The Gatekeepers
Jul 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am by Susie
This is a pretty interesting example of the relationship between the press and campaigns. I can tell you that I was always on the phone with the press over the stories they wrote, except when it was so clearly a hit piece on the candidate that I figured it wasn’t worth my time.
The really depressing thing was, it was obvious that the press saw themselves as the gatekeepers and no one was going to go through without their approval and cooperation. The danger I see for Obama is that pissed-off reporters are much more likely to start doing actual reporting that may cause problems - and, as the article points out, much of what’s been written so far about Obama is pure marketing mythology. Notice that reporters already know this, but as long as they’re happy, they’re willing to go along with it.
Notice, please, how little say actual voters have in any of this.
From Susie’s linked article, a possible reason why we know so little about Obama and his life:
…the campaign hasn’t helped itself, approaching reporters with a sense of entitlement. “They’re an arrogant operation. Young and arrogant,” one reporter covering the campaign says. “They don’t believe in transparency with their own campaign,” another says.
Reporters who have covered Obama’s biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. “They’re terrified of people poking around Obama’s life,” one reporter says. “The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it’s not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels.” Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama’s old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.
Oh, great. Another Bush-like tendency.