Pitney vs Millbank
I actually ran into Nico Pitney, destroyer of journalism, last night at a party. Neither of us seem to be on the Georgetown cocktail party circuit, but we’re both on the Green Line accessible beer ‘n Beam circuit. To me, it just brought home the extent to which this controversy is driven by status anxiety. It’s a convention that White House Correspondent for an Important Media Outlet is a highly prestigious and incredibly important job. The idea that a more interesting question might come from a young guy who writes for some website and has been aggregating news out of Iran would upend the whole thing:
The case against Nico might make some sense if you could say he lobbed Obama a softball or asked about some pointless trivia. But that’s not the case, so….
59 Responses to “Pitney vs Millbank”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 28th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
It’s a convention that White House Correspondent for an Important Media Outlet is a highly prestigious and incredibly important job.
It has become a Peter Principle appointment: see Todd, Chuck.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Nico nails it at the very end of the video: “it would be a strange conspiracy since Obama dodged the question.”
June 28th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Is it strange to ANYONE else that essentially being a stenographer out of the White House, covering trivial shit like the president’s dog and family life, is considered a “prestigious” position? I’d feel pretty damn useless if I were in that position, relative to an actual investigative reporter…
June 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
All Obama knew knew was that the question would be “about Iran.” If he knew anything more than that, it would have been bad. (When the president calls on a reporter from Univision or from India, he has to realize that it’s not likely he’s going to get a question about partial birth abortion or steroids in baseball or whatever it is the Post thinks is important). If the question were a fawning one, it would have been bad.
But neither is true. No one cares except Dana Milbank, who just can’t help making himself look like an ever-bigger dick.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I don’t suppose the “National Editor” can do anything about their wacko health section? It’s pretty hard to convince people to read a serious article about why we should go single payer when it’s put between articles from Jim Carey and Deepak Chopra.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
No one cares except Dana Milbank, who just can’t help making himself look like an ever-bigger dick.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that no one else cares. Alas, there are a number of people dishonestly acting as if a particular question had been orchestrated, although it’s demonstrably untrue. But one point on which there can be no dispute is that Milbank made himself look like an even bigger dick.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Milbank’s anger over Nico mystifies me; I thought Dana had chosen comedy as his profession, so what’s his beef?
June 28th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
No one cares except Dana Milbank
Hey now, that’s not quite true. David Gregory is also very concerned about this. :p
June 28th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
What is up with the bathing suit controvery? Did this Millbank character really hound Obama and ask him repeatedly “how do you look in a bathing suit?” That doesn’t even seem possible.
I mean, what was his follow up question, “why won’t you show me..er..the American people your goddamn bathing suit!”
June 28th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Dana Milbank is fairly absurd. I mean come on. Lets focus on Nico’s initial point which was hilarious in that Milbank is a comedian not a journalist. And he is a BAD comedian at that!!! Ha. DC is so fun…
June 28th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
What is up with the bathing suit controvery? Did this Millbank character really hound Obama and ask him repeatedly “how do you look in a bathing suit?” That doesn’t even seem possible.
And yet.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Howie Kurtz isn’t exactly the go-to neutral arbiter for this exchange. Hmm, let’s have a WaPo reporter go on a show hosted by a WaPo columnist so there can be a reasoned discussion between the WaPo reporter and the HuffPo reporter. Yeah, that’ll be a discussion without prejudice.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
The strangest thing about this whole “scandal” is that Nico asked a pointed and substantive question. The only thing Milbank seems to be arguing is that Nico somewhat knew he would be called on to ask a question about Iran. Well, Iran’s an important, non-softball topic! What is the deal with these people?
June 28th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Milbank and others ignore the question because the questions have nothing to do with it. The medium isn’t just the message, it’s the only reality.
Why didn’t you tell Nico to bring up Jeff Gannon? Being sure to throw in the male prostitute angle. The given press pass and credentials under a false name. The absurd questions. How could Nico be so dumb as to not have this story at the ready? Talk about having all your ducks in a row. It’s beyond belief he missed this chance. His supposed gotcha about Mission Accomplished was absurdly weak.
