In an op-ed comparing President Obama with former President Nixon, a subject I think is being much exaggerated, Carl Cannon makes an interesting observation:
Those who work for this president have a fetish for stage managing the news. They never simply trust the facts; or maybe a better way of saying it is that they don’t trust the American people be able to handle the facts. Washington has been consumed in recent weeks about who, exactly, massaged the administration’s “talking points†on Benghazi.
The underlying problem is that there were talking points at all. The phrase was popularized in the 1970s in the State Department. Originally the practice ensured that government officials were employing the precise, but opaque, language required in the field of international diplomacy. But the phrase soon migrated to politics, where it meant something quite different: Talking points were the lines of the day to be employed in interviews by partisan political operatives either to defend their position or attack the other side.
The irony of such a “fetish” is that they’re trying to maintain a high level of control even as such control has become impossible. Even with a compliant and complacent press it’s simply no longer possible for anybody, whether a film star, a company, or a politician to control public opinion in the way that used not only to be possible but to be the norm.
How well is the “fetish” working for the Administration? I would submit that it’s a major contributing factor to the scandals (is is four or six of them now?) that are dominating the professional and amateur opinion pages these days. The truth may hurt but does it really hurt more than the speculations?
It is easier to attack than defend since the attackers can say anything. Truth doesnt matter. They can forge emails and forget to mention that they knew about the IRS investigation because they instigated the IG audit. OTOH, for the POTUS, everything that is said is parsed and every error is an indication of a cover up. This is true for anyone in the office. On the “fetish” I dont think this is the first WH admin to insist on controlling the message. Name a POTUS who did not try to do so.
Steve
Name a president who faced pervasive social media. Trying to control the message is one thing. As I noted in the post, trying to do so is particularly futile today.
I agree, this is a rare example of Obama playing with an outdated playbook. So advanced on data and polling, so backward on messaging.
The currency of social media is authenticity. Interestingly his speech writers get it. But his press people don’t.
To repurpose Sam Clemens’s wisecrack I think the president should get out in front of these stories with the truth. It will gratify his friends and astonish the rest.
What is depressing, particularly about Benghazi, is the utter lack of trust in the American people. Just like the aftermath of 9/11, one can expect fair and unfair criticism, but 99% of Americans know who the real villains are.
It’s not just politicians who are discovering the game has changed. We’ll have to see how quickly they adapt.