After Obama, Gibbs Bats Cleanup in Virtual Press Conference

After Obama, Gibbs Bats Cleanup in Virtual Press Conference

After Obama, Gibbs Bats Cleanup in Virtual Press Conference

Robert Gibbs let about 14,000 extra people into the White House press room after the president’s address to the nation on BP.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Just after President Obama’s national BP address on Tuesday night, press secretary Robert Gibbs took a few extra questions. But they weren’t from the White House press corps.

Gibbs cracked open the door of the press room to any citizen with an Internet connection, and on short notice, about 14,000 people submitted or voted on questions about the oil spill. Over 7,200 questions were submitted, and participation was deep, with an average thirteen votes cast per person. Several questions, read aloud by White House new media director Macon Phillips, focused on regulatory requirements for emergency shut-off switches, media access to the spill zone, techniques for cleaning up the spill and international collaboration in assisting the clean-up effort.

At one point, the citizen press conference cut to a video question from a young man named Jon Hocevar, standing on a dock in Grande Isle, Louisiana, who asked whether Obama would "end our reliance on fossil fuels and…shift to a clean and renewal energy future." The pointed query sounded more like activism than journalism, and it was—Hocevar directs Greenpeace’s "Oceans Campaign." On Tuesday, the environmental group posted Hocevar’s question on YouTube under the headline "Greenpeace question for President Obama."

The White House obviously took lots of heat for both its policy stance and press message on BP. Gibbs’s unusual foray online, dubbed "Open for Questions," seemed partly a calibration to show that the public face of the administration is not only talking to the usual suspects from the podium but also listening to a wider group of voices. (The White House has used the "Open for Questions" platform for cabinet secretaries and the president before, and Gibbs dabbled with the platform during the transition, though he ducked the most highly voted question at the time, about torture.) Here at The Nation, I had suggested the White House open up its press access as part of its public communication about this crisis:

Obama is rightly annoyed by the made-for-TV quality of oil spill criticism—the main character needs to show more anger in this scene—but instead of complaining on TV about TV, he should try changing the channel. He could hold more press conferences, and invite not only White House reporters but also environmental experts for a deeper exchange on the crisis. (Think less emotion, more acoustic switches.) To engage people in the Gulf region, he could dust off some of the technology from the old days and convene an unfiltered, online town hall for the most popular questions from regular people and citizen media on the ground. In other words, the solution to the White House’s press woes is pretty obvious: Stop complaining about the media you have, and start engaging the media you want. Of course, that assumes Obama’s stated desire for a deeper, more substantive conversation is genuine. He just has to prove it.

Compared to the devastation in the Gulf, of course, these questions of public engagement feel quite minor. But the White House deserves some credit for making staff available to engage citizens, experts and activists in a twenty-five-minute conversation that was a bit more open and thorough than much of the conventional national discussion of this environmental tragedy.

———
The White House’s "Open for Questions" video is available on YouTube.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x