I don't really know why this White House has abandoned the daily briefing. There are many theories. Perhaps they perceive the press as part of the Democratic Party and why give the opposition the forum to run down the President? Some in the White House, including the President, I think, argue that Trump is the administration's best spokesperson and only he should speak on camera for them. Others say the press secretary is afraid to be undercut within minutes by the President himself. In the end, only the President and press secretary know for sure.
The more important question, in my opinion, is: Does it really matter? Many of my friends on the left are glad to see them go. They argue it only gave Sarah Huckabee Sanders another outlet to spread more lies. While the briefings are sometimes painful to watch, and to fact check, I couldn't disagree more. The "daily briefing" is good for the White House and the reporters who cover it and, most importantly, it's good for the country.
Let's start with the interests of the White House. The daily briefing forces an internal discipline on White House staff and the President. Decision making often can languish without a deadline. Knowing the administration has to go out at 1 p.m. every day and promote or defend key policy decisions forces everyone involved to bring matters to a close. You can't go out day after day and say we haven't decided yet and not create the impression that you're having trouble getting things done.
The daily briefing also forces much deeper communication within the government. That is especially true on national security issues. Before going out to do a briefing when I was the press secretary, I had a detailed conference call with my counterparts at the State Department, Pentagon and often the CIA. We settled any differences or nuances in advance of going out to brief the press. These differences were often escalated to the respective Cabinet members, again resulting in better decision making.
The briefing also puts important White House positions on the record, recorded on video for the rest of time. That alone would have forced a discipline and discouraged the sort of dissembling we've witnessed over the last 18 months from the podium.
On a personal note, the briefings could be fun. The back and forth between reporters and press secretary has the added benefit of demonstrating that we can have serious political differences without it getting personal. I would often judge my own performance based on how many times the stenographer would note laughter in the transcript.
The briefing is also good for reporters. It's not enough to get answers to shouted questions from the President or at pool sprays in the Oval Office or Cabinet room. Those are generally only about the big story of the day. The briefing allows reporters to delve into multiple issues that may not make news that day but are important to government and the country in the long run.
It is also critically important to journalists who don't work for big news organizations like The New York Times or the Washington Post, for example. Smaller organizations, or specialty publications know they can get the White House on the record on issues that are not part of the daily political back and forth. And, by the way, it's a great way for the White House to show a mastery of issues and promote its agenda.
Most importantly, it's critical for every American. The daily briefing is traditionally the most valuable window into what the executive branch is doing. If sunlight is indeed the best political disinfectant, the briefing offers the best lighting for average Americans hoping to understand what their government is up to.
With the explosion of media sources and social media, some argue the briefing is outdated and unnecessary. I'd argue just the opposite. With real fake news clogging the social media landscape, the White House briefing could and should be a valuable mechanism for separating the political wheat from the chaff.
There's nothing in the Constitution requiring the White House to hold a daily briefing. But it's hard to see how avoiding them contributes to more transparent, more efficient and more successful governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment