But the lack of words comes with its downsides:
- When a politician shuts down the press, the press has no choice but to dig deeper to find a story. like The New Yorker Writer Patrick Radden Keefe noted recently that he is an advocate of “writing,” in which a reporter, when denied access to his subject, mines oral histories, letters, memoirs, emails, court testimony, and interviews of previous for materials and talks with the knowledge of the subject.
- Not all negative press – and this is what press-shun politicians fear – is necessarily bad for a candidate. Trump, whose contentious relationship with the press is unrivaled, has traditionally spoken extensively with reporters and continues to do so. The “bad” publicity seems to actually work to its advantage with its base. Earlier this month, Trump spoke openly with New York‘s Olivia Nuzzi about his future, knowing Nuzzi wouldn’t blow it. He escaped, as usual, unharmed. He arguably even grabbed new hype for a potentially early presidential announcement.
- A candidate can wear a cone of silence, but he cannot stop the flow of information. As Weigel wrote, reporters can interview attendees of events from which they have been excluded or listen to recordings of events.
- The sugar high that accompanies the act of telling a New York Times journalism to lose must be accepted. Whenever I feel depressed, I call a Times reporter only to tell him I won’t talk to him. But silence also makes the candidate look weak. It becomes part of their history. And it gives the enemies of silent Republicans an opportunity to strike back. “My opponent is too chicken to deal with New York Times. How well will he do with Vladimir Putin?”
- Foreign correspondents know all about the difficulties of not having their calls returned. But that doesn’t stop them from reporting. The same goes for ordinary reporters who find themselves shut out by local officials and politicians.
- Politics has always been about screwing your fellow party members. If the leading Republican candidates for president boycott the press, what’s to keep a former media icon — a Republican version of Pete Buttigieg — from breaking the boycott to gain publicity for himself? Nothing. Boycotts like these are inherently unsustainable.
- It’s one thing to shut out the press during primary season, but when the general election approaches, Republican candidates appreciate how useful the mainstream media can be in reaching swing voters who don’t consume too much conservative media and not enough social media. Then they will talk to almost anyone.
As my POLITICO colleague Michael Kruse, author of many political profiles, says, “They don’t need us elected. And we don’t need them to write for them.” The clash between Republican candidates and the press is likely to widen before it shrinks. But this is in the short term. Making the media the enemy has a way of boomeranging on politicians. See the careers of George Wallace, Richard Nixon, and Spiro Agnew for historical examples.
As interest grows in the 2024 election, and readers and viewers begin to pay more attention to the race (what sane person—other than politicians and the press—is paying much attention to 2024 now?), the candidates will soften their hard lines and talk to the press again.
Again, there may be more wisdom in press interruption than accounted for here. As former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once wrote, “It is always a risk to talk to the press: they are likely to report what you say.”
During the 1972 campaign, Hunter S. Thompson wrote, “Hubert Humphrey is a treacherous, gutless flatterer who should be put in a damned bottle and sent down the Japan Stream.” Send political invective to [email protected]. My email alerts are not accepting any new subscriptions. Mine Twitter feed will talk to anyone. Just sign up. Mine RSS feed believes that silence is the best policy.
