how dare (0.00 / 0)

anyone question the veracity of a pro journalist like milbank, and take a question from the pres ahead of the wash press corp, the temerity.
dana you are a pompous jerk, not unlike others in the mainstream media that haven't been doing your jobs for years but instead have been drinking at the trough of the elites at the expense of democracy in america, if you and your ilk can't or won't perform the duties of the fourth estate move over and nico and others like him will gladly take over that awesome responsibility and hopefully save america from the cancer among us.  

---

by: pc @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:36:04 AM UTC

I haven't been following (0.00 / 0)

the Pitney-Milbank thing, but it sounds to me that Milbank--although smarmy, pompous, and generally disgusting--has a good point about Pitney's collusion with the White House, which shouldn't be allowed to dictate what questions Obama gets.

What am I missing?

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:03:46 AM UTC

How is it collusion? (4.00 / 2)

All the administration knew was that the question would come from the Iranian community, not what the question would be.

---

by: cornagainstsorcery @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 14:32:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

Collusion might be a strong word.

The White House asked Pitney to be a conduit for a question from an Iranian; it didn't mean that the question wouldn't be tough, but it did mean the question would be about Iran. Hence the White House was dictating the subject of his question. It's not much, if at all, different, from the WH asking a particular reporter to ask about health care, at which point a self-respecting journalist should tell the White House to go fuck itself and say I'll pick my own topic, thanks very much. Instead Pitney played along, got great visibility, then thanked the White House staff afterwards. All too chummy for my tastes.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 15:44:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i just don't think you can separate out the form and content here... (4.00 / 1)

yes, the form could seem bad if you totally decontextualized the situation.

but iran was clearly a huge issue that needed to be discussed in that press conference (and was, by most of the cable news fratboys, who could have asked any other questions they wanted).  the white house wanted to take a question from an iranian, because that would actually demonstrate that they cared about answering a question that the iranian people wanted to ask, not a question that john mccain wanted to ask (god knows, they got those questions too).  they told nico that this was something they were interested in doing, but didn't confirm with him that he would be called on.  seems legit to me -- nico could have said no to the offer, and the white house didn't dictate the type of question that could be asked.  they had to give advance notice to nico that he might be asked a question, in order to allow him to solicit questions from other people.  and ultimately, the question was a difficult one for the white house, and obama basically ducked it.  so nico didn't pull punches with the question he asked.    

there wasn't much of an alternative to this kind of arrangement, as far as i can see, since iranian students and other dissidents don't have US-based journalists who work for them.  the white house could have done an internet-based thing (where they solicited questions from iranians, and then had obama answer them) but then it would have been set apart from the 'real' press conference, and thus wouldn't have gotten significant play in the media.          

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 16:44:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well you touched on the point (0.00 / 0)

nico could have said no to the offer

And should have. Look, because of this particulars--a tough question was asked, the topic was the issue of the day, etc--it doesn't look like, and perhaps wasn't, a major breach of ethics. But the principle remains: reporters should choose what topics they ask about--and defend that freedom. It was especially questionable because it was reporter who wouldn't normally get to ask a question, which it look like, and perhaps was, a quid pro quo.  

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 17:18:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i was with you until the last sentence. (0.00 / 0)

well, i'm not as confident as you about what nico should have done.  there was an upside to his going along with the white house: an iranian got to ask obama a question.  i respect his desire to see that happen, and don't think he went along with the white house for ulterior or questionable reasons.  he made a calculus of what was more important in this case, and i respect his calculus.  

i just don't see how you get to "quid pro quo" here (like i didn't agree with your use of the term "collusion").  they didn't try and get him to ask a softball question, they just gave him the opportunity to be a conduit for a question from an iranian, which is something that he clearly wanted to do (in other words, they didn't ask for 'concessions' in return for giving him the question).  they weren't managing the content of the question, just the form, which doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 21:34:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the whole thing is scripted! (0.00 / 0)

Obama, like Bush before him, has a seating chart that lays out exactly where each reporter sits.  The WH Press Secretary and staff is involved in daily conversations with WH reporters and generally has a very good idea of which reporter wants to ask which questions.  The President then shapes the press conference based on rewarding those who play nice and punishing others...

The entire process is played out b/c reporters stopped doing their job.  Nico shouldn't even bother defending his own actions in front of a jackass like Millbank, the "dick whisperer".  

---

by: elhuevon @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:29:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I tend to agree. (0.00 / 0)

Milbank is disgusting, dishonest, and hypocritical. But I think the White House can make whatever points it wishes too without setting the stage. It's just so hard to take seriously legitimate criticism from right-wing or mainstream propagandists like Milbank, Kurtz, and Carpenter who used an entirely different yardstick when Bush eas Gannonizing the Presidential Press conference and sanitizing it of honest journalists (of course not them) like Helen  Thomas.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 15:25:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thank you for highlighting recent coal/MTR news (4.00 / 1)

In the last week two studies came out showing coal mining is an economic loser for coal mining communities. If you are interested in the issue please read: Responsibly ending Mountain Top Removal. (I gladly welcome any feedback on the ideas there.)

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

---

by: WVaBlue @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:26:37 PM UTC

You forgot the Top Story (4.00 / 1)

.
According to a hard-hitting exclusive report just in at CNN, Michael Jackson is still dead. Ha-hah, Fox, scooped again!
.

---

by: cosanostradamus @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:58:38 PM UTC