Milbank incensed by "planted question" -- but not enough to tell readers what it was
SUMMARY: Dana Milbank ridiculed President Obama for taking "a preplanned question" by "a planted questioner," referring to Nico Pitney. But Milbank omitted the substance of Pitney's question, which Michael Tomasky and Glenn Greenwald described as "tough."
Asserting that President Obama's June 23 press conference included "prepackaged entertainment," Dana Milbank wrote in his June 24 Washington Post column that Huffington Post national editor Nico Pitney was "a planted questioner" who asked "a preplanned question." Milbank further wrote: "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." But while Milbank noted that "Pitney said the White House" was "not aware of the question's wording," he did not quote or paraphrase the question itself, which Guardian America editor Michael Tomasky described as "an important and tough question that got right to the heart of the matter." The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen called it "a terrific question that the president wasn't anxious to answer," while Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald referred to it as "one of the toughest questions at the Press Conference."
During the press conference, Obama said to Pitney, "Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. ... Do you have a question?" Pitney replied:
PITNEY: Yeah, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of [Iranian President Mahmoud] 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?
From Milbank's June 24 Washington Post column:
After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."
Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.
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. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show."
[...]
But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.
Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian.

















This statement does not mean the question was planted just that the President wanted a question from Iran. This is different than what Bush was doing when he knew the exact question ahead of time.
no where did teh WH give "specifics" to Pitney
Using the term "aranged question" implies that the WH and Obama knew the question being asked beforehand; they did not.
So you can disagree with Milbank, which is all MMfA is doing here, but you can't refute the facts, sorry.
I answered. You chose to ignore my answer and go off in another direction.
game over...
Saying the question is "planted" - at least to me - suggests Obama has some sense of its substance well beyond what would seem a really really basic guideline that the question merely be from an actual Iranian.
Milbank is implying that Obama had a set-up and knew what the question was going to be. And that's a lie.
All 'O wanted was a question from an Iranian, and that's why he invited HuffPo there, because they had access. Nothing wrong with that. He even ANNOUNCED it to the group. MMFA is totally right-- it's a phony issue for Milbank. A typical, hypocritical 'nya nya nya' from the Village elders.
Or...
Another version and a likelier version of reality could be that since President Obama does not live in a bubble (like the last president did) and may have actually known several days prior that Huff-Post and other progressive blogs had been communicating with people in Iran and...
Since any president worth his weight would know exactly which reporters would have been in the briefing room, it is obvious that President Obama would have known that Mr. Pitney of the Huff-Post was in the room, so it would not be a stretch that the president would 'know' Nico was likely there with a question from an Iranian without being given prep time.
This last part is what the right-wing is having a heart attack over... funny how this was the very thing that Junior and his bubble of handlers did on a daily basis for 8 years in DC and 6 years in Texas!
And somehow today, its something to bitch about...
The bottom line here is that this faux outrage is all ginned-up by the over-zealous self-indulgent DC media that are angry because a young blogger got "temporary" WH press access instead of Reuters and WaPo getting all of the early questions.
This is just silly.
Dissing this site until the break of dawn.
It's "Right On" today, or is it Master T?
With complaints out the butt by one James B
Let's cut the speculation anyway as it is neither productive nor relevant towards any remarks or arguments made.
Thanks.
Secondly, when you are talking about the message a 'new' poster is making, you can have one type of response to it. If that same message comes from an old sockpuppet who you know knows better, you will have another response.
The reason he didn't is that the question was a good, tough, question. Talking about the substance of the question would have weakened Milbank's point.
If Milbank wants to complain about the question, it's only half the story. One needs to tell the listener/reader what the question was in order to give them the opportunity to fairly evaluate if Obama was tossed a softball, or if he was thrown a fair pitch. In this case, Obama was thrown a fair pitch. That fact changes the import of Obama knowing that a specific person would ask a question from an Iranian.
And it wasn't a planted question. Obama had no idea what the question would be. The question came from a specific source through a pre-planned pick of a blogger, but that's not very offensive at all!
There's NOTHING to criticize. Obama was even completely transparent about this-- it was HE who told the crowd about the HuffPo connection.
And the question was NOT an easy one for him-- it was UNCOMFORTABLE !!!!!
You know-- it just goes to show-- conservatives are really stupid these days. They just cannot be dealt with. How do you argue with such intellectual dishonesty?
There's NOTHING to criticize. Obama was even completely transparent about this-- it was HE who told the crowd about the HuffPo connection.
And the question was NOT an easy one for him-- it was UNCOMFORTABLE !!!!!
You know-- it just goes to show-- conservatives are really stupid these days. They just cannot be dealt with. How do you argue with such intellectual dishonesty?
Really, you are reaching!
I don't see how it helped Obama to be sandbagged by Pitney. Maybe Obama will think twice before doing something like this again. At any rate I would not compare it to rehearsing softballs, the favorite tactic of the Bush administration.
Sometimes the best answer is: "I will have to think about that" or "I don't know".
The point is also that the left decried this practice when Bush did it, so just because you may like the guy currently occupying the WH (or "his house" as he mistakenly calls it), doesn't mean it's ok to do it now.
Glenn Greenwald has been right about so many things, but he and Media Matters are dead wