After a bitterly contentious and combative four-year relationship between the Trump Administration and the media, expectations grew that the election of President Joe Biden would usher in a new era of comity and mutual respect.

It took only two weeks to puncture that balloon when verified accounts surfaced that communications office staffers had requested that reporters inform them of the questions they intended to pose to press secretary Jen Psaki at the daily briefings.

At the outset, the office implemented a process of identifying in advance reporters to call on by name rather than follow the “raise your hand and I’ll recognize you” tradition.

The attempt to convince reporters to share the substance, if not the details, of their questions pre- briefing went a step too far, however, bringing pushback from the White House Correspondents Association which advised reporters to refuse to accede to such requests or to ignore them altogether.

The staff effort to obtain pre-knowledge of media questions was a clumsy and amateurish act committed by individuals still flush with victory and determined to exercise total control of their newly discovered environment, one which placed them at or near the center of power — an exhilarating place but one which can skew perspective and reflective thought.

The press office readily acknowledged it had solicited questions from reporters but claimed it was an innocent effort to foster better relations with the press corps by enhancing the ability to answer inquiries rather than appearing to dodge them with non-responses.

The rationale deserves repeating in full to recognize it as an exercise in damage control: “Our goal is to make the daily briefing as useful and informative as possible for both reporters and the public. Part of meeting that objective means regularly engaging with reporters who will be in the briefing room to understand how the White House can be most helpful in getting them the information they need.  That two-way conversation is an important part of keeping the American people updated about how government is serving them.”

You see?  It was all an effort to help.  Nothing nefarious about it at all.

The statement is nonsensical butt-covering hogwash.  Access to the myriad social media platforms and their ability to reach millions of people in an instant has become the most powerful communications tool for any Administration, allowing it to freely speak without filter, provide information and drive its message over the heads of traditional media.  It is exceedingly disingenuous to argue — as the Administration statement does — that  “engaging with reporters helps them understand how the White House can be most helpful in getting them the information they need” or that “the two-way conversation is an important part of keeping the American people updated about how government is serving them.”

 The reporters who were approached and asked to reveal their questions didn’t quite see it in the same innocent light, concerned that their acquiescence would be seen as their coordinating with the Administration.

Said one: “The press can’t really do its job in the briefing room if the White House is picking and choosing the questions they want.  That’s not really a free press at all.”

There is an odor of blackmail about it all as well — Tell us what questions you want to ask and we’ll call on you.  Otherwise, you’re just a face in the crowd.

A sizeable slice of the electorate already believes the media openly and shamelessly sided with Biden in the campaign, protecting him and the “keep him in the basement with the teleprompter” campaign strategy.  Trust in the media as an institution has tumbled to an all-time low.

The Administration attempt to preview reporters’ questions only serves to validate the widespread belief that the media serves a partisan purpose and slants its coverage to reflect it.  It has raised its sensitivity level and any hint of its collaboration with the Administration — such as sharing questions — is cause for alarm.

It is somewhat understandable that a press secretary is sensitive to appearing uninformed or forced to plead a lack of knowledge concerning a specific issue.  It is, however, not fatal to admit to it and promise to follow up with the requested information.

It is, of course, considerably easier to ace the test when you have the answers 24 hours in advance.

Daily contact with reporters as well as access to all manner of news sources provides ample opportunity for communications office staffers to remain abreast of developments and from that knowledge conclude at least a general idea of a potential line of questions.

Even though the Administration is less than a month old and still in a quasi-honeymoon period, Psaki has received generally favorable reviews.

Whatever embarrassment created by the suggestion that she is incapable of responding to unanticipated questions and requires time to rehearse her answers will likely be temporary.

The entire episode can be chalked up to an unforced error by inexperienced staffers, but the lesson has presumably been learned and a repeat will carry consequences.

The reporters who brought the incident to light deserve commendation as well as does the Correspondents Association for publicly rebuking the Administration approach.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University.  He served as press secretary to Gov. Thomas H. Kean for eight years and in a similar capacity for Gov. Christie Whitman for three years.