartlett former counselor to President George W. Bush for communications.
鈥淚f the new administration starts slipping in the polls, everyone will start jumping on them,鈥� he said Tuesday evening during a panel discussion about coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.
鈥淭he pack mentality does not break down along ideological lines,鈥� Bartlett said at the event sponsored by Vanity Fair magazine at Washington鈥檚 Folger Library. 鈥淚t swings with the attitude of the public.鈥�
The proliferation of on-line news sites covering campaigns means the story lines about individual campaigns 鈥渁re more contested than in previous elections,鈥� said John Marshall, editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, one of the most influential left of center political blogs. Marshall won the 2008 George Polk Award or reporting on the scandal involving Justice Department firings of US Attorneys.
鈥淢ore contested is, I think, a good thing,鈥� he said.
While there are more voices commenting on campaigns, 鈥渢he same motives are driving their habits,鈥� Bartlett argued. 鈥淥nline media is as dominated by the horse race鈥� as the mainstream media.
And the mainstream media 鈥渟till control the narrative of the campaign,鈥� Bartlett said.
One reason, according to Marshall, is the relative size of their news budgets. He noted that 鈥渙ur budget is 1/600th of the New York Times鈥� editorial budget. TPM鈥檚 total annual budget is about $500,000.
Cable news networks with programs that take a partisan point of view have affected how the public views journalism, said Frank Rich of the New York Times.
Rich writes a weekly 1,500 word essay for the Sunday Times op-ed page and has been strongly critical of President Bush.
鈥淭wo very popular, very partisan鈥� cable outlets 鈥� Fox News and MSNBC 鈥渃ast a reverse halo effect on news organizations鈥� that try to provide objective coverage, he said. The 24/7 nature of political coverage on the Internet and cable TV 鈥渄rives things so much that fine print, filigree gets lost.鈥�
Despite the faster pace of this year鈥檚 coverage, there is 鈥渘o change in the pit of your stomach鈥� when a presidential campaign calls to complain to your boss about the facts in a story, said NBC News political correspondent Andrea Mitchell. 鈥淲hat has changed is the speed and intensity with which it happens,鈥� she said.
Mitchell, who also hosts an hour long program on MSNBC argued that the 鈥渃ampaign this year was not appreciably meaner, just speedier.鈥�
The panel discussion occurred against a backdrop of media self-examination. Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell recently wrote http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403057.html 鈥淭he mainstream media were not to blame for John McCain's loss; Barack Obama's more effective campaign and the financial crisis were. But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo.鈥�
Vanity Fair national editor Todd Purdham, who moderated Tuesday鈥檚 panel, said the press often finds itself in the same place as the Fool in Shakespeare鈥檚 play King Lear: 鈥淭hey'll have me whipped for speaking true, thou'lt have me whipped for lying, and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace鈥�"
