Read on Twitter
Mind reading a bit here, I'm imagining they're testing the new press secretary; to the audience, that comes across as tone deafness.
I'm a huge supporter of the media and the First Amendment right to a free press, but sometimes the Famous Journalists are their own worst enemies. https://twitter.com/AlexDanvers2017/status/1352391395663884288
I'm a huge supporter of the media and the First Amendment right to a free press, but sometimes the Famous Journalists are their own worst enemies. https://twitter.com/AlexDanvers2017/status/1352391395663884288
On the one hand, the nature of WH press briefings are traditionally prosecutorial, which is why the last administration DIDN'T DO THEM, preferring to speak directly to their audiences through social media.
On the other, that rulebook — which prior to the last administration, both sides of that prosecutorial debate respected as a vital and educational process for those watching as a Socratic analysis — has fundamentally changed.
The news media hasn't managed to find a way to break into that direct connection those in power have to speak directly to their audiences. It's a closed loop.
Here's the news media's first opportunity to show, "Hey! We're STILL RELEVANT to this process!" — except they're not. (And no one in the WH press corp wants to be seen as irrelevant; they all have their personal brands to curate, so capturing attention is critical to them.)
[IMO, they should be focusing on removing themselves from the picture as personalities and instead, curating trust. This is a more complex issue, and I have nothing to recommend here, nor should you listen to me because I'm a long time out of this game.]
So, to sum up, anachronistic forum + inability/frustration + media ego + growing irrelevance = a toxic mix.
Mad respect for Psaki, and the commitment of Biden's administration to returning to some norms of the Democratic process. They no longer HAVE to do this dog and pony show, but they recognize WHY it exists.
Holding press conferences — allowing this parliamentary style cross examination — is a demonstration of the administration's willingness to be transparent and ability to argue the merits of their proposals (even through a proxy, which isn't really the best way to do it).
