U.S. Politics: The Role of the Press Secretary

I watch a great deal of the MSNBC news channel here in Vancouver. One of the highlights is the daily briefing of the press by the U.S. president’s Press Secretary. The current incumbent is a gentleman named Robert Gibbs.

Of course, I do not know Mr. Gibbs personally, but the more I see of him, the more respect I feel. This is not an easy job. The Press Secretary has to face a gaggle of knowledgeable, nit-picking journalists every single day. These journalists ask very pointed questions on a whole host of topics, usually involving interpretations of the President’s views on critical issues such as the Iraq War, the stock markets, the economy, healthcare, the budget, terrorism, proposed education reforms, etc. Watching Mr. Gibbs answer these questions is like watching a man navigate through a minefield. He has to ensure that he puts the right “spin” on Barack Obama’s comments. He also has to ensure that his own comments are not misinterpreted, and reflect exactly what the U.S. President wants to say, or would have wanted to say.

If the President says something that can be construed as being even remotely controversial, the Press Secretary has to defend his boss by ensuring that the statement is not misinterpreted. If the President says something that is plain inaccurate or wrong, he has to defend that as well. He also has to have a very good understanding of the issues being discussed, remain calm, and be able to think on his feet. At all times, he has to be able to keep his own opinions to himself, and only express what he thinks the President would have wanted to convey.

And he has to do all this on live television, in front of a bunch of journalists who more often than not, resemble a pack of hungry wolves, just waiting for a misstep or weakness on his part. Journalists in the U.S., like their counterparts elsewhere in the free world, always wait for the opportunity to take any statement, however innocuous it may seem, and make a screaming headline out of it. American television journalists appear to be as opportunistic as their Indian counterparts. They also seem to have the same breezy attitude towards the truth as our Indian television journalists. The focus is on getting viewer ratings, not getting to the truth.

The only difference I see between American journalists and their Indian counterparts is that the Americans actually allow the interviewee to complete a sentence without interrupting. Many Indian television journalists I see are more interested in getting their own point of view across, without even considering the opinion of the person they are purportedly interviewing. As a result, most interviews and debates on Indian television end up being shouting matches, and when you watch them, you are often left no wiser than before.

Coming back to the U.S. Press Secretary, this cannot be an easy job. Standing up in front of a bunch of intelligent, often hostile people who sometimes view you as potential prey, and that too on live television, must be extremely stressful. Yet Robert Gibbs always has time to listen to everyone’s questions. He is always patient and never seems to lose his sense of humour. He keeps the wolves in good humour too, by always being respectful to them, even though the reverse may not be true. And he has to do this live, every day. This is a tough job!

The daily press briefing does provide listeners with a lot of information. I could be wrong, but in India, our Prime Minister does not have a dedicated Press Secretary who faces the press every day. If we did, do you think it would work, in terms of clarifying what the Prime Minister did (and did not) say and mean?