The Chicago Tribune has a fascinating account of the Obama White House’s tight management of non-political media designed to bolster the First Family’s image. When Americans see a story purporting to offer a genuine glimpse into the ”everyday” details of Obama’s family life, they’re actually consuming the product of a carefully crafted public-relations strategy.

The tone of the piece features a heavy dose of typical MSM adulation, tempered by a trace of caution. It’s as if the correspondents can’t quite decide whether the strategy is unambiguously brilliant, a bit cynical, or even slightly creepy. It’s not hard to see why:

Like a reality show set on the glorified soundstage at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the details of one family’s life have captivated the country — if not the world — making the Obamas seem within reach, an ordinary family that just happens to be living an extraordinary existence.
These glimpses into President Barack Obama’s household are far from spontaneous. Instead, they are part of a careful strategy that has helped bolster the new president’s popularity and political clout — even as he promotes some economic policies, such as bailouts for banks and automakers, that lack broad appeal.
The White House, eager to cultivate an image-making media machine that thrives on personality, has invited coverage from such outlets as television’s “Access Hollywood” and “Extra.” Aides dole out exclusives accordingly, acutely aware of the shelf life for cover stories in glamor and celebrity magazines.
Administration officials have even studied the economics of paparazzi photography, strategically releasing images of the family to diminish the monetary value of unauthorized pictures and give the White House more control over how the family is portrayed. In return for access, celebrity news outlets must refuse to publish unauthorized pictures — or risk being cut off by the White House.

The economics of paparazzi photography?! It is nearly impossible to read the full article without thinking back to those effective, and depressingly prescient, “celebrity” ads the McCain campaign ran in the fall. Stuart Rothenberg recently dubbed Obama the first “Entertainment Tonight president.” He cites an administration eagerly catering to the news-lite segment of the media in order to maintain “Obama’s appeal high among those Americans who really don’t care a great deal about politics.” In other words, as long as Access Hollywood viewers remain enthralled with his daughters’ adorable puppy, his wife’s toned arms, or his workout iPod playlist, they’re much more likely to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on actual policy matters.

The piece concludes with this quote:

“[The White House is] aware of the 360-degree appeal of [Obama] and his family,” said Larry Hackett, managing editor of People and a participant in the January meeting with transition officials. “The family can make him more relatable, more attractive, which are good things. So they’re trying to find that space between crass exploitation and satisfying the public interest.”

I suspect the limits of such “crass exploitation” are dictated by its perceived political benefit. But perhaps I’ve said too much. I’d better stop, lest the White House Office of Paparazzi Management cut me off.