Neiman Fellow Says Presidents' Control of Press Is `Overrated'

Manipulating the press is an "irresistible temptation" to United States presidents because the press covers everything they do whether it is substantive or not, Fred Barnes, White House correspondent for the Washington Star and Harvard Nieman fellow, said last night in the third lecture of the Nieman series.

Speaking to a small group of students in the Freshman Union, Barnes said, "Although presidents do try to manipulate the press, their ability to succeed is extraordinarily overrated."

If presidents could easily manage the press, President Carter would have a much higher popularity rating, former President Gerald R. Ford would have been reelected, and former President Richard M. Nixon would not have been forced to resign, he said.

A president's greatest tool in controlling the news is creating "pseudo events," Barnes said. Most presidential trips abroad are partly "pseudo events" because they are often designed to improve the president's image, he added.

Presidents have a great advantage at news conferences because they can usually anticipate the questions and news secretaries can plant questions for them, Barnes said. In addition, reporters are often seated according to a chart so the President knows where he can call on reporters who ask "easy" questions.

There are three stages of president-press relations, the first of which is the "honeymoon period when the press covers all presidential media events," he said.

The second stage--and the stage Carter has now entered--occurs when the president makes several controversial proposals, and the press becomes hostile as they compare his actions to his campaign rhetoric, Barnes added.

"The final stage occurs when the president has been knocked for a long time but inevitably has some extrinsic accomplishment he can point to," he said. "He gets more favorable coverage because the press is now comparing him to the second stage during which he was having problems," Barnes added.