Pitneygate
History's greatest monster
I thought I might just quote Jason Zengerle on the folks hating on the White House’s semi-coordinated back-and-forth with the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney:
Pitney solicited questions from Iranians that they wanted to ask Obama. The White House made sure Pitney got a chance to ask one of the questions–without knowing what the question would be. And, as I’ve pointed out, it was a very good and tough question–a question that Obama answered (or failed to answer) in a way that made him look bad. Yes, the whole arrangement was a violation of Washington protocol, but then the uprest in Iran–and the way news of that uprest is being spread over the Internet–is a violation of protocol as well, isn’t it? If Obama wanted to take a question about Iran from an actual Iranian, the only way he could do so was to call on a member of the media who has a direct line to Iranians–and that’s Pitney. It’s not like he asked Obama “Why are you so awesome?” (or “Have you really quit smoking?”). It seems like the focus should be whether the question was good and whether we learned anything useful from the response Obama gave to it. I’d say yes on both counts, so this really shouldn’t be a controversy.
This is, note, the second time a HuffPo reporter has asked a question at a White House press conference, asked a question that was a lot more substantive and interesting than many of the questions from the old-school media, and then prompted a freak-out. I think it would be worth asking who would be better off had that exchange not taken place and Obama instead called on someone else. I’m having trouble finding the answer.
The reality is that there’s a lot of status anxiety among the special class of reporters who do things like attend White House press conferences. In my experience, the kind of reporters who conduct in-depth investigations or write long features or correspond from war zones are facing a lot of economic anxiety about the continued stability of their careers. But the kind of reporters who basically sit around and in virtue of the fact that their employers are important get to ask not-very-interesting questions of powerful politicians and then dutifully write the answers down (or record the answers on tape and have an intern transcribe them) are facing a kind of crisis of prestige and authority. It turns out lots of people can do the job perfectly well, even people who haven’t “paid their dues” or gotten a job at an established media outlet.
32 Responses to “Pitneygate”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Perfectly put.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I think it reflected well on the Obama White House that they reached out to the National Iranian American Association, who I believe Pitney blogs for along with reporting for the Huffington Post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Iranian_American_Council
They probably know more about Iran than most journalists and follow events there closer, even if they have their parochial concerns like other civil society “heritage” associations or whatever you want to call them.
“In January 2005, the National Geographic Society issued an apology, correcting their 8th edition maps to read “Persian Gulf” instead of “Arabian Gulf,” as a direct result of NIAC’s efforts.
NIAC was also successful in generating an apology from MSNBC’s Don Imus for a derogatory comment he made in 2004 about an Iranian airliner crash that morning killing 43 passengers.”
June 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
If the question were bad, it wouldn’t have been a problem.
Good questions raise the bar. The WH press corps don’t want to risk their cushy jobs by asking tough questions. When someone with little to lose comes in, and by virtue of their lack of status feels free to ask a tough question, it makes them look bad. If he had asked a stupid question, that would be just fine.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The press’ response is a perfect encapsulation of their uselessness. If they’d bothered to do any research (like a … reporter might do, you know?) they’d know there’s no there there.
Instead, the object to a violation of their prerogatives as journalists, only to show that they can’t do their jobs as journalists.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The importance of status is not irrelevent to this situation. A President shouldn’t feel free to pack the room with several Jeff Gannons that will throw him a softball question whenever he wants it. The whiners in this case are wrong because they’re ignoring that status is something you should earn through the work you do, not who you work for.
Mike
June 24th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I take issue with the statement that Obama answered this question badly. This has been his mantra on the issue of foreign diplomacy for years now: we deal with the world we live in. Should Obama take his toys if Ahmadinejad? Absolutely not.
It was a good question, and a reality based answer – we condemn the violence but we’re not going to be minipulating Iranian internal politics any more, as it has led to disasterous consequences.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Boyoboy, why don’t the MSMers just hold up a sign that says “This is why newspapers are dying and people consider us irrelevant.”
June 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
[...] Matt Y: This is, note, the second time a HuffPo reporter has asked a question at a White House press conference, asked a question that was a lot more substantive and interesting than many of the questions from the old-school media, and then prompted a freak-out. I think it would be worth asking who would be better off had that exchange not taken place and Obama instead called on someone else. I’m having trouble finding the answer. [...]
June 24th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
In fact, anyone who has “paid their dues” in the D.C. cocktail party ‘bubble’ circuit is pretty much inherently less qualified than just about any give person who hasn’t in this regard. These people’s questions are nearly always totally inane. The other HuffPost journo who Obama called on previously was Sam Stein. And again, his question was much more substantive than the pablum belched forth by his journalistic “superiors”.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
The importance of status is not irrelevent to this situation. A President shouldn’t feel free to pack the room with several Jeff Gannons that will throw him a softball question whenever he wants it. The whiners in this case are wrong because they’re ignoring that status is something you should earn through the work you do, not who you work for.
Yeah I remember some partisan liberals making fun of Jeff Gannon’s status. But his questions were softballs and he was “in the tank”, whereas Pitneys’ were normal questions.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Since Pitney’s question was actually 1) topical, 2) relevant, 3) meaningful, 4) informed, and 5) complicated, I have to disagree with you, Poptarts. That is definitely not “normal” for a question asked at a White House press conference.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
These buffoons are absolutely hilarious.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The MSM reporters are there precisely for the questions they don’t ask.
