Dodging the press at the expense of the public

Considering the plethora of social media platforms that allow for live streaming and direct engagement, it is no wonder Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the press is less than amicable these days.

In a highly symbolic move, her campaign team went as far as roping off journalists during an Independence Day parade in New Hampshire, lest they get too close to the candidate. Reporters interfere, her press team states, with direct public interaction.

{mosads}Clinton’s disregard for the press is not without paradigm, but her ability to communicate around them is. Until only very recently, candidates running for president were forced to wrangle with the press. But the media landscape has since changed and Clinton has a lot more avenues to reach voters than her predecessors did.

She may also be emboldened by a more recent example of presidential PR. Despite his promises of transparency, organizations such as the Committee to Protect Journalists are feeling “disturbed by the pattern of actions by the Obama administration that have chilled the flow of information on issues of great public interest.”

Obama, who rode to the White House in part on a wave of digital knowhow, has since been masterful at using new media and digital platforms to control the political narrative. Between his West Wing Week webisodes and his personal photographer’s extremely impressive Instagram account, White House-created content is at an all time high. Meanwhile, a Columbia Journalism Review study released earlier this year notes, “the relationship between the president and the press is more distant than it has been in a half century.”

Likewise, Clinton’s campaign team is proving adept at skirting reporters to reach target audiences. They utilize new publishing platforms such as Medium to release public memos or video sharing tools like Snapchat to reach voter blocs less likely to be watching the nightly news. “I am not running my campaign for the press,” she told CNN in a July interview, the first and only she’s done since announcing her second bid for the White House.

While it may seem like Clinton and her modern cohorts are outmoding traditional media, evading the fourth estate is not without repercussions.

Firstly, by narrowing access, media is curtailed from pursuing broader stories on in-depth issues that are not news-de-jour. It makes it difficult for journalists to get behind substantive issues and push it past the 24-hour news cycle. Blunders tend to draw added antagonism from a press corps hungry for information and access.

Second, it establishes from the outset mistrust. It suggests the truth might actually be much worse than what we see. Media coverage of Clinton’s campaign can thus far be summed up as a series of prolonged investigative stories on a handful of issues that hardly seem policy oriented. Citizens can either take Hillary’s first-hand account at face value or must rely on analysis that quotes outside sources but conveys little insight into how decisions are actually made.

There are plenty of apps that can make voters feel like campaign insiders, but in doing so give the candidate total control over messaging. There is no app to verify a candidate’s accountability.

While social media has proven an invigorating addition to the campaign trail, it can never wholly replace the role of the press. Allowing independent access to a politician’s undertakings has been a vital pillar of our nation’s democratic process. Everything else, at its core, is propaganda. 

Wilson is a crisis communications and public affairs expert who specializes in media relations. He is based in Washington, D.C.