ARI FLEISCHER
April 10, 2001

President Bush's press secretary examines how politics and the media have affected his boss's first hundred days in office. The NewsHour Media Unit is funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts

 

Online Special: George W. Bush's First 100 Days April 30, 1993: President Clinton's First 100 days as seen by: Deputy Treasury Sec. Roger Altman and Sen. Pete Domenici Pollsters and media analysts Gergen & Shields April 28, 1988: David Gergen and Mark Shields on President George H.W. Bush's first 100 days Browse NewsHour coverage of the White House and the media   News for Students: A look at President George W. Bush's first 100 days in office.     The White House	TERENCE SMITH: Do you think President Bush has had a honeymoon from the press in his first 100 days? ARI FLEISCHER: Well, I don’t know [about] honeymoon; I think that’s probably a judgment best left up to others. But I do think that the press coverage he has gotten has been, on balance, fair. TERENCE SMITH: You worked previously on Capitol Hill. Is this very different? ARI FLEISCHER: It’s totally different. TERENCE SMITH: How so? ARI FLEISCHER: The megaphone is so much bigger; the amount of press coverage, the intensity and the importance of it, is completely out of comparison with Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill has 535 various voices; the presidency is one. TERENCE SMITH: Setting aside the word "honeymoon" which I can see you might not choose – characterize the way the media has covered this president in his first months. ARI FLEISCHER: Well, it’s really interesting, because, particularly coming off of the election -- we have to put our coverage in the context of where the president just came – the election was a terribly close election and obviously the Florida recount, the president not having the popular vote – and I think there was a presumption in the press that the president would come in from a weak point of view; that he would not have any strength coming into his administration; and in the first four weeks or so I think the press really was reacting to the strength of the Bush candidacy. They saw him grow in terms of public support, which really has been a clear growth path. The public likes what they see of George W. Bush, and that’s an interesting cycle, and that gets reflected back into the press. So particularly for those first three or four weeks, I think the press coverage of him was well deserved, solid, about what strong start he has gotten. But, invariably the press coverage turns – it always will – and now we’re into the serious policy mode. I’d like to say that the rubber is hitting the road. Policies are on the Hill – they’re being debated. And that’s exactly what press coverage should be about. It should be about policy and we’re pleased that’s where it is. TERENCE SMITH: When did it turn and over what policy issue? ARI FLEISCHER: I think it turned because the press will only cover the good things for so long. So the first three or four weeks, all the bipartisanship, the good reviews he got, the way he was hitting his stride, the way he was creating a mandate, even though the election didn’t give him the mandate, and I think that coverage simply wore itself out. It was accurate; it reflected what took place for those first three or four weeks, but then, as always, the policy shifts into the next piece of news, and the next piece of news was the status of policy legislation. There have been some good issues on Capitol Hill now. There have been some votes. Things have been put to the test, and the press is there to watch the tests.
	Managing the message
	TERENCE SMITH: The administration has made a considerable effort to focus the attention and the coverage and manage the message, control the topics and the agenda. Has it worked for you? ARI FLEISCHER: Well, you know, I leave those judgments up to others about what works and what doesn’t work, but, of course, the president wants his message to be well received; he wants to be able to say something and have people hear it. This is a president who does not believe in having 25 various programs, not one of which really is big or important, so that very few people pay attention to any one of them, other than people in Washington who will pay attention to everything. The president’s focus is on the big things for our nation: improving our schools, saving Social Security and Medicare, providing tax relief, holding the line on spending, a faith-based initiative to help people. Those are the core focuses on what the president is running – ran on and what he is governing on. And it’s kind of easy to have a unified message when you have a president who has a unified approach to… conduct[ing] his business. TERENCE SMITH: What has inserted itself from the outside, imposed itself from the outside? ARI FLEISCHER: A myriad of events, and of course they do. Our best efforts are to plan, and we will continue that, all the while knowing – I mean, in any given week if we have one or two days that match our plan, that was a good week. There are always external events. And a good White House is ready to deal with external events. The biggest one of course would be about China [the dispute between the U.S. and China over a U.S. surveillance plane]... That is the biggest intervention that we have had. But there are a host of other issues that come up, for instance from Capitol Hill [and] the votes that take place, but the votes that take place on the agenda that the president has submitted. There have been a couple of incidents where there were stories that could have been troublesome that decisions got into the press that weren’t made by the proper authorities. And we very quickly addressed those. By that, I refer to the AIDS office, which was reported to be closed, which it wasn’t. Another story dealing with the Department of Agriculture – a mid-level official who thought he was making a decision about salmonella and school lunches, who shouldn’t have been in a position to make that decision; that was instantly reversed as well. So I think we’ve shown a good ability in this White House to move quickly to correct mistakes or interventions when they occur. TERENCE SMITH: Quickly is the key word? That’s important? ARI FLEISCHER: Absolutely. And it’s because President Bush is decisive. The press has a big role in what government does. So much of my day is driven by what’s in the news that morning. When I wake up and look at the front pages, I can tell you how about 75 percent of my day will go. And so when the press has something that’s on the front page, it’s a big newsworthy story that does not represent what the administration is thinking, but it’s there because it represents what someone may have thought in the administration, but not the right people. This administration will work quickly to make the right people available to talk to the press so that the right decision can be received by the public.
	The 'Clinton watch'
	TERENCE SMITH: The biggest diversion by far in the first weeks of this administration were the controversies that surrounded the outgoing administration. There was more on many days in the evening news about former President Clinton than there was about the new President Bush. How did that affect you? ARI FLEISCHER: Well, you know, we can’t control what President Clinton did in his last days here or the press coverage of him. But what it does remind me of is how important what President Bush said is -- that we need to change the tone in Washington, to return to policy, and focus on the things that people care about. That’s President Bush’s focus. So throughout all of that contretemps, the president was focused on things he ran on, and that contrast existed – but that would have been what President Bush was doing no matter what happened with his outgoing predecessor. TERENCE SMITH: Could you believe that for night after night the evening news broadcast had what they called a "Clinton watch," and the first two and three stories were about him and not about this White House? ARI FLEISCHER: Well, I have given up trying to analyze and watch what they do. My job is to deal with it as they do it. The media has a lot of free range in this country, and I don’t question it. They’re free to put whatever they want on the air.
	The press: 'An engine of anti-incumbency'?
	TERENCE SMITH: Ken Walsh used an interesting phrase in an interview I did with him and in a book he wrote in 1995 about the president and the press. He described the White House press corps as "an engine of anti-incumbency." Do you agree with that? ARI FLEISCHER: I wouldn’t put it anti-incumbency. I would put it as the engine of anti- whatever the government says. I think there is a big element to that. Their job is to challenge what the government does and what the government says. I think the press has to be very careful to find the right balance, a respectful balance in making that charge, to be the devil’s advocate. To be the devil’s advocate you have to do so in an artful and respectful fashion to do it well, in my opinion. But that is the press’s charge, and it helps keep us free, frankly. TERENCE SMITH: Is that skepticism or cynicism? ARI FLEISCHER: It depends on how they do it. And I think that if the press goes too far, it can be cynicism. But if the press instantly challenges on credibility grounds anything the government says, then I don’t think they’re serving their readers or the viewers well. But if the press asks the tough questions, to hear how decisions are made, to hear how well they’re thought out, then if they air answers in complete context, as opposed to just skeptical or the cynical, then I think they’re serving the public well. What I fear and what I hope the press takes to heart is that there is a problem in the media. The problem in the media is that viewership is declining, readership is declining, and I think journalists have to fundamentally ask themselves why. Are they distancing themselves too much from the readers and the viewers they serve? Is their mindset fundamentally different from the people who they serve? And that is something that I think particularly the Washington press corps has to examine. They ask a lot of questions that the American people don’t ask. And, frankly, the case of all the focus on President Clinton when he left office I think is an example of that. The Washington press corps couldn’t let the poor man go; the American people already had. TERENCE SMITH: So you think it was overkill? ARI FLEISCHER: I do; I do. TERENCE SMITH: And yet it had an impact on the incoming administration. ARI FLEISCHER: Certainly. TERENCE SMITH: Some in the press say President Bush looked good because President Clinton didn’t going out. ARI FLEISCHER: Well, I can’t argue with that. But, again, I think it’s another case where journalists have to ask themselves how well are they serving their readers and their viewers. Are they covering the sport of this business to such a degree that their readers and their viewers don’t look at it that way? And in the process are they further distancing themselves from the people they serve, and is that one of the reasons why viewership and readership have declined? Now those stories, people have argued, helped President Bush, and maybe I shouldn’t make this case. But I make this case because I do respect what journalists do; it’s terribly important to our society, and I think it’s a question that journalists just need to ask themselves.
	Learning from the past
	TERENCE SMITH: Before coming in here, did you study the first hundred days or early months of other administrations? ARI FLEISCHER: The administration did. Clay Johnson did; Andy Card did; Josh Bolton did; Carl Lewis did. Absolutely. TERENCE SMITH: Did you do it in relation to dealing with the press? ARI FLEISCHER: What I studied in terms of dealing with the press was not so much the hundred days. I studied a lot of previous briefings, and I met with all my predecessors, or as many predecessors as I possibly could. I spoke to virtually all of them on the phone. So I would read Mike McCurry’s briefings; I read Marlin Fitzwater’s. I would – I met with them to hear their guidance, to get their advice. And I have to say several of them were tremendously helpful, including Jake Siewert, President Clinton’s last press secretary could not have been more professional and more helpful in the transition period. TERENCE SMITH: What did you learn from reading those briefings and talking to those veterans? ARI FLEISCHER: I learned what a joyous, difficult job this is, that it really is a tightrope. The job of the press secretary is to faithfully serve two masters, and that puts you on a tightrope every day. My job is to represent the president, to fully and faithfully articulate his views, to advance his agenda. My job also is to help the press corps to understand what the United States government is doing, to serve the people who read the papers and watch the news, and that means there’s a tug-and-fro every day. TERENCE SMITH: Have you found it hard at times to get that message that you’ve just – that you are determined to articulate -- out past questions that may deal with the subject of the day? I’ll give you an example. Last Thursday we were here and shot your briefing in which 70 percent of the questions dealt with China on a day in which it was perfectly clear from your first answer you were not going to move beyond precisely where the government stood that day vis-à-vis the situation, and, yet, there were some 68 questions on that subject. How difficult is that for you? How much of an obstacle does it present for you to get the message out that you want to get out? ARI FLEISCHER: Well, I think there are three essential skills for the White House press secretary to have, and I guess we’ll find out if I have any of them. But the first is substance. The second is patience, and the third is humor. The White House press corps will constantly ask the same question over and over and over again, even if the answer is little changed. That’s what they do, and this is my chosen profession, and I deal with it. I’m a patient person. I understand they’re trying to do their jobs. They’re not going to get anything more out of me by asking the question over and over again, but I’m a patient person.

The NewsHour Media Unit, including this site, is funded by grants from: