Congress, the Media, and Press Conferences

Members of Congress tend to view the media attention as essential for advancing their political careers. They feel that their popularity and electoral success heavily depends on positive press coverage. Thus, most political institutions have been redesigned to allow maximum media coverage by making them more accessible and convenient for reporters.
The media tends to focus primarily on the members of Congress who are in formal positions of leadership. Studies and analysis of stories featured in the Vanderbilt Television New Archive between 1872 and 1984 illustrated that leadership, extreme views, opposition to the president, scandal are all associated with increased coverage of government officials in the legislative body.
Government officials may attempt to publicize certain events, issues, or agendas that it feels is politically beneficial through press conferences, daily briefing (presidential usually) and other methods. Press conferences in general serve as a means for government officials to garner media attention easily, and portray a particular meaning or interpretation about events. Reporters find this type of news easy and cost effective to produce, and thus will attend these conferences. However, ultimately does the media fulfill its role in society as a linkage institution, that effectively communicates news of the government to the American people, or does it merely regurgitate back to the public what it has been strategically spoon-fed by government officials?

Let’s look closely at the following press conference. On September 5, 2006, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Asst. Democratic Leader Dick Durbin of Illinois and other congressional Democrats arranged a press conference on global security in order to respond to President Bush’s speech on global terrorism, and demonstrate that despite the successes he has claimed, he has overwhelmingly failed in the war on terror, citing evidence such as the death toll in Iraq, the dwindling popularity of US worldwide, and the growth of terror networks around the globe. It served to formally introduce a report drafted by the Third Way, evaluating Bush success in the War on Terror.


General Wesley Clark, was the first one to speak after Senator Reid gave a brief introduction. Clark’s main focus was to highlight how the Bush administration and Republican leadership in Congress had failed in keeping America safe. He strongly emphasized the failures in Iraq, labeling its invasion as “a distraction from what we were trying to accomplish in Afghanistan” and “counterproductive in winning the War on Terror.” Clark also criticized the lack of diplomatic tactics used by the administration, saying that the real way to win the war is not by talking to tough about our enemies but by “strengthening relations with other countries …and talking to people you don't necessarily agree with” and criticized Bush’s failure to have direct talks with North Korea and Iran. He summarized by saying that the Bush administration was making America less safe, and a new leadership in Congress was much needed, declaring Democrats as far more suitable leaders “to curb the threat of nuclear proliferation”. The next series of speakers seemed to emphasize the same issues as Clark; Senator Carper, Senator Durbin and U.S. Representative Steny Hoyer all stressed Bush’s disastrous foreign policy, the administration’s failure in keeping the American people safe, and the debacles of the war in Iraq. Senator Thomas Carper tried to convey Democrats as the party that has always backed the war on terror and identified himself as someone who seeks bipartisan solutions but the Bush administration making this endeavor impossible.

Sharon Burke, member of Third Way, a group founded by Democrats who support gun control, and Director of a National Security Project spoke last and introduced a report titled “In the Neo Con: The Bush Defense Record by the Numbers.” Based on numerical evaluations of several factors ranging from the condition of American military, to the nuclear programs in Iran, and North Korea, she declared the report as revealing troubling numbers and that the evidence in the report did not “match the tough talk of the President” In the end when questions were taken, Reed carefully dismissed a question by a news reporter who began by saying “Senator Reid I was hoping you could expand on the”- possibly because he thought she might raise a question that would put him in an uncomfortable position, and thus responded by saying “lets take someone from the right for a change.” The following question was directed to Senator Carper asking him to explain how he would implement diplomatic tactics in dealing with tyrannical regimes, and ones that supported terrorism. Carper responded to this by referring to countries who were tyrannical but did were not necessarily allied with other belligerent regimes, and explained how we could use this to our advantage in fighting the war on terror. He also carefully tied in the mistake of the Bush administration in not using this method, and called it a “roadmap to war”. Someone asked Reid if he would call the administrations’ depiction of terrorism as a “scare tactic”, and Reid answered by bringing in Iraq.

The various questions that were raised seemed to have a common pattern in which they were addressed. Reid and Carper who answered most of the questions always managed to strategically tie in the failures of the administration and Iraq even if it had nothing to do with the question asked. This is a common tactic used by the government officials in press conferences whose goal is to convey a specific point even if it means reemphasizing it over and over again. In fact, throughout the conference the series of speakers merely restated what his predecessor had said. However, this didn’t strengthen their views but if anything the issues they raised began to lose their poignancy because they’d mentioned so many times. Also, although the conference was titled “global security” the absence of a single act of terrorism on American soil in five years was not acknowledged nor mentioned during any of the speeches since the essence of the conference was to shed the administration in negative light, and convince the public that new leadership was needed, and thus ultimately bolster enough support for a democratic majority party in congress. The speakers also failed to identify any other useful tactic that would be implemented, other than a more diplomatic approach in fighting the war.

Obviously, the nature of the meeting was for the Democrats to politically strengthen their parties agenda, like most conferences tend to be opportunities for, and gain support for a Democratic congressional majority, by listing convenient failures of the Republicans the Bush administration, or areas that they subjectively interpreted as failures.
Thus, by carefully selecting the information that will be presented and accentuated in a conference, as well as bringing these points in whatever questions are raised, is a method, politicians use to get the media to report what they deem politically beneficial.