Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Pitney vs. Milbank: Free controversy!

by Paul Wells on Monday, June 29, 2009 8:30am - 39 Comments

The guy from the Huffington Post gets the guy from the Washington Post all huffy, after Barack Obama called on Pitney to ask a question from a Real Iranian last week. I’m left wondering when Dana Milbank, who was hired to be irreverent, appointed himself Gallery Cop. Anyway, enjoy:

Here’s Dana upholding the rigorous standards of the profession. To be clear: There’s nothing wrong with dressing up like a dork for a cheap larf. I try to do it at least twice a month. But it makes you look like you’re maybe a bit of a pathetic old-media hack if you act like this and then get all shirty at a blogger.

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    I'd like to know the extent to which this sort of practice is common (reporters being solicited by the White House to ask questions during press conferences). It seems to me that the President is perfectly capable of issuing a statement on anything he wants outside the confines of the official press conference, and that such events are essentially shams if staged.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      P.S.: There's only one 'l' in the jerkish Mr. Milbank's name,

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

        Ah. Fixed. Thanks.

  • D-R

    The outfit Milbank had on to mock Cheny's little hunting problem was funnier.

    There seems to quite a hissy fit over an online organization asking more substantive questions than the press corps usually manages.

    Really though, no one from a hack newspaper like the Washington Post should be lecturing people.

  • Wassim

    Bill Clinton did the same thing back in 1995 with a CBC reporter. The question was planted and Clinton acted as though he was caught off guard with regards to Quebec sovereignty. After stuttering briefly and biting his lower-lip, Clinton essentially said he would prefer it if Québec voted "no". It countered Jacques Chirac's statement on CNN's Larry King essentially saying the opposite. The questioned seemed out of the blue but it made huge waves in Canada and especially in Québec.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      But this was not a planted question: the WH has flat-out denied that they knew the contents of the question beforehand: all they did was invite Pitney to produce a question about Iran (on which he had been blogging feverishly, in constant contact with actual Iranian protesters). The Press Secretary stated flatly "that Mr. Pitney was not told that he would get a question for sure and did not tell the White House what it would be if he did." That is not a planted question, it is an attempt to break the MSM stranglehold on our political discourse while allowing real Iranians to collaborate in asking the POTUS a question.

  • http://drivenmag.com Eric Grant

    "There’s nothing wrong with dressing up like a dork for a cheap larf. I try to do it at least twice a month."

    Pics or it didn't happen.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    There were more, and they were funnier, but IntenseDebate is SuckingIntensely and it ate the links. Try this:

    http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/img_8…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    There were more, and they were funnier, but IntenseDebate is SuckingIntensely and it ate the links. Try this:

    http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/img_8…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    There were more, and they were funnier, but IntenseDebate is SuckingIntensely and it ate the links. Try this:

    http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/img_8…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    There were more, and they were funnier, but IntenseDebate is SuckingIntensely and it ate the links. Try this:

    http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/img_8…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ScottFeschuk ScottFeschuk

      Hang on – that suit is completely respectable! what you're doing there is "making a dorky face for a cheap larf," which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

      paul wells: he can't be trusted.

      • http://drivenmag.com Eric Grant

        Cosign … although that expression should be the one in the picture at the top of your column.

    • John D

      You let Stephen Taylor be in your rock band? SHAME.

  • RayK

    This whole controversy is serious nonsense.

    Obama didn't know what the question was in advance. Both Obama and Pitney were totally up front about what they were doing. But Dana Milbank has repeatedly used dishonest phrasing to imply otherwise.

    In his original WaPo article Milbank claimed that Pitney didn't give the White House the "exact wording" of his question–implying that Pitney did tell them what the question would be, just not the "exact wording". On Reliable Sources Milbank claimed that Pitney was told he could ask a question on Iran if he asked it "in a certain way". Both of these accusations are false.

