This is a stinker. Based on the previous reviews, I was actually surprised that the claims in the article were qualified at all, but Derek's point scuttles the whole thing. The headline and most of the article go after Obama for being less open to the press than Bush, but then Curl tries to sneak by the fact that THIS IS NOT TRUE in the last paragraph.

This isn't a totally irrelevant story, but the Washington Times heavily editorializes the issue of Obama's press relations. For one, no, Obama has not "topped" Bush at "ducking" reporters—read the last paragraph. The reporter gives the single source from the White House Press Association space to vent her frustrations unchecked—and for all the talk of the White House's obstinance, doesn't even seek response from the communications office.

What a biased, petty and misleading article! The Washington Times lives up to its dismal reputation as a news provider with this report. It makes a mountain out of a molehill to make it sound like Obama avoids interviews with reporters -- then admits all the way at the end that in fact Obama gave more interviews than Bush in the same period. Besides this misinformation, only a single source is cited, and very little context. This is right-wing advocacy, not journalism.

"Church of the savvy" at play here. Not only that – but a heavily partisan take. The article isn't constructive and presents information as fact that cannot be verified and is arguable.

This story correctly reports on the fact that Obama hasn't had a full-fledged q and a with the whole press corp since last summer. But it uses this as a narrowly disguised partisan attack, rather than thoughtfully considering how Obama handles the press differently than his predecessors.

This story appears to be engineered toward the intended argument.

Essentially single-source story, and the source describes herself on Twitter as a "crap journalist."

This story is not quality Journalism because it expresses a very one sided view and does not contain creditable sources. I felt this was more of a way to attack President Obama rather than an actual news story

The assumption that the only communication between the press and the president is a formal press conference is erroneous; FDR,among other presidents, regularly spoke with reporters in informal settings (and communicated freely and openly). Also, the reporter who is usually the first to protest at the lack of presidential contact is UPI's Helen Thomas, who is not quoted here. Also, Knoller himself is not quoted — why? Of all the people in this story, he might have the most perspective on what the 215-day record means, since he keeps track of it.

This is not a quality article. It offers no real insight to the issue, contradicts itself, and only relies on one source.

The author listed two sources, both of which were not very credible. Relying on other "reporters" as sources is not unbiased at all. Who is this Mark Knoller guy? Simply because he is a veteran reporter does not make him a reliable source who keeps accurate records. And who is Julie Mason? A "longtime White House reporter"... for what publication. All her quotes were pure opinion. The author also blatantly tried to dismiss the press conferences that President Obama DID have.

I would like some more context, such as the gaps that other presidents, not Bush or Obama, had between press conferences.

This article reads more like an opinion piece than a well-researched article. Not my bag, baby.

No not really. The story is biased, and draws on a point that is not very relevant. Just because President Obama does not show up on primetime TV, doesn't mean that he is not addressing the public.

It is not, because it takes a statistic that is verifiable but takes it out of context.

It's only in the last paragraph that we find out Obama's output is actually 2 times bigger than Bush's.

Not really

I left the "Do you trust the publication" blank, because I'm not at all familiar with the Washington Times. Additionally, I'm admittedly an Obama fan, so I don't like the editorializing this writer did, calling the last full-length press conference "disasterous."

I don't buy into the unstated stipulation that Obama must schedule frequent press conferences, much less 'pressers'.

The headline is completely wrong, according to the last paragraph of the same article! Either Curl or his editors make a liar out of themselves.

No, only one source, and he also doesn't really make a point; the lede is about Obama's "pledge to establish the most open and transparent administration in history," but the article never addresses that again.

it has facts (dates, figures) but then it takes those facts and jumps to a conclusion/analysis that is not necessarily fair. it uses facts to back up a view, rather than deriving the view form the facts.

The reporter uses quotes to prove a point. It is simply false that President Obama has not held a formal press conference in the past 215 days. Most sources are to the right.

Part of quality journalism is contrasting various sources, but in this story we only get our information from one woman, Miss Masson. Although it includes a few of facts, it does not provide more than one opinion.

A very biased tone and ultimately self-contradicting nature bogs the reader in an unfortunate soup.

This is not quality journalism because the story only includes one person that is quoted, Julie Mason. The writer does not include other sources that would give a wide range of opinions. There were also many other articles from other publications that covered the same topic.

No, because the reporter uses slang and the sources are not varied and do not seem too knowledgeable. It is also hard to follow the timeline of the story and hard to know why interviews are not as good as a press conference.