From Newsweek's point-of-view, it makes perfect sense: they're trying to remake themselves into The Economist, eschewing day-to-day reporting for deeper analysis and commentary, which I think is a smart move. Why have a photographer (and the accompanying travel costs, etc.) hanging around all the time at the White House?
However, if you look at the big picture, what this means is a less transparent, less accessable presidency ... an institution that has been increasingly opaque certainly in the 20th Century, if not earlier.
So what's my point? As journalistic outlets increasingly pull back from having access, when something comes up where an administration wants to deny access, it becomes easier to say, "No." So, say the next Watergate happens (to pick an extreme), and the people in the White House don't want all those pesky reporters and photographers hanging about, asking difficult questions, ruining perfectly good photo ops. When Newsweek or U.S. News (who dropped out of the pool years ago) say they want in now, the Press Office puts on a sad face and says, "Oh, no, I'm sorry. It's just too difficult to expand the pool that much. And we can't make an exception for you, or everyone would want it." Until one day, when the pool consists of some wealthy blogger with a cell phone camera, he can be locked up in a side room while something important happens...
Not that I'm paranoid or anything...
UPDATE (22 May 2009): I didn't expect something resembling confirmation that quickly...
No comments:
Post a Comment