Obama’s view of ‘transparency’

As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama pledged to run the “most transparent administration” in U.S. history with an “unprecedented level of openness.” Seven years into his presidency, Obama’s promise rings hollower than ever.

Perhaps the most telling measure of Team Obama’s penchant for choosing control over transparency were the coverage principles proposed last week by a White House Correspondents Association that clearly had become frustrated with a diminution of access. I think we can fairly put to rest the notion that Washington journalists are “in the tank” for Obama.

They are fed up with efforts to shield the president from regular scrutiny.

The correspondents’ demands included everything from monthly formal news conferences to allowing pool coverage of far more presidential activities to keeping background briefings by White House officials on the record.

“It’s time for us to band together behind a comprehensive set of principles and practices we believe should be followed by the White House,” Christi Parson, the association president, wrote to the membership.

This concern did not emerge overnight. And it didn’t begin with Obama.

“I think there has been a real erosion in terms of the amount of openness and transparency that has typically existed in the ability over the last 20 or 30 years of the White House press corps to cover the White House,” said Chris Lehane, a key strategist for President Bill Clinton.

A year ago, 38 journalism groups assailed the president’s team for “politically driven suppression of the news.” Complaints included the inaccessibility of key staffers, delays in interview requests and — most insidiously — the blackballing of reporters who wrote critically of the administration. Photojournalists also objected to the White House’s insistence on issuing official images of the president instead of allowing them access.

Even before that, The Chronicle had issues with the White House’s restrictions on the president’s Bay Area fundraising events. Our Carla Marinucci was even barred for a time from serving as a pool reporter for presidential visits after she shot video of a spontaneous protest at an April 2011 Obama fundraiser in San Francisco.

So how did relations deteriorate so sharply?

At least part of the recent friction can be attributed to the predictable tensions of a president’s second term. No White House in modern times has avoided it. Also, every administration strives for a “message disciple” that will guide the narrative in the news. In that regard, the emergence of social media and the blogosphere is a double-edged sword. Today’s leaders have direct access to the public — but, paradoxically, even less influence over what story line or incident might go viral.

“I remember when I did my first presidential campaign in 1992 and we thought it was so novel that we were working with three news cycles a day,” said Lehane, political director for Clin- ton-Gore. “Today that would be like bringing a horse and buggy to the Indianapolis 500. Today there are news cycles within news cycles within news cycles. And you really can’t control things in the way you used to.”

From the very start of his first term, Obama has had a decidedly fraught relationship with media scrutiny. On Day One, the White House press corps was prohibited from photographing the new president at work. On Day Two, some journalists openly bristled at the limited access — with no still or video photographers — to the do-over of his oath of office. On Day Three, Obama appeared irritated when he ventured into the White House Press room and reporters had the audacity to ask him substantive questions.

Most transparent administration in history? He appears unlikely to even match the number of news conferences large and small conducted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was hardly a champion of transparency.

In fairness, Obama has initiated some significant strides toward open government. He revoked Bush’s secrecy order on the Presidential Records Act. He restored the Clinton-era standard of “maximum responsible disclosure” on the Freedom of Information Act. He instructed agencies to be more circumspect in classifying information.

Yet this is the administration that has prosecuted more leakers under the century-old Espionage Act than all of his predecessors combined. He has continued to defy one of his campaign lines by invoking the state secrets privilege to keep classified information out of court proceedings or to force the dismissal of lawsuits.

The rebellion by the White House press corps to access restrictions is as welcome as it is overdue. The tug-ofwar between a White House determined to control access and narratives and journalists trying to find out what really is going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is expected and healthy. Americans who want an accountable government should get worried when the press corps doesn’t push back.

This administration has needed that prod. It is falling well short of Obama’s promise to be the most transparent president in U.S. history.