 }})
It’s all good, and thanks for the compliment. This is just one of those areas where I think we tend to talk past each other a little.
My work is very press-centered. I was even an assistant press secretary at one point. And, ironically, I have my own frustrations with the media too — there have definitely been times when they have made life difficult for me and for my clients.
That said, there are absolutely ways for reporters to get accurate information even when the main person at the center of the story is not speaking directly to the press. In fact, the main source usually is not the one talking. More often, it is the people around them. My clients rarely speak directly to the media, but they speak to other people, including me, and through those conversations reporters can often get a very good sense of what the client is thinking without ever talking to the client directly.
You generally seem to agree with that point when we talk about it in the abstract. But then when a specific situation comes up, you go back to the position that if the main source is not talking to the media, then there is no way for reporters to know anything. From my experience, that is just not how it works. I know there are other ways because I have had to operate in that world myself, and I have seen it play out plenty of times. And like you, I have followed Keim forever. Years ago, I was even on a Zoom where Keim explained this exact dynamic to fans, and it was exactly what I have been describing.
So I will let it go the next time it comes up. But that is really the rub for me in these debates. It is not about whether you like Keim or whether I do. It is about a very basic media reality that I deal with all the time. In the middle of these debates, it sometimes feels like you are implying that this is not how things work, when I know from direct experience that it very much is. That is why I can sound sensitive about it.
But no hard feelings at all, and sorry if I come off snippy sometimes. It is all in good spirits.
