Still, the meetings are very much “off the record” in the sense that the White House stalwartly refuses to discuss any of the details, including who was in attendance. The answer to such inquiries is almost always the same.

“In addition to giving press conferences and interviews, the President meets on occasion with groups of reporters and columnists for off-the-record discussions,” said Eric Schultz, the White House Deputy Press Secretary. “We don’t provide lists of participants.”

Such secrecy can stoke conspiracy theories about a liberal media plot — never mind that the president also meets with conservatives like Krauthammer and Gigot.

It’s also worth noting that the tradition of off-the-record meetings has long been a fixture of the presidency, extending at least as far back as the 1830’s, when Andrew Jackson held private meetings with Francis Preston Blair, whom he had invited to Washington with the express interest that he become editor of the Washington Globe.

The modern practice of “off-the-record meetings,” however, was set in place by President Bill Clinton and his former press secretary, Mike McCurry.

In March of 1996, on a night-flight from Israel to Washington, McCurry came up with the concept of the “psych-background” session, in which reporters were not allowed to record, take notes, or directly attribute Clinton’s remarks — which, that night, ran to almost three hours. The point was simply to let reporters have a better sense of the president’s thinking.

“It’s useful to provide situations where people can get sense of what’s on the president’s mind,” McCurry told POLITICO.

The result, which even Clinton himself made fun of in his address at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner later that year, was that his remarks were attributed to an anonymous figure described as “the highest authority.” In the Washington Post, John Harris, now the editor-in-chief of POLITICO, wrote that McCurry had taken “the controversial Washington practice of anonymous sources and ‘background conversations’ to an unprecedented level.”

But “psych background” was also a way of avoiding the grief of a presidential gaffe. Seven months earlier, Clinton had casually suggested on the record that the country was in a “funk,” which the press likened to Jimmy Carter’s politically disastrous remarks on American malaise.

Like the Clinton White House and the Bush White House after it, the Obama White House sees such off-the-record meetings as a chance for the president to speak his mind without having to worry about accidentally stepping on a land mine. And by giving the president that freedom, journalists come away with a better understanding of the president’s motivations and worldview.

“I’m not going to deny that we hope this informs people’s reporting — the point is to have a good discussion, but also to deepen their understanding of our perspective,” the source familiar with the president’s thinking said.

Few columnists see an ethical problem in attending such “off the record” meetings, as they provide a greater understanding of the president’s thinking.

“I understand the suspicions, but in my experience these meetings do not involve exchange of any secrets; rather, they are way for officials to expand and explain their positions in little more open way that allows me to better understand what is going on,” Washington Examiner columnist Byron York wrote on Twitter after attending this month’s meeting with conservative columnists.

Still, Patrick Pexton, the former Washington Post ombudsman, wishes journalists would band together and demand that meetings be held on-the-record.

“I don’t think it’s a huge ethical thing. For me it’s about strength — the press is extraordinarily weak right now,” Pexton told POLITICO. “It would make the press stronger if we said ‘No,’ if we made the White House come to us on our terms, rather than the other way around.” He acknowledged that such hopes were “a little pollyannaish.”

Meanwhile, reporters envy the columnists’ access to the president, and complain of watching their contemporaries funnel in and out of the Roosevelt Room while they remain held at bay in the briefing room.

“Months and months and months can go by where the people that cover him never get a chance to ask a question in public or have any interaction with him off-the-record,” said one reporter.

Still, Obama’s preference for columnists surprises few. Both reporters and columnists believe he prefers talking to people who are thinking about — and willing to be influenced on — grand concepts, rather than those who might pepper him with questions about day-to-day events and process. Indeed, in an effort to ween White House staff off their obsession with the “who’s up, who’s down” Washington culture, he has encouraged them to spend less time watching MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and more time watching ESPN’s “Sports Center.”

“Every president likes these sessions, because unlike negotiations with congress, which is hard and where the president has to yield ground, these sessions are a chance for the president to get on his high horse and opine,” Fleischer explained.

Obama does opine: journalists said that one reason the off-the-record meetings run so long is because the president spends so much time talking: “The confidence he exudes in these sessions is even greater than the confidence he exudes in public,” one attendee said. “And, as in public, it’s the president who does most of the talking.”

Still, no one doubts that the president values hearing the thoughts and opinions of his contemporaries.

“The president cares a lot more about the opinions of Fred Hiatt or Tom Friedman than he does about the average U.S. Senator,” said one journalist. “He’s naturally predisposed to analysis. In his own mind, that’s what he is: he’s like us. He wants to be a writer, and so he likes to talk to writers.”

Follow @politico