I thought it was just me at first. I thought, boy for a "liberal" press, these guys sure seem tougher on Obama than they were on Bush.
They just seemed more petulent, expecting full answers instead of deflections from Robert Gibbs, when all Press Secretaries I've seen have done the same thing.
They seemed like they wanted to prove they aren't so "in the tank" for Obama, like the right has manipulated them to think like suggested they are.... You know, to show they are so fair.
So I am glad to see this article by mediamatters.org showing that I'm not just imagining things.
...For folks who, understandably, weren't paying attention 16 years ago or who haven't read up on their White House media history, it's hard to appreciate just how uncanny the similarities are between how the suddenly hyperactive, conflict-driven press corps (baited by the right to prove their independence) is dealing with Obama's first days and how the hyperactive press dealt with Clinton's opening days, as journalists then also seemed determined to prove their un-liberalness.
The early Clinton and Obama scripts are at times interchangeable (i.e. baseless, negative stories like the cost of Obama's inauguration and the cost of Bill Clinton's haircut). The only part that doesn't fit in with the rest of the mosaic is how the press lovingly treated the Republican in 2001 during his arrival in town...
Admittedly, I am a new voter, so I have no recollection about their treatment of Clinton during his first few weeks. I do not recall however any negative press on George W. Bush early on though, except for the stray story here and there about the election being stolen and whatnot.
...Do reporters deserve to get straight answers at the White House? Yes. Was Henry's query a legitimate one? Absolutely. But when the non-answers came from Bush spokesmen and women, the working press corps seemed to shrug it off. On Obama's first day, though, an unsatisfactory response was suddenly worthy of discussion on cable television. Why? From the press' perspective, Democratic administrations are supposed to answer all questions. They're supposed to grant carte blanche access to the press. Republicans could do whatever they wanted to the daily briefing and defang the process to the point of irrelevancy. But Democrats? Sorry, a different set of rules apply...
Pretty much how I felt about reactions to Gibbs' first presser.
It reminds me of how up in arms a lot of the media and pundits have been about William Lynn violating Obama's new ethics reform rules. Sure it is arguable whether or not Obama should have put a waiver out for Lynn - but the media reacting like Obama is just like Bush because of it is ridiculous.
As Froomkin reported at the time:
So there was something entirely appropriate about Bush stopping by the briefing room yesterday not to answer (or even be asked) a single substantive question -- but to insult pretty much everyone in spitting distance.
Bush mocked members of the media to their face that day by tossing out several insults, and none of them asked a substantive question. Obama was gracious with reporters and was rewarded with a gotcha moment, which the press corps then obsessed over.
Seriously guys, just because you couldn't stand up to Bush, it doesn't mean you need to prove your might twice as much now.