The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the freedom of speech and press.
As Walter Cronkite said, "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy. It is democracy."
But the First Amendment hasn’t stopped presidents from trying to bully,
pressure, regulate, and impress the press.
At George Washington’s first inauguration he was described in almost universally favorable terms,
but by the end of his first term, with the encouragement of his Secretary of State
Thomas Jefferson behind-the-scenes, opposition papers started popping up to attack Washington’s
domestic and foreign policy. In his second term, these attacks became more personal
by questioning his principles, integrity, and even military reputation.
From 1776 to 1800, newspapers increased from under 50 to over 250, in part,
because new federal laws made it cheaper to send mail through the postal system.
George Washington concluded his presidency by writing a letter to his “friends and fellow
citizens,” which was printed in newspapers across the country. According to political journalist
John Avlon, Washington’s Farewell Address was "once celebrated as a civic Scripture,
more widely reprinted than the Declaration of Independence."
Overall, Washington’s approach to the press was to stay largely hands-off
whereas his successor John Adams went full-on by signing the Alien and Sedition Acts,
which criminalized journalistic dissent in the name of national security.
Three score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln waged as biographer Harold Holzer described
an “undeclared, unlegislated, unlitigated and largely unchallenged war” on newspapers.
Lincoln justified it in a letter,
“Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch the
hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? I think that in such a case,
to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constitutional, but, withal, a great mercy.”
Theodore Roosevelt probably did more to alter president-press
relations than anyone who has held the office before or since.
He was the first president to give reporters working space inside the White House.
He'd usually spoke to them while his barber gave him his morning shave.
He staged some of the first photo-ops and invented the Sunday news drop,
in order to give the press a hot story for their Monday edition. The benefit of
Roosevelt’s constant courting, as one reporter of the era put it, was “more
scoops of White House origin during the Roosevelt period than before or since.”
Since TR, advances in technology have given presidents new ways to
go over the press's head. FDR leapfrogged reporters with his Fireside Chats on radio
and JFK did so with his News Conferences on TV.
Our two most recent presidents are a case study of extremes.
Trump was excessively open.
He had a very little filter, which was exciting for a press that was
bent on using anything he said against him. He gave them a ton of ammunition,
but it was his “tell it as it is” bravado that got him elected in the first place.
Like Theodore Roosevelt, Donald Trump wanted to be on the front page every day.
Biden on the other hand is excessively insulated.
Democrat Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa
described in their book “Peril” how top White House officials set up a wall
to shield the gaffe-prone president from unscripted events and long interviews.
In the halls of the White House, you might be able to hear staffers whisper to each other,
“Build the wall.” Of course, not in relation to the southern border where
agents/scientists/experts have requested more wall as a multi-prong strategy to reduce illegal
crossings, but in relation to protecting the president and therefore their jobs.
It seems Trump wanted attention for attention’s sake whereas Biden wants chocolate chip ice cream.
In general, presidents want to enact their agenda.
To enact their agenda requires congressional consensus; to get congressional consensus
requires public support, and to get public support requires an effective press strategy.
Let’s explore… what’s the best presidential press strategy?
First, a president should focus on one bill at a time.
Keeping too many balls in the air increases the risk they’ll all fall because it’s politically
easier for the opposition to reject the juggle by disliking any one part of it.
“F.O.C.U.S. = Follow One Course Until Success”
The president should have a recurring weekly media schedule built around advancing whatever
is his next legislative item. For example, let’s say its infrastructure…
Daily: Tweet Each day tweet something
different in regards to infrastructure: factoid, historical quote, poll, meme, benefit(s), etc.
Sun: News Drop President could give a few favored reporters an
inside scoop that, for example, so-and-so Senator is holding up the bill because he wants XYZ.
Mon: 5-10 Min Speech Political speeches tend to be too long
in our digital age, which then gets clipped down to whatever serves the bias of the media outlet.
Speeches should be short, include visuals, and exist in written, video, and audio formats.
Tue: New Ad Commercial The ad could pan over
parts of America’s crumbling infrastructure, a person explaining how a bridge collapsed on her,
and then dovetail into how America led the world in infrastructure with such
things as the Brooklyn Bridge and then jump to a side-by-side of how we’re falling behind China.
Wed: Debate or Interview Why wait until an election to have debates?
The president (or an ally) should debate a key member of the opposition to draw attention to
the cause, pros & cons of the legislation, and to ultimately help the public decide
which side is right. I believe the truth will prevail if given enough airtime!
A great example of non-election year debating was between Ted Cruz vs. Bernie Sanders wherein
2017 they debated about healthcare and then on another occasion taxation.
Thu: Ally Speech Reward an ally by having him/her
give a speech, which the president could promote and hype up all over the internet. Ideally,
the president’s infrastructure ally would be a member from the other party in order
to increase bipartisan support or a renowned expert Americans’ respect. The speech should be
delivered from one of America’s crumbling bridges to highlight the necessity of the legislation.
Fri: Cabinet Meeting
The first 10 minutes of a cabinet meeting could be open to the press where each
cabinet member would talk a minute about how the infrastructure bill would benefit their domain.
Sat: 3 Rallies Fly to towns where the bill
would most positively impact them and where their congressperson or senator remains on the fence.
And then for the president to be seen as more “likable” with low-information voters
who are often the deciding demographic in US elections it’s about “bread & circuses.”
The White House Press Secretary should try to get the president on all of the popular TV shows.
For example, on October 30th, 2001, George W. Bush threw out the first pitch at Game 3 of the
World Series, seven weeks after September 11th. Bush also started the precedent of
a pre-Super Bowl interview, which Obama turned into an annual presidential tradition.