It would be unseemly to have to discuss Netanyahu’s latest investment in settlements after Obama said that shouldn’t happen. Or why Larry Summer’s $5 million “consulting” deal with a hedge fund doesn’t disqualify him from WH employment.
Too many embarrassing questions hanging in the air to allow some loose cannon in the room.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
From what I have read, it was a put up job, but like the handling of the Iranian election, the Obama handled the answer badly.
If you’re going to do a “put up job,” the least they can do is script it right so it comes off as a great question and answer.
In this case, the question was pretty good, but Obama wasn’t up to the task of answering it.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Dana Milbanks comment is hilarious: “The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world — Iran included — that the American press isn’t as free as advertised”
—————–
The entire world knows what a pack of two-faced whores the US Mainstream News Media is –especially the Washington Post.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Answering the question required that Obama get off the fence about the elections. He didn’t.
I guess Obama had a choice between answering the question or sticking with, you know, his foreign policy strategy. Which task should he be up to?
June 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
When you aren’t satisfied with how Barack Obama handles a public event, the most logical conclusion to draw is that, goshdurnit, he’s just not very good at political communication.
That must be it.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
The question I would have asked if I were granted White House Reporter status:
Congress tried but failed to force the CFTC to rein-in oil futures speculation last session. Your CFTC has the power to impose position limits on speculators and thus reduce the amount of “hot” money betting on rising oil prices.
Since this speculation is pushing-up oil prices, hurting the economy and the average consumer, why don’t you issue the order to curtail it?
June 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Shorter White House press corps:
“What? That…non-eunuch can’t ask the President a question! He hasn’t even had his balls cut off yet!”
June 24th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Maybe Obama will adopt the tactic FDR used with his labor allies. “I’m with you on this. Now raise a fuss so I have to do it.”
June 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Via twitter: Shorter White House press corps: “I can’t believe the guy we’ve been stealing all our #iranelection stuff from got to ask a question!”
June 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
If Obama didn’t (arguably) flub the answer, the MSM wouldn’t have been so mad.
The MSM types are so afraid of being seen as biased in favor of Obama, they were trying to catch him on anything just to seem “objective”. But Obama managed to use such shocking response techniques as “logic” and “rationality” to completely defeat questions along the lines of “when did you start smoking again?”, “will someone think of the HMOs?”, etc.
And then somebody not in the club stumps Obama? That was too much …
June 24th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
And the sooner the class of persons of whom you write disappears from the scene, the better off we all will be.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Huffpo, Arianna, Nico Pitney, and Eric Hippeau have created a backlash amongst mainstream women by creating an Internet blogging version Animal House 2.0, many women say.
It’s a sexist blogging fiasco, they say.
Think mayhem at a fraternity full of au de reeking of stale beer in the carpets, old chips, dirty sox, and a room full of funky master baiters comparing dong sizes.
It does not get any worse than this for internet news business model.
It’s worse than porno. Huffpo has now become a boring tease trying to appeal to lesbians and horny freshman college pledges
Nico is their own Bluto.
The actions haven’t been non-sexist and liberal ever since they took on a hippo as CEO.
Their smelly dingy has been tacking right in circles ever since.
Abandon Ship!
Maria, Maria, Maria!
Look at this following sexist garbagge they’re putting out now.
Huffington Post
FOX Business Vs. CNBC: Whose Hotter? (SLIDESHOW)
Huffington Post – 46 minutes ago
It’s a hard hitting question and the HuffPo wants to know what you think. CNBC has several things going for it, namely Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett. …
Huffpo, sliding into the abyss…couldn’t be soon enough.
Mainstream women are leaving Huffpo not once a month, but every day of the month!
There’s not enough Tampax to soak up Huffpo’s internet blood-bath.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
We’ve come to an interesting point in our society when the president has to plan and coordinate with a member of the press in order to be asked a challenging question.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Ron: Congress tried but failed to force the CFTC to rein-in oil futures speculation last session. Your CFTC has the power to impose position limits on speculators and thus …
WH Press corps, in unison: BOOOOOOORIIIIIIIING
June 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
WH Press corps, in unison: BOOOOOOORIIIIIIIING
Yep!
The price of a gallon of gasoline has doubled since January and a large chunk of the stimulus has been negated.
But who cares?
June 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Liberals neither knew nor cared who Jeff Gannon was or got indignant that Bush was calling on someone from the “Talon News Service.” What happened was that people listened to the press conferences and started asking, “Who is that idiot asking the slobbering, Rush-Limbaugh-inspired-talking-points-laden questions?”
The outrage about HuffPo seems to be that they’re an online publication and, unlike Politico, is not an explicit mouthpiece of the Village.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I didn’t find the question that “substantive” or “interesting”. Then again what answer could Obama have given to such a question, that would have been equally substantive, without playing into the Iranian government’s hands. The whole situation, with it’s fake controversy and self-rightous posturing, is bullshit.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Dana Milbank at the Post is losing his mind about this non-story. I suspect your analysis is right on the money in Dana’s case. That, and I think Dana is a bit unhinged anyway, a quality that likely goes back to his being frequently harassed as child for having a girl’s name.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias » Pitneygate [...]
June 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
The question was not ‘very good’ if Pitney wanted to ask something relevant to Iranians. Obama will deal with the official President. Until the fraud and protests the election didn’t really matter. The Supreme Leader and Guardian Council would have controlled the country even if Mousavi had been declared the winner. Mousavi losing may be the best thing that could have happened for democracy in Iran since the Iranians have realized what a sham the current system is.