Obama Plays Virtual Softball

Was the president’s online town hall anything more than a PR stunt?

White House photo by Chuck Kennedy.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Government engagement of the citizenry via online technology is something to cheer. But the White House’s first-ever online town hall, held on Thursday, was hardly revolutionary in its content.

Almost 93,000 people participated in the town hall by contributing 104,000 questions that could potentially be put to President Barack Obama and by voting on the questions. Was this a significant level of participation? Perhaps. Obama, though, has said that he receives 40,000 letters at the White House each day. And 13 million people signed up to support the Obama campaign. On the other hand, only 3000 people submitted video questions for the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate.

Talking before a small audience in the East Room of the White House—in a scene set up well for the television cameras—Obama responded to questions that had been submitted online. And each query–even though voted to the top of the pile by the online participants—was rather conventional. The first essentially asked, what would you do to improve education in the United States? It was a softball. And Obama was off, providing his customary talking points about education. He certainly gave a substantive answer, calling for the right sort of reforms and for the right sort of increased funding, but it was nothing he hasn’t said many times before.

Question two, from Heather in Ohio, asked what Obama’s stimulus plan would do for those folks who are paying their mortgages but living from paycheck to paycheck. Obama launched into a long explanation of his administration’s plan to deal with the mortgage crisis, noting that interest rates have dropped and that many homeowners can now refinance their mortgages. Again, substantive and detailed, but nothing he hasn’t covered several times in recent weeks.

And so it went—for only half-a-dozen questions. That’s as many online queries as he fielded. There were no follow-ups. So the president could not be pressed on any points. The online participants, at this point, were passive—unlike the reporters at the recent presidential pres conference, who were allowed to push Obama after his initial answer to their questions.

And the White House violated the spirit of the endeavor by slyly undermining the effort of the online participants to place an unconventional question before the president. Of the 104,113 questions submitted, a number of them concerned marijuana legalization, and—whaddayaknow!—many of these questions were voted up the chain by the online participants. But rather than respond to a serious query on this subject, Obama pointed out that one of the more popular questions was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy. “I don’t know what this says about the online audience,” he joked. The crowd giggled. Thus, Obama avoided truly confronting an issue deemed significant by many of the citizens who bothered to join in.

After answering those six online question on obvious topics, Obama handled queries from members of the audience in the East Room. And it was a typical town hall performance. He gave lengthy and substantive replies, sounding intelligent and engaged, without making news.

All in all, this White House session—virtual or not—was much like a campaign event. It was designed to be a platform in which the president would look confident, in command, and smart (admittedly an easy assignment). None of the questions or questioners were challenging. He was not forced to deal with issues he doesn’t usually. This virtual/real meeting did not expand the debate beyond the usual inside-the-Beltway confines. It was still mostly a top-down event. So cynics might be tempted to label it a stunt. The question is whether it will lead to further development of practices that might actually enhance online civic participation in a manner that does empower citizens. Otherwise, such events will be more about the expropriation of technology than empowerment through technology

UPDATE: Turns out–no surprise–that the people who asked questions after the online queries had been invited to the White House for the session. Hand-picking questioners does seem to conflict with the aim of letting citizens propose and then select (by voting) questions the president should answer. Also, though Obama dismissed the marijuana legalization issue by referring to an easy-to-laugh-at question, reporters at the subsequent White House daily briefing asked repeatedly about Obama’s handling of the matter and his position on legalization (he’s against it). So those citizens who had organized and voted up questions on marijuana legalization were indeed able to elbow their way into the conversation. For them, the virtual town hall meeting might have paid off–even though Obama had belittled their questions.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate