The New York Times posted a hilarious meltdown Tuesday night complaining the Trump administration has “tak[en] steps to more closely control” the Brady Briefing Room. Their alleged crime against journalism? Instituting a “new media seat” to lead off the briefing and “[o]n average, a quarter of the people” called on “for questions are standing along the perimeter.”
In other words, those pesky conservative reporters — whom anonymous “longtime White House reporters” whined like bitter Mean Girls to The Times — are “erod[ing]” their power and “independence” and because they “rarely challenge the administration’s talking points,” they’ve “undercut the briefings as a space to relay accurate information to the American public and hold the president to account.”
“Inside the Changing White House Briefing Room” took four bylines — Ashley Wu, Rebecca Lieberman, Michael M. Grynbaum, and Doug Mills — and two contributors at the bottom to crank out what was no more than a petulant meltdown about having lost a sliver of control.
But along with noting on a factual level that Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has held shorter and fewer briefings, they complained she’s disregarded tradition by ensuring the “49 permanent seats...determined by the independent White House Correspondents’ Association” and specifically the 14 that make up the first two rows receive the most questions and “are usually called on more often.”
“In the briefing room, officials have made room for a new cohort of more partisan attendees, like right-wing podcasters, who often ask less-adversarial questions than traditional journalists. The White House has said it is adjusting the makeup of the press that covers it — both in and out of the briefing room — to better reflect the outlets where people consume news and information today,” The Times huffed.
By their estimates, the four then kvetched she’s used a quarter of the time to call on reporters whose outlets lack permanent seats, citing The Daily Signal, The Daily Wire, Frontlines USA, Gateway Pundit, Lindell TV, One America News Network, and Real America’s Voice.
The Times implied giving these reporters the light of day to ask questions relevant to their audiences has made the Briefing Room less free and more partisan, as though The Times or whatever outlet April Ryan works for has their partisan stripes. They even admitted the legacy media still receive the lion’s share of questions (click “expand”):
Longtime White House reporters say the result has been an erosion of their independence. They say the increased attention toward pro-Trump media personalities, who rarely challenge the administration’s talking points, has undercut the briefings as a space to relay accurate information to the American public and hold the president to account.
The room’s seating chart reflects a news outlet’s perceived importance. Journalists who sit in the front rows typically have more of their questions addressed by the press secretary. If it reorganizes the seating chart, the White House could continue to lessen the influence of legacy news organizations and boost newer and often more partisan media outlets that have shown support for the administration’s policies.
(....)
Media outlets with preferred seating have been called on the most often across all of Ms. Leavitt’s 15 briefings so far: CNN, Fox News, ABC News, The New York Post, CBS News and NBC News have been called on at least 11 times each.
Even though their analysis showed liberal networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have been called on in every single Leavitt briefing, The Times was bothered by the fact that she’s also called on our friend Mary Margaret Olohan of the Daily Wire seven times and OANN’s Daniel Baldwin five times.
Why is this so awful? The Times explained it’s because they deliver “questions more favorable to the administration or have echoed right-wing talking points.”
Two words for The Times and these anonymous “longtime White House reporters”: Grow up.
They kicked dirt on the “new media seat,” complaining it’s become “catchall category for both professional journalists and others, including podcasters, influencers and other creators of ‘news-related content.’”
This, along with taking control the press pool rotations and possibly the Briefing Room seating chart, will supposedly destroy what had always been a “mix” of “hard-hitting questions and the occasional softball.”
The posted a chart and more whiny analysis of their questions being, in essence, the wrong questions (click “expand”):
In January, Ms. Leavitt announced in her debut briefing the addition of a permanent “new media” seat. This seat, stage right of the lectern, is reserved for someone the White House selects from a nontraditional media outlet. The outlets represented by the occupants of this seat have ranged from digital upstarts like Axios and Semafor, which strive for independent reporting, to partisan influencers and YouTube stars. Guidelines for selection to this seat remain vague. (Ms. Leavitt said in a February briefing that her office was sifting through more than 12,000 applications.)
- Mike Allen (Axios), Matt Boyle (Breitbart), John Ashbrook (Ruthless), Sage Steele, Chris Pavlovski (Rumble), John Stoll (X), Shelby Talcott (Semafor), Mary Margaret Olohan (The Daily Wire), Saagar Enjeti (Breaking Points), Kellie Meyer (NewsNation), Katie Pavlich (Townhall), Lyndsay Keith (Merit Street), Mark Halperin (2Way), Jasmine Wright (NOTUS), Jordan Berman, and Matthew Foldi (Washington Reporter)
These lead-off questions have ranged from topics like artificial intelligence to foreign policy to the economy. Many of the inquiries were relatively impartial. But a few seat occupants have framed their questions with an angle that is critical of independent media or Democratic lawmakers in Congress.
The videos below show the mix of questions from the “new media” seat.
- [VIDEOS OF ASHBROOK, STEELE, TALCOTT, AND ENJETI]
The rest of the piece consisted of a time lapse explaining reporters with an assigned seat only “ arrive in the briefing room just a few minutes before the event begins” whereas “those without seats often arrive more than an hour beforehand, to claim space on the crowded perimeter of the room.”
As an example of what they deem the wrong questions, The Times later ended by whining Lindell TV’s Cara Castronuova used her question to ask about the SAVE Act, which would bolster voter integrity.
