With each presidential administration, there is a theme of struggle between some members of the press and the White House press secretary.
During Barack Obama’s tenure, though, the left-leaning members of the White House press corps had comfortable relationships with press secretaries Robert Gibbs, Jay Carney, and Josh Earnest. The briefings were meant to inform and rarely became moments of tense exchange.
With Republican presidents, however, the opposite is true.
After President Trump won the 2016 election, to the surprise of opponent Hillary Clinton and her supporters, the press entered a “now, more than ever” stage. In February 2017, the New York Times actually had the gall to start a marketing campaign saying “The truth is more important now than ever,” implicitly saying the truth was less important during Obama’s time in office. Suddenly, journalistic integrity and standards of conduct were supposedly at a level never before seen. As spectators on the front row watching a new administration unfold, their duty was to truth.
While that is certainly a necessary goal for these members of the media, the focus comes across as entirely artificial considering the previous years and mild manner in which many of the same journalists treated the Obama administration.
So far, Sarah Sanders is the longest running press secretary of the Trump years, having replaced Sean Spicer who only held the position for six months. In her almost 12 months on the job, Sanders has faced a barrage of criticism as a representative of an administration that has seen its share of trouble through firings, investigations, low approval numbers, and tangles with Congress, just to name a few. More often than not, Sarah Sanders must answer for the president’s brash and often unrestrained words and actions on the domestic as well as international stage.
The pushback from those who sit before her each briefing time is truly intense. While the press corps desires answers and explanation, Sanders will rarely give them exactly what they want.
Take for instance her exchange with CNN’s Jim Acosta on Thursday regarding immigrant children and families being split up:
“Can I just ask a second question, completely unrelated, on these children who are being separated from their families as they come across the border,” Acosta asked. “The attorney general earlier today said that somehow there’s a justification for this in the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that it’s moral to take children away from their mothers?”
In response, Sanders initially said she didn’t know what Sessions had said but added “that it is very biblical to enforce the law.” After Sanders said she wouldn’t respond to Sessions’ “specific comments that I haven’t seen,” Acosta retorted, “Well you just said it’s in the Bible to follow the law.”
[Sarah Sanders loses patience over questions on family separation]
But the CNN correspondent picked up where he’d left off, probing “How is it moral policy to take children away from their parents?” and “Why is the government doing this?” “Because it’s the law and that’s what the law states,” Sanders said.
“It doesn’t have to be the law; you guys don’t have to do that,” Acosta replied, before Sanders leveled blame at Democrats who “have failed to come to the table” and “failed to help this president close these loopholes and fix this problem.”
Such moments are anything but helpful and only serve to contribute to the continuing political theater that is a feature of these years.
If any member of the press corps is waiting for Sarah Sanders to stray from the path set by her boss, as a point person for this administration, then they are sure to be disappointed. Amazingly, there seems to be a measure of surprise when a press secretary acts as if they answer to the president of the U.S. and not the media. Acosta’s attempt was foolish at best. After an interaction such as this, I’m left with two questions: Why are the answers given by Sanders so unexpected? Do members of the media believe they’ll reach a satisfactory conclusion after digging deeper for an unbiased response?
Neither side in such a skirmish is willing to give an inch. This will never change.
That truth makes press briefings inconsequential and distracting. What we see is opposing sides with no interest in bending. They are nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias with both parties coming away just as disgruntled as before, but with perhaps a few more soundbites and bitterness.
Regarding the specific exchange between Acosta and Sanders, I only come away with one thing: annoyance. When an administration that often struggles with decency cites biblical support for American law, and an opposing member of the media attempts to counter with a moral argument that was previously abandoned for eight years, nothing substantive has been achieved, and everyone loses.
If Americans are interested in avoiding more political drama, it’s best they tune out of press briefings altogether. They’ll only be missing more of the same, and that’s no loss.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a senior contributor at RedState.com.
