Hey Dana, Jeff Gannon says hi.

I wonder if Millbank was wearing a bathrobe and smoking a pipe while typing out his screed. Such seriousness!

accusations of "pre-packaging" from the WaPo...

gawd, the flood of nausea

And the MSM wonders why its readership/viewership is drying up? What a bunch of no talent assclowns! This sort of thing is why I don't read the Washinton Post or many other "mainstream" papers anymore. If I want conservative propoganda I'll read Red State or some other honestly right wing site. If I want news I'm forced into the blogosphere. I mean seriously, these pulishers can't seem to figure out that their readership is drying up because people are being spoon fed republican talking points?

The Post reporter/columnist/humorist described the question

When you're a humorist, you have license to stretch the truth. Just ask Colbert. Columnists, too - try George Will. WaPo reports as well.

This is why the Posties went after "Jeff Gannon" so furiously. They are all about integrity in journamalism, and having a nudie-photo male "escort" with a degree from a two-day close-cover-before-striking wingnut "J-school" program sit in with their own WH Prose for two years was absolutely ...

um ...

was absolutely fine with them. Did they ever say anything about it at all?

Milbank's comments do make sense--you just have to remember than Dana is a little twit whose only mission is to suck up to Donald Graham, neocon publisher of the Washington Post.

Dana's problem is the "humorist" label. You have to have some sense of humor to be one.

Milbank, like so many of his colleagues who've been pros at information delivery for so long, is simply struggling with the rapid changes he and his ol'colleagues must come to grips with - no one has a filtered monopoly on information delivery in this brave new world! I am witnessing, more and more, screeds by once thoughtful pundits mostly condemning some aspect of the process of info delivery than actually engaging the issue(s) at hand:

So and so is too imbalanced to proffer such idea(s). Such and such situation can't possibly serve as a parallel or like circumstance because it doesn't fit with my pre-conceived notion(s). History, such as the causes and effects of the Great Depression, is subject to revision because it fits my argument. Just a few digressions in the public record of late giving testament to the growing hackery among "professionals" struggling to stay relevant in this instant cross-referencing information delivery world that now exists.

It may take a while for pundits like Milbank to realize their dog(s) don't hunt no more! -Kevo

I strongly suggest reading the Politico's piece on this from yesterday. I don't have the link offhand, but the comments are absolutely priceless.

I honestly cannot comprehend the modern day Republican. It's like they look at a clear sky and see rain.

I think this dust-up over Nico's question is more about the old msm rising-up against new media...

Yeah, few Obama bashers remember the case of Jeff Gannon and other staged press operations by the Bush misadministration. See for instance about Bush's fake photo op with U.S. soldiers:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/10/14/bush_video_conference/

In Washington yesterday, President Bush spoke with U.S. soldiers via satellite in a video conference billed as a "conversation with U.S. troops." Unfortunately, it turned out to be nothing more than a scripted photo op designed to shore up support for the conflict in Iraq and that country's upcoming constitutional referendum.

According to a report in the Associated Press, deputy assistant defense secretary Allison Barber rehearsed the soldiers beforehand on what Bush was going to discuss with them when he arrived.
...

Obama even hinted at the preparation in the process of posing the question to Nico. Most of those who complain about Obama don't really care about the principle of the thing, their attitude is "IOKIYAR."

delver

I'm too lazy to look this up, but did Milbank use words like "arranged", "prepackaged", "preplanned" and "planted" to describe Jeff Gannon, back when the Bush White House was offering press credentials to male prostitutes?

All hail the Washington Post. Froomkin they terminate. Milbank they keep. Does anyone wonder why newspapers have become endangered?

I do not remember Dana getting bent out of shape when Scotty would go to Raghubir Goyal to get out of a line of questioning.

Yeah a GOOD question, not like that Helen Thomas bitch wrecking our day by asking about the secret torture photos that we won't show because we're such a shining fucking beacon of open-society virtue compared to Iran.

Jealous. Too narcissistic to see how obvious the jealousy is.

Dana Milbank is a bloviating asshole. If you want to see how pompous he is, attend his online question and answer sessions. Send in multiple pointed questions, and watch as he only answers the questions that stroke his ego or as he insults his readers who disagrees with him. Before you do this, read the RNC press release Milbank wrote in July so you're appropriately fired up.

It's a snit fit. The MSM is upset that the WEB of all bloody places is getting to ask questions. My god, what the hell is this world coming to?

Yes, it does have much to with the new media at the press conferences. FAUX and the right were miffed when Major Garrett was bypassed, although the last question of that particular PC was given to a WSJ reporter. Does FAUX have an up or out policy regarding the Major? If he keeps being overlooked, he will never make Lt Col - Thus, will FAUX dump him? He is becoming as irrelevant as Major Major Major in "Catch-22"

In fact, I'd argue that the intended consequence of Obama calling on Pitney is to encourage the press to ask more substantive questions. Obama is publicly embarrassing those reporters who ask stupid, easy to knock down questions and rewarding those who ask tough ones.