He lost. We lost. It’s like being a Cub fan.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Duvall: thanks. My favorite excerpt. Dana Milbank on the half-naked Obama:
“We see his well-defined pecs, his perfectly hairless torso, just a bit of padding around the abs and a drawstring dangling from his form-fitting surfer trunks. The aspiring presidential candidate splashes through the water and squints into the distance; he is transformed into Burt Lancaster in “From Here to Eternity.”
I get it now. I didn’t realize which side of the plate Millbocker hit from.
Although, in some ways, it seems even more inappropriate. It would be like me asking Hillary to stand before me in her bra and panties.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I wonder how many dates Milbank had with Gannon? OK maybe none. I would bet a million bucks that Milbank has heard stories about who Gannon did have professional dates with. Imagine that.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I suspect the overreaction is caused in no small part because of the suspicion increasingly confirmed by actual evidence that President Obama holds the press as it’s represented in the attendees of the press conference in thinly veiled contempt.
They can’t actually SAY that they resent that so the resentment is directed elsewhere.
Hunter Thompson would know exactly what’s going on since it embodies completely his concept of Fear and Loathing.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Maybe he should make himself available for companionship and rubdowns. It gives you legitimacy.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The problem is that the “top” journalists think of their fancy jobs as quasi-retirement. Its the reward for all their hard work fighting their way up the DC Journo ladder (or their reward for having a famous parent).
They think that now that they’re at the top, they deserve to relax, go to the cocktail parties, etc. and as long as they phone something in, scribble down some nonsense, they’ve done all they need to do.
Its akin to a baseball player working his way through college and the minors, and finally getting to the majors and thinking that as a reward, he should just automatically get paid millions, even if he gets totally out of shape and never manages to hit a ball out of the infield.
I just want to scream at Dana and his ilk, “hey, this job isn’t your reward for your earlier work, its a job that can actually help shape our national discourse! Now isn’t the time to get lazy, its the time to work harder and more seriously than you ever have before!
But instead, they’ll make bad comedy skits in between their trips to the mailbox where they anxiously wait for the invite to McCain’s next BBQ where they can ride the rope swing and guzzle free beer from the budweiser heiress.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
As usual, the best question of the entire press conference was asked by Helen Thomas (who is a national treasure). And President Obama didn’t even call on her! Of course, he ducked the question.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
That conversation was quite hysterical. I mean I am sure it must be disturbing to be called on the carpet by an individual who just might be the poster boy for press fatuousness and vapidity but I am sure that Pitney will somehow find the strength to pick up the pieces of his life and muddle through without Milbank’s respect.
Seriously though, I think Pitney really enjoyed that exchange. I think he would have done better to stay away from the ad hominem and focus more on making Milbank explain why exactly he feels it is inappropriate to solicit questions about US policy on Iran from Iranians. But for certain, Milbank was exposed as the tremendous asshole that he really is. Its honestly too bad that he lacks the self awareness to see it.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Wow, there’s not much to say except that Milbank reveals himself to be such a douche. On both the merits and the presentation, game-set-match to Nico.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
This whole thing is so inside-the-Beltway that I am left bewildered and sad.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
This is a watershed moment for social media and responsible community reportage. Nico’s approach in Live-Blogging the Uprising” is on the forefront – a game changing approach to using a synchrony of “disruptive technologies” and responsible crowdsourcing from the global community. The quality and legitimacy of the questions asked of the President is the key here, not partisan politics or privilege. In another interview with Nico Pitney about this exchange with Dana Millbank, he notes that “the process very communal. I am certainly benefiting from the contributions of so many volunteers who are out looking for information, passing it along, volunteering to translate documents and stories for me or watch video for me that’s in Persian and providing me information. It’s a community newsgathering operation. We also, of course, try to maintain journalistic standards in the sense that we don’t post material that is not confirmed, or if we do, we’re very clear about the fact that we can’t verify its accuracy… We try to provide a really wide swath of information. The information is out there in a whole bunch of places – it’s spread out across the board and it does require a large kind of group effort, a volunteer effort in many senses to track it all down.”
June 28th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Well a hardball question is not necessarily unwelcome.
As a one time corporate pitchman I had to give a podcast with a Q&A after. Since these events don’t always produce enough questions I had to write a couple of starter questions.
My PR refused to read the first as she thought it too aggressive. ‘Where are your questions’. I have always thought that US interviewer do their subjects a disservice by not asking the important questions.
Be interesting to look at what Milbank was saying when the GOP had a male prostitute posing as a blogger asking softballs in the press room.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I remember when it was a WH press room custom to call on UPI’s Helen Thomas first. Until Bush 2, everyone knew she’d get the initial spot and everyone deferred to the tradition.
This is really such a tempest in a teapot.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
i know it is very soon gonna get (or has already gotten) old to complain of Obama recapitulating the sins of the second Bush. And it is easily seen that trying to get the press room and America to snicker at (or to ignore) Helen Thomas and her good and biting questions is not nearly at the level of heinous that he is achieving with his positions on for example indefinite detention. Nonetheless, it is horrible behavior from a man who clearly wants us to believe that he is ‘different.’ Different from the boors he inherited the White House from, and different in that he wants to communicate rather than prevaricate, and most important, that he has manners.
he shows none of this in his treatment of Thomas.
nor in the way he stages press conferences. nor in the way he plumped for this ridiculously softballish question (yes it was) from a journalist of some ability, yes, but who is clearly like putty (or maybe like a puppy) in the President’s hands.
Dana M. is SO obviously a self-satisfied putz (my favorite grace note was that DN had brought along a sheaf of ‘evidence’ that his reporting was hard on Bush–as if his reputation was of interest to anyone but himself) that it is easy in watching this to overlook that Pitney was in fact used. But he was. and probably will be again, since he obviously thought he got the better of this exchange.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Worse. The only people who even know about this “controversy” are Yglesias-reading nerds (et al.) who sympathize with Milbank not at all. What battle do you imagine you’re fighting, Dana?
June 28th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I don’t know; I am certainly more likely to side with the blogosphere over the traditional media, but I do think Dana Milbank has a point. There is something that doesn’t sit right with me regarding the White House contacting a reporter (any reporter) in advance telling them they’d like a question on a certain topic.
I know the Obama administration tried very hard to be transparent about this; why else the long explanation from the President before the question as asked? But it is something a little odd.
I do not think Milbank is right that this represents some sort of nefarious coordination. He implies the WH was trying to set up softball questions a la Talon News, and that clearly isn’t the case here. I also think it is beyond silly that the discussion has turned so personal and about reporters, instead of about the relationship between the WH and the press. I mean, this is probably the first time in history that the WH wanted to get asked an unfiltered question by Iranians, and I think for totally legitimate reasons. So what should be the protocol do doing that? The press is best-positioned to get the views of Iranians (ideally, Iranian journalists would be doing that, but for obvious reasons cannot), and yet they haven’t, and didn’t, until they got a gentle judge from the WH. That, to me, seems to be the story worth discussing. Under what circumstances are such “nudges” appropriate? And what standards of disclosure should be implemented? Can the WH call one news organization, or should they put out a general call to all the news media?
I don’t know the answers, but that sounds like a conversation worth having.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Kids these days. Why would you want to drink a bourbon like Jim Beam (granted, not the best in the world, but still) with beer?
Drink your Jim Beam neat, with no chaser, Yglesias (and at age 41, yes, I’m an old curmudgeon).
June 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Wow. Dana Millbank is a huge douchebag.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
szr: You answered your own questions: (1) Obama did not hide that he solicited the question and (2) responding to a direct question from Iranians is particularly newsworthy, but none of the traditional press were asking the questions. When you add in (3) the question was not scripted or known in advance and was a legitimate question, the inescablable conclusion is that there’s nothing to complain about here. Not sure what doesn’t “sit right” with you. Obama did something different in somewhat unique circumstances. But different isn’t bad unless it’s bad.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Man. If Milbank had kept touching my arm or patting my back in that fucking patronizing way, I might’ve slapped him in his smug face. Or at least told him to keep his goddamn hands to himself. What a prick. Dana Milbank is important in what way?
