rss feedAn online channel fills a void (of sorts) with sharp, colorful videos – and help from you
In recent months, I’ve found myself gravitating toward this site’s crystal clear videos – many of which cover fascinating topics, the pinnacle of power and behind-the-scene glimpses at a world I typically don’t see.
The professionally-made videos tell a story as well as capture historic moments. Plus, there are plenty of videos from which to choose.
Am I talking about Vimeo? YouTube? Hulu? PBS? Network or cable news? National Geographic?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
To the online hip and especially Inside-the-Beltway types, just say – or rather type: WH.gov.
To the old-fashioned, spell it out: WhiteHouse.gov.
That’s right. It’s a site that relies on support from the unwitting generosity of U.S. taxpayers.
Just thinking about that reminds me that I’m sure one person will say: “Hey, I never wanted my tax money to be used in that way.”
All I can say is that budgeting and the federal government can be complex – and that respecting the budgetary wish of every single taxpayer can be, well, tricky.
WhiteHouse.gov, and as others have noted, make sure you type .gov, was once a site that we expected to be static with official emblems and portraits.
It was a place where the public might have felt connected to the Commander-in-Chief if the phone number for the switchboard operator was found easily or there was fast information on taking a tour.
It now has online chats, which incorporate Facebook, the president’s speeches and government officials discussing topics ”In Their Own Words.”
It’s kind of like a social media channel has merged with a television news station.
So, what are you interested in?
How about an interesting look at why President Barack Obama uses so many pens when he signs a bill into law?
I actually like that clip because I learned something about life outside the presidential spotlight, just as I gained new insight when I asked why the Supreme Court didn’t pursue a social media strategy such as the White House.
Keep in mind, when I wrote that post, the Supreme Court had a blue homepage. It’s now red and the site has been revamped.
There are serious, sobering topics, too, such as talks on financial reform, Wall Street, the Supreme Court and job creation. But they are from the White House’s perspective.
In terms of U.S. history and the presidency, the White House posted a video of a meeting with the late Civil Rights pioneer Dorothy Height.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is featured in a segment – “In Her Own Words” – about possibly ascending to the highest court in the country.
But absent in these White House videos are independent journalists – meaning that a company pays their salaries.
Yes, I know. Many people consider some in the White House press corps to be pesky, prone to asking horse-race style questions that might be more Inside-the-Beltway than applicable to the challenges facing average people in the country.
I know there can be sniping, griping and grumbling from press corps members.
But journalists – and I once was one – do try to hold elected and other government leaders to account. In many ways, we do well. In other ways, the learning curve remains.
Certainly, those who blog regularly – which I am now doing – can ask questions to hold leaders to account. They can break news. But just as any rookie journalist will tell you, there is a learning curve with everything.
Keep in mind that centuries ago, when the colonists looked to London for directives, there was no way to hold leaders to account.
I admit that a representative democracy means that a variety of people are allowed in the tent. By definition, then, you’re going to have brilliant questions as well as ones you might think are dopey.
Also, as mainstream journalism in the United States has undergone a seismic shift in recent years – with cutbacks (and the recent news of Newsweek being put up for sale) - the rise of using online platforms to communicate directly with people has taken off.
Back when President George W. Bush lived in the White House, I thought media affairs and public outreach hit a new high with all of that elaborate stage setting and lighting.
Now, take for example, the White House online show called the “West Wing Week” – which is “your guide to everything happening” at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
It’s not This Week, the ABC News show once hosted by David Brinkley, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson or George Stephanopoulos.
And it’s not the West Wing, that popular NBC drama about life inside the White House.
Some video clips do carry the quality that a documentary filmmaker was behind the work.
One example is footage of First Lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, touring earthquake-caused damage in Haiti.
Their visit certainly brought more attention to the need for relief efforts. But as any journalist will tell you, that video clip was, essentially, filter free.
As a side note, and for fans of Olympic athlete Apolo Ohno, you can watch him read “Green Eggs and Ham” at this year’s White House Easter egg roll.
The explosion, of sorts, of online videos posted on the White House’s Website comes at a time when some in the White House press corps feel that the president isn’t as accessible to them as compared to others.
POLITICO wrote about this tension recently, saying that some White House journalists feel that these government-produced videos are “gauzy.”
But, of course, they are no substitute for the good old-fashioned, shoe-leather journalism that involves asking questions (sometimes with a point and repeatedly).
Yes, the White House posted a video of the president answering questions from the White House press corps on an Air Force One flight.
I understand the White House perspective that incorrect stories – even if just partially wrong – can cause headaches and extra work.
I also am aware that government agencies, companies and individuals reserve the right to pick the best way they want to communicate with others.
But questions, especially ones from journalists or the public, asked on a regular basis matter.
In 2008, I had the opportunity to ask the Dalai Lama a question at a press conference during his visit to Seattle.
It essentially was: “Why do you think the Chinese government would be willing to do anything that you’re asking?”
His answer was nuance-filled, non-linear, informative, insightful, full of history - and probably one of the best ones that I’ve heard in my career of, well, asking questions.
I guess all of this points to a question that Stephen Colbert asked about the role of facts in society: Will people care about them?
Or in a related way, will people care if the facts that they receive in a given segment or interview only come from one perspective?
Oh, yes. Since I linked to the White House and its social media efforts, here’s what the Chinese Central Government has online and in English for President Hu Jintao.