The transparent narcissism of the press corp is pretty astounding here. Just like the last time Obama called on "a blogger," they completely and totally ignore the substance of what was asked. You're absolutely correct, Steve. The question was hard, and I thought his answer was the most strained and evasive as he struggled to avoid it. But it was a good question, and the type of question that our public discourse would be much better served by should reporters follow Nico's lead.

Milbank is a joke, he just doesn't realize that people are laughing at him and not with him. He clearly suffers from the same delusions as Maureen Dowd. Neither one is funny or insightful, but both they and the Villagers think that they are. Then they sit around wondering why no one reads their cage liner anymore.

Milbanks criticism doesn't make sense and feels unfair because it's not really about the question Nico posed.

It's about Milbanks reaction to the rep of a noted blog being granted the boon of a question.

Milbank is reacting to the pressure the msm feels from leftie blogs, including this one, that hold the press accountable for what it says and how it conducts its business. And it's a prime example of why the Post continues to watch its circulation decline.

They think it's all about them.

The question definitely wasn't a plant by the White House; Obama punted the answer. If you're going to plant a question, ensure it's one that the president will hit out of the park.

The real question is: how can one be sure an Iranian really asked that question? Anyone can use/abuse Twitter. How can Pitney verify the source?

You can tell a culture is imploding when it begins to eat its own. Journalism and journalists have always been self-involved, self-reverential, and narcissistic, not to mention self-protective, but Milbank's violation of the old principle of never speaking ill of another journalist, at least in public, suggests the end is near.

Any president has to figure out how to handle the media or else the media will define him. Nothing Obama does will ever compare to the cynicism, manipulation, and phoniness of the Bush years.

HEY, Milbank and Co: YOU AREN'T THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN ANYMORE!. Fortunately.

Watching the descent of the WaPo into what eventually may be oblivion. I ain't reading their OpEd section any more and as Milbank's example demonstrates, the reporting is also getting pretty disheveled.

Psychologically however, Milbank's reaction as member of the national press corps isn't that difficult to understand. These people have made it into prestigious and well-remunerated positions at national journals and by virtue of that have become Villagers in good standing.

Then come along these masses of unwashed blogger guys and threaten not only the economic basis of dead wood newspapers but with that the very livelihood of elite MSM reporters.

And now Obama is treating these blogger guys as if they were at par with their MSM colleagues and grants them the privilege to ask questions at presidential news conferences.

It's not that uncommon for people who feel threatened to lash out. And Milbank and his press corp buddies do feel threatened.

"...Milbank's criticism isn't just mistaken; it doesn't even make sense."

Especially since the question was repeated by Todd and others...a pre arranged question that kept getting repeated...riiight!

A detail Milbank's smear completely overlooks...how convenient.

I would disagree with you about the question being "really good" and about Obama "dodging" on it. I think his answer was specific and entirely correct. One nation does not rule on the legitimacy of the elected government of another. In fact, Bush refusing to accept the legitimacy of the election of Hamas was highly improper. Suppose France had decided that our Supreme Court awarding the 2000 election was improper in their eyes and decided not to accept the "legitimacy" of Bush's election.

Add to that the little issue that we do not have diplomatic relations with Iran and the question becomes even more silly. We are discussing our acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the election of a government which we do not even recognize? Give me a break.

It makes perfect sense for a President to call on a reporter he knows has special experience or questions (a question from a relevant nation, having returned from a relevant nation, etc.) It shouldn't be at random or according to some asinine pecking order anyway!

If 'preplanned' means knowing ahead of time that you're going to be able to ask a question at a presidential news conference, then aren't all the 'top' agencies preplanning as well?

I mean, they've got their decorum in the Press Room that usually dictates that certain media outlets not only get a chance to ask a question but in what order.

It's pretty simple. The White House press corps is free to wank off on their own time. When they are asking questions of the President of the United States it's not their time, it's OUR time. Asking your one and only question about Spock or cigarettes or whatever is a waste of MY time. The people know it, are sick of it, and want some good questions. The WH press corps* sees themselves as a bunch of Jeff Spicolis and the President as Mr. Hand and that's just not reality.

* - WH press is more like Brad imagining Phoebe Cates, with Phoebe Cates being David Broder

No matter what you think of Milbank, this is still a slippery slope and really pretty outrageous. Pitney has done great reporting about Iran, but still -- why would Obama issue a special invite AND suggest the question?

"Indeed, when the Bush White House invited a former male prostitute to ask questions . . ."

You really need to be more specific here.
I don't thing "former" is the proper usage if he simply changed his specialty.

Someone go tell Ezra Klein to walk over to Dana and slap him.

"It doesn't even make sense"

And just what did you expect from the WaPo on its rapidly accelerating slide into oblivion?

"why would Obama issue a special invite AND suggest the question?"

The answer is easy. Obama had no idea what Nico was going to ask other than it would be about Iran and did NOT suggest the question. Apparently Milbank was also wrong about an Iranian sending in the question. Check out Huffingtonpost for an in depth analysis of dork boy's behavior.