    The fact is that, substantively, this effort to allow a reporter to ask a question from an ordinary Iranian is no different than a presidential debate in which an independent moderator selects pre-screened questions from the audience. The only difference here is that the internet had allowed this to be done in new ways and it is pissing off "old media" types like Milbank.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      Am I the only one concerned that the president is staging his press conference with a planned dance card? The phrasing of the question might have been up to the reporter, but to have an understanding that the question will be formatted in a certain way, and with a fairly tightly defined topic, is crossing the line I'd say. Not too far from Harper's infomercial with D***y.

      But I wonder what others think?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        But it wasn't a softball question at all. It was “Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of the — of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

          I agree Jack – and in that respect the Harper-D***y comparison is unfair. I can understand a politician limiting a press conference to a specific topic. They obviously have the power to call upon reporters as they choose, which can provide a fair level of editorial control. But I'm simply uncomfortable with ostensibly open press conferences being managed to that degree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like the idea of journalists deciding what best serves the public interest when given an opportunity to ask a question at a presser. It's not like Obama isn't free to issue press releases addressing hard questions.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            1) I agree with Jack that the Q was not soft-ball.

            2) I hope the sentiments that you describe – that the media should have the power to determine what they deem is in the public interest and act on it – is not old-fashioned. Like you I think it is vital to our democracy.

            3) i think that getting to select the Qs, in combo with a few other contemporary/recent history innovations like no /limited follow ups, is sufficient to disrupt the utility of press conferences. As Wells, in particular has illuminated here, having to wait a week to get to your follow up in a short run campaign is not just frustrating but detrimental to the objective of an informed electorate, without even having to formally orchestrate/directly intervene behind the scenes. and that does not even get into all the other dumb shenanigans like off the record pressers by the PMs spokespeople, etc. (ps I don't care who did it first).

            4) all that being said, whenever a public figure takes a public question from a particular interest group as part of any event (press conference, bbq, orangutan parade) I pretty much take it for what it is – the Q&A equivalent of kissing babies – and adjust my outrage dial according (-5). to the degree that it happens to be a great question (this case) and gets a honest answer (not this case), well, gravy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

            OK, you and Jack have convinced me. Unknotting shorts as I write this….

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            just don't untwist them too far….i think you and I and Jack all agree there is still lots out there to be upset with re pols and the media….lets just all hone in on what exactly it is that deserves scorn.

      • RayK

        But Obama didn't know that the question would be "formatted in a certain way" and have "a fairly tightly defined topic".

        All that Obama knew was that it would be a question from an Iranian. It's impossible to solicit questions from the public–on any topic–without the subject knowing about it. And that happens all the time in debates, townhalls, etc..

        The US has never had the custom of allowing reporters themselves to decide who asks questions.

  • Anon

    "bet on it." Pardon me, I'm sure.

  • Egg Head

    Some good points in Milbank's defense are made here:

    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    The question was not planted. The questioner was. But it doesn't matter because The Man didn't really
    answer it anyway.

    Also a useful distraction from the flak the Post is catching for dumping Dan Froomkin …

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d…

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    The old media are dead. Only those who have altered their habits of thought, like Maclean's, will survive. All these old (and young) print-only journalism hacks who think the world owes them a living for being so bright and so covered in dandruff will soon be falling like grass before the scythe of change.

    • Anon

      Don't be on it. What sells is still despairingly dumb.

  • Canuckistanian

    what a non-controversy. milbank manages to look sillier on cnn than in his ridiculous vaudevillian act…impressive feat considering how stupid and corny the latter is.

    as someone said up-thread; milbank works for the wash post, the most hacktacular publication around…enough said.

  • http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com Candace

    Why isn't Dana enraged about the woman who was asking Obama about his smoking? THAT was pretty stupid and I hope she gets to listen to *crickets* instead of the president calling on her for another question in future press conferences.

    I've been following Nico's postings on Iran and he's been covering it non-stop, and indepth, from the start. He was very upfront about the opportunity to ask a question and didn't post it until after the press conference.

  • portage & main

    Somebody needs to take that smug little Hufpost guy down a peg or two, but I don't think Milbank is the one to do it.

  • http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

    Boy, Milbank is a real putz.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GeoffM GeoffM

    I think this was quite a deft bit of political theatre on Obama's part. This isn't really about journalism, it's about foreign policy and public relations. Obama is in a tight spot because he can't publicly side with Mousavi without handing the regime a propaganda tool: "America the Great Satan is interfering in Iran." So how does he make a populist gesture? Let an Iranian ask a question at a White House briefing. But you can't let an Iranian ask directly because Americans don't even get to do that and besides, protesters don't want to show their face on TV for fear of being summarily shot.

    So the White House needs an intermediary. Who's the best person for that job? How about someone who's already plugged into a network of Iranians, who will protect their identity, who speaks their language and who isn't widely regarded as a complete tool? (Not Milbank, not Milbank, not Milbank and…not Milbank.)

    Why not just ask Pitney the question without prior notice? Because you want Pitney to announce to his network in Iran that Obama wants to hear from them. That's the point of this stunt. The act has political value; the question itself, and the answer, have none. Which is why Obama didn't bother to answer.

    If nothing else, it shows the Obama administration is still adapting to new media and experimenting with new tools, which is what got them to the White House.

    Of course, if this were a Harper presser circa 2006, every question in the room would be submitted for approval before the PM even entered the room. Gosh, it's almost like political press conferences aren't actually designed to answer difficult questions.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/GeoffM GeoffM

    I think this was quite a deft bit of political theatre on Obama's part. This isn't really about journalism, it's about foreign policy and public relations. Obama is in a tight spot because he can't publicly side with Mousavi without handing the regime a propaganda tool: "America the Great Satan is interfering in Iran." So how does he make a populist gesture? Let an Iranian ask a question at a White House briefing. But you can't let an Iranian ask directly because Americans don't even get to do that and besides, protesters don't want to show their face on TV for fear of being summarily shot.

    So the White House needs an intermediary. Who's the best person for that job? How about someone who's already plugged into a network of Iranians, who will protect their identity, who speaks their language and who isn't widely regarded as a complete tool? (Not Milbank, not Milbank, not Milbank and…not Milbank.)

    Why not just ask Pitney the question without prior notice? Because you want Pitney to announce to his network in Iran that Obama wants to hear from them. That's the point of this stunt. The act has political value; the question itself, and the answer, have none. Which is why Obama didn't bother to answer.

    If nothing else, it shows the Obama administration is still adapting to new media and experimenting with new tools, which is what got them to the White House.

    Of course, if this were a Harper presser circa 2006, every question would be submitted for approval before the PM even entered the room. Gosh, it's almost like political press conferences aren't actually designed to answer difficult questions.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/GeoffM GeoffM

    I think this was quite a deft bit of political theatre on Obama's part. This isn't really about journalism, it's about foreign policy and public relations. Obama is in a tight spot because he can't publicly side with Mousavi without handing the regime a propaganda tool: "America the Great Satan is interfering in Iran." So how does he make a populist gesture? Let an Iranian ask a question at a White House briefing. But you can't let an Iranian ask directly because Americans don't even get to do that and besides, protesters don't want to show their face on TV for fear of being summarily shot.

    So the White House needs an intermediary. Who's the best person for that job? How about someone who's already plugged in to a network of Iranians, who will protect their identity, who speaks their language and who isn't widely regarded as a complete tool? (Not Milbank, not Milbank, not Milbank and…not Milbank.)

    Why not just ask Pitney the question without prior notice? Because you want Pitney to announce to his network in Iran that Obama wants to hear from them. That's the point of this stunt. The act has political value; the question itself, and the answer, have none. Which is why Obama didn't bother to answer.

    If nothing else, it shows the Obama administration is still adapting to new media and experimenting with new tools, which is what got them to the White House.

    Of course, if this were a Harper presser circa 2006, every question would be submitted for approval before the PM even entered the room. Gosh, it's almost like political press conferences aren't actually designed to answer difficult questions.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    And Milbank in profile looks like ……… ?

Previous

Next

From Macleans