Future presidents Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan had appeared on the game
show What’s My Line. In 1965, Senator Jon McCain appeared on Jeopardy! A president should appear
on whatever are the popular gameshows of the time, such as Wheel of Fortune or Family Feud.
With that said, leveraging Hollywood would be easier for Democratic presidents
whereas with Republican presidents corporate media may deny their appearance requests
or try to cast them in the most negative light possible.
The White House, therefore, doesn’t have to depend on the owners of media,
but could also create their own TV shows and movies.
Obama waited until after his presidency to create his production company:
Higher Ground Productions. But why wait?
It has legal precedent. Obama had a weekly vlog: West Wing Week, which was created by
Arun Chaudhary who was the first official White House videographer in history.
During the covfefe pandemic, Governor Newsom spun a wheel to give out checks to the vaccinated.
Since 1909, Congress has hosted an annual baseball game of Republicans vs. Democrats.
Of course, unlike Obama being able to cash in on his celebrity with a big Netflix deal
(FYI it’s impossible to “get money out of politics”), White House generated
shows/documentaries/movies would be publicly available
on PBS, CSPAN, WhiteHouse.gov, and any other channel that would like to share it.
A president could host a “Civics Show” aimed at
testing the political & historical knowledge of US citizens, officials, and celebrities.
A president could host “The Apprentice:
Presidential Edition,” but since federal employees are nearly impossible to fire,
the competitors would complete challenges for a chance to win a promotion.
A president could do an “Undercover President” series where the president
goes around the country in disguise to check on the operations of various government agencies.
Republican presidents should be striving to draw as much negative attention to the incompetent and
unaccountable federal bureaucracy as possible so as to gin up outrage for its reform.
Finally, the White House could host an annual award ceremony.
Obama awarded 123 Presidential Medal of Freedom medals, the most ever.
But the White House could do the ceremony BIGGER and BETTER by modeling it after the Oscars,
where citizens would win awards for movies/music/sports/food/heroism/etc.
It could be a ceremony that brings together a large swath of the American
population on the people’s lawn for a genuinely bipartisan event.
Do I find such a blatant appeal to the lowest-common-denominator distasteful?
Yes. But from my self-appointed capacity as a presidential advisor,
it’s what I’d advise a president to do in order to maximize his chances of passing his agenda.
And then finally, in addition to trying to impress the press/public,
the president should increase the pressure on the press by having an effective backroom strategy:
The White House Press Corps should plot every media outlet on a 0 - 10 friendliness
scale. Media outlets that are a 0, i.e only run negative stories and are quick to print libelous
material from low-ranking partisan “anonymous” sources, should be BANNED from getting to ask
the president a question, host a debate, or do a sit-down interview. Despite Trump’s complaining,
he often rewarded the press for their dishonesty by giving them EXACTLY what they wanted. On the
flip side, friendlier media should be granted more access to the president, news drops,
and debate hosting. Federal agencies “spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
on newspaper subscriptions” and in many of their break rooms, you’ll find CNN is on the
TV. The most unfriendly media should have their subscriptions canceled and the most
friendly media should have their subscription order 10X and channels set to the default.
Democrats control the influence-industrial complex (Big Tech, Big Media, Big Ed, Big Pharma) hence
why Democrat presidents grow these institutions' oligarchic power
by passing regulations & subsidies and suppress their competition by labeling it “hate.”
Smart politics! Republican presidents need to fight fire with water and fire. Prior to
the 2018 midterm election, I wrote about how Big Tech was going to take unprecedented steps
to help the Democratic Party win back the House by peer pressuring low-information youth to vote,
increase exposure for “authoritative sources” i.e. 90%+ Democrat, spread misinformation i.e. “Russian
collusion,” and suppress conservative media. Trump failed to anticipate the anticipatable. In fact,
Trump was the greatest gift to Twitter! A more calculating president would’ve on DAY 01 also used
these platforms, but then consistently directed his followers to get more exclusive content via
his website and on politically friendlier platform alternatives. Republican presidents
should also use EXISTING anti-trust laws to break up Big Tech (we are a nation of laws, after all,
so even if libertarian-conservatives may philosophically disagree with trust-busting
we must enforce the law however we may feel about it). We should also reform the filibuster so a
Republican president can fire much of the Deep State, i.e. the federal bureaucracy is virtually
impossible to fire and overwhelmingly Democrat regardless of whether a Republican is in the
White House. And then abolish the Department of Education to stop billions of taxpayer dollars
going to indoctrinate our youth because it clearly isn’t going toward teaching them critical thinking
skills or preparing them for the 21st-century workforce. And then for those areas where a
Republican president can’t throw water onto the fire, he should wield it for his own purposes!
For example, if a Republican president can’t abolish NPR, which in part, operates
as a taxpayer-financed Democrat propaganda machine, then he should try to turn it into a
taxpayer-financed Republican propaganda machine. Watch how fast Democrat media cries, “Foul!”
And if a Republican president can’t stop liberal messaging from appearing on government buildings
then he could mandate “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and “Freedom Isn’t Free” signs.
The White House Press Corp should 10X their legal team by suing any 0 - 5 corporate media outlet
that says anything defamatory about ANYONE and isn’t willing to retract it. Even if a case loses
because lies are often hidden behind “anonymous sources” then at least the lying network will
have to spend more money on legal fees instead of on spreading misinformation. A court case
would also increase attention on their dishonest journalistic practices while serving as a warning
to other media outlets that if they’re going to make defamatory claims they need to support it.
In the end, if a president implemented the above press strategy with its focused media schedule,
bread & circuses, and backroom pressure then I believe he’d
dramatically increase his public support and therefore his legislative success.
And then the more legislation a president signs into law the more it’ll give the press something
to write about at which point even those on the left would have no choice but to applaud
a Republican president’s political effectiveness.
Lights, cameras, presidential action!