With the resignation of White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, there has been an alarming notion put forth by some that there is no longer a need for a press secretary. This assertion has been made based on the fact that on-camera briefings have become infrequent. Critics speculate that the only job of the press secretary is to brief the media and therefore no briefings – no press secretary.
This opinion shows a lack of understanding regarding the vital role, responsibilities and history of the White House press secretary.
From its inception, the press secretary role has had a contentious relationship with members of the media due to the very nature of the position. The press secretary does not work for the media, they work for the president of the United States who was duly elected by the people. That does not mean that the press secretary should not uphold the right of a free press. He or she must balance the need to communicate the position of the administration and advocate for the media to that same administration, all while putting the need of informing the public first and foremost.
The responsibility of presidential secretaries meeting daily with reporters goes as far back as 1898 during William McKinley’s presidency. However, the first official White House press secretary was George Akerson, appointed by President Herbert Hoover in 1929. The recording of press briefings was not allowed until the 1950s during the Eisenhower administration and these recordings were edited for what was considered the most newsworthy portions before they were released to the public. John F. Kennedy became the first president to hold a live televised news conference and the custom of regular live televised briefings did not begin until President Bill Clinton took office.
I mention all of this to highlight the fact that the live press briefing, as we know it today has been around less than 30 years. Before that, the interaction between presidents and the media ranged from almost nonexistent to frequent, informal to formal. Each administration, for various reasons, chose its own way of working with the media. To assume that the number of live press briefing equates to the importance or lack thereof of the press secretary role or whether or not information is being communicated is erroneous.
Communication can come in the form of impromptu, off-camera questions and answers sessions, statements, press releases, etc. As long as the media is not inhibited from doing their job then the first amendment, which guarantees the government shall not abridge the freedom of the press, has not been violated.
Whether it is a democratic or republican administration, there have always been criticisms about the type and/or frequency of access that is given to the media. Not getting the answers that are wanted or enough opportunities to ask questions at a live briefing does not stop a journalist from doing their job. Does it make it harder? Yes, but not impossible.
The acceptable volume of information and the frequency at which it is given can be debated and in fact, has for been for years but what cannot be debated is the importance of having a qualified communication strategist in the role of press secretary.
Daily press briefings are not the only nor, dare I say, the most important aspect of their responsibilities. The most important aspect of their job takes place behind closed doors, away from public view and it is rarely ever appreciated – the collecting, analyzing and fighting for the release of information they believe is of value to the public.
Before interacting with the media, a press secretary does all he or she can do to make the case for the release of information that is important to not only the media but also the general public.
But once in front of the podium, a press secretary must be the face of the administration, disseminating the information that was approved by the president. That is a fact that every press secretary has had to face, no matter their political party and we should not see the role as less valuable just because we don’t agree with the message or how it is communicated.
Instead of debating if a press secretary is needed, we should be insistent that ways be found to build a more mutually beneficial relationship between whoever occupies the role of press secretary and the media. The only way this will ever happen is if there is professional respect from both sides and an understanding that each role has an important job to do. This doesn’t mean that either side has to agree with the other, in fact, healthy dissent can be a positive thing. But when either side makes it more about themselves and pointing fingers than they do about the American public, then we all lose.