The briefing room has always been a cage fight, so it might as well have judges

I disagree.

I do not dispute the critics’ facts. The president has indeed offered the post of White House press secretary to the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and Mr White has indeed said he will travel to Washington to discuss it. I dispute their conclusion. Their objection, broadly, is that this would turn the briefing room into a combat arena. I have read a great many briefing transcripts, and I regret to inform the critics that it already is one. It simply has no rules.

Consider the conventional briefing as administrations of every stripe have practised it. Two parties enter a room. One tries to land a question. The other tries to avoid it, usually by circling, clinching and referring the questioner to an earlier statement. Nobody keeps score and nobody is declared the winner. Everybody leaves claiming victory, and the next morning both sides issue statements to that effect. In any other sport this would be called a no contest, and the crowd would be entitled to a refund.

A promoter would at least bring structure. I envisage three five-minute rounds, with a one-minute interval in which correspondents may be sponged down and told by their editors to go for the body. Three ringside judges would score each exchange on the ten-point must system. One would come from the Government Accountability Office, one from the National Archives and one would be drawn by lot from the public. A dodged question would cost a point, and I’d refer you to the campaign would cost two. We’ll get back to you on that would be scored as a knockdown unless the press secretary did, in fact, get back to them. I have allowed for that possibility in the paperwork, though I do not expect it to arise.

The weigh-in also has merit. Before each briefing, both the podium and the press corps would submit their material for inspection, and any statement over the agreed limit of substance-free adjectives would be fined. I made an estimate this morning using a ruler and a stack of old transcripts. By that estimate, the average briefing answer currently exceeds the limit by roughly 340 per cent.

Critics say all this signals an unserious White House. I would argue the reverse. At present, the public cannot tell whether a briefing went well or badly. They must rely on cable panels whose members were not, strictly speaking, in the room. Under my arrangement, a scorecard would be published within the hour: 29–28, split decision, press corps. In the matter of press relations, that is more accountability than the republic has been offered since 1789.

Then there is the timing. The president’s party has just been comprehensively outpointed at the midterms. That contest, unusually, had judges, and they published their cards. It seems only natural to want the same clarity at the podium.

I note reports that Mr White may decline. If he does, I ask only that the post not be left largely vacant again, as it has been since August. It should instead go to a qualified referee. The briefing has never needed a better fighter. It has needed someone, at last, to stop it.