June 28th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Nico should’ve concluded by turning to Dana and saying, “The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end, highness.”
June 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
The idea of an administration official contacting a reporter and making sure that they will have a question ready for the press conference is something that makes me a bit uneasy. The press should be concerned and investigate when that happens, and then report what the details were. I mean this is something that can and has been abused.
Thing is, that’s not what they did. The story wasn’t that Obama called the guy up and had him make sure he had a question from Iran ready for the presser, it was that Obama subverted or cheated or whatever the fuck the whole concept of having a press conference.
It was one hell of a good, and extremely important, question too. I mean it’s not like we’re going to be able to start negotiations on the nuclear issue with a government that we don’t recognize, and recognition of the current government will, unfortunately, be taken as a signal by the Iranian government that they have the all clear to really crush any opposition. Obama is damned either way on this one.
And Dana really comes off as the world’s biggest tool.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Dana Milbank is a hack scumbag…end of story. He is a sycophantic fraud only worthy of derision.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Has Nico ever before asked a question at a WH press conference? It seems to me not so surprising then that the WH might need to inform him of their plan to call on him so that he doesn’t decide to blog about the press conference from a coffee shop somewhere. While I agree that Helen Thomas made a devastating point, she and the rest of the “old guard” don’t have the right to have their questions asked. Fuck tradition. When was the last time Helen Thomas broke a relevant story? If Dana Milbank has a problem with who gets to ask questions, he should report on something that demands attention. General douchebaggery and cantankerous entitlement do not inform me or even interest me.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:33 am
On a related note, I get constantly frustrated with any of these shows where they do not give more time to hash out the argument. They are so stuck on their preconception that the public has no attention span and they need to dedicate 3 minutes to each segment.
There was only time for a back and forth accusation and the beginnings of the entrenched position. I have blue balls now.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Milbank bares a striking resemblance to Ed Helms.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Milbank bares a striking resemblance to Ed Helms.
It’s true. But he actually makes Ed Helms looks hunky.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:10 am
@38 Btaylor: “I get constantly frustrated with any of these shows where they do not give more time to hash out the argument.”
My favorite is when CSNYNBC has twelve little windows open with an expert in each one of them and they are all talking nonsense at the same time. It is a perfect cacophony of blather.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Are you both on J-List, though?
June 29th, 2009 at 8:26 am
FIRST
June 29th, 2009 at 9:12 am
The gist of the matter seems to be that Nico knew he was going to be called on, and Obama knew he was going to call on him.
This is, apparently, horribly wrong, because the AP and network reporters are supposed to know THEY will be called on, and Obama is supposed to know he is going to call on them.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Two things don’t come up in these discussions of the incident. The first is that Nico’s live blog the prior two was an almost heroic effort unmatched by anyone in the MSM. He had a unique perspective on the situation and deserved recognition. The second is that the question was tough – and Obama gained absolutely nothing from calling on him – as he had to finesse mightily. As somebody who read Nico religiously, and who was impressed by Obama’s work at answering it without saying too much, I am mindblown that this is an issue at all. It’s like they begin from the premise that Obama is evil and then retrofit events to fit that premise. The guy swats a fly or orders mustard and it becomes a controversy
Millbank looked like a little brat holding his breath in protest after Nico mentioned the bathing suit question.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Dana Milbank and the Washington Post practically sucked George W Bush’s cock while he was in power, especially in the period 2001 -2004.
Dana’s claim that he seriously held George to account is hilarious to anyone who looks at the record.
Nico should simply have noted:
“Look , Dana. Everyone in the country has reached the conclusion that you and most of the prominent reporters at the White House Press Room are whores.
You let George Bush lie this country into an unnecessary war which killed 4500+ Americans because you have a mortgage to pay.
Almost 8 years after Sept 11, you still REFUSE to tell the American People WHY that attack occurred –even though Obama’s statements of the three motivations for jihad are in your own fucking archives. “
June 29th, 2009 at 9:51 am
just seeing Milbank all puffed up like a rutting pigeon (you can see a lot of those on the streets of Washington!) was worth the whole thing.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Two key things that poor old Dana forgets. First, if Obama called on Nico, he knew he was going to get a question on Iran. Unlike a lot of so-called serious journalists, Nico has been covering that topic. Second, the sole purpose in contacting Nico was to get a question from somebody in Iran. Of course, the question was not a silly gotcah question or about Obama’s smoking habits, but a fairly tough question that Obama felt compelled to evade. If the question were something like “do you think those attacking you for not saying more about Iran don’t understand how that could backfire,” then Dana might have a point. In addition, the fact that somebody in Iran can actually ask a question of the President of the United States is a pretty potent demonstration of how the new media can alter power relationships and put a repressive regime at risk.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Dana’s anger springs from the fact that he’s essentially become a self-parodying clown over the last decade. There was a point at which he actually wrote stuff worth reading. The Bush years were a particularly bad time to have picked to become the Official Court Jester.
He’s an embarrassment, he’s rightly ashamed of himself, so he lashes out. But he can’t stop because the job’s too cushy.
Dana’s like a character out of a Dostoevsky novel.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am
What truly pisses me off more than anything here is the obvious fact to anyone who had their heads on the subject of Iran and not up their own rectum that the President was eager to call on Pitney so show off the fact that the President could get a question from an Iranian. The subject and new source was irrelevant.
It had everything to do with Mad Mullah’s booting reporters out of the country and trying to hide in isolation and nothing whatsoever to do with Milibank or anybody else.
But this indicative of how he and the rest of the Washington establishment covers everything. Trivia always wins and any policy or action of the president that’s not obvious is always interpreted in the most cynical way
June 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
[...] UPDATE #2: Matt Y [...]
June 29th, 2009 at 11:38 am
AhYup Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 11:16 am
What truly pisses me off more than anything here is the obvious fact to anyone who had their heads on the subject of Iran and not up their own rectum that the President was eager to call on Pitney so show off the fact that the President could get a question from an Iranian. The subject and new source was irrelevant.
It had everything to do with Mad Mullah’s booting reporters out of the country and trying to hide in isolation and nothing whatsoever to do with Milibank or anybody else.
But this indicative of how he and the rest of the Washington establishment covers everything. Trivia always wins and any policy or action of the president that’s not obvious is always interpreted in the most cynical way
You win.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Milbank is quite thin skinned isn’t he! That was very comical, I like that he had a file folder… also quite humorous.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
While I agree that Helen Thomas made a devastating point, she and the rest of the “old guard” don’t have the right to have their questions asked. Fuck tradition. When was the last time Helen Thomas broke a relevant story?
Helen Thomas used to get the first question because she was the senior wire-service reporter in the room. She isn’t that any longer, but deserves a lot of respect.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Dana Milbank hit 40, and he’s struggling through a midlife crisis. He should just buy a vette.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Going back to the swimsuit issue, Milbank wrote, “The senator was more appropriately attired, in a navy business suit and pale-blue tie, but he was uncharacteristically flustered as he sought to explain the photo.”
So Milbank thinks that wearing a swimsuit is inappropriate for swimming in the ocean, but that wearing a navy business suit would be more appropriate for such an activity? I know that’s not what he meant, but that’s what he wrote. Apparently, among all the other deficiencies of the trade, it’s asking too much that professional writers have sufficient command of the tools of their trade that they be able to write things that make sense.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I know your’e not on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, but you might be a little inside baseballf or me with the “GReen line beer ‘n Beam” circuit. Is beam a person?
And it might be a little rich to act as if you’re not part of some type of insider “circuit”. You and other bloggers – humble as you may or may not act– act as if you are all insurgent regular-guy outsiders. You are not. I think you might want to lose the whole “I’m not part of” conceit…because there is a nice big cloth, and you – just like milbank et al. – are cut from it.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:29 am
[...] Progress: Matthew Yglesias on the continuing media controversy over the question asked by the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney at last week’s [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
[...] dust up with a Huffington Post blogger who was called on at an Obama press conference. You can read the gritty details here if you are interested, but from my point of view, he came across as clueless and overly sensitive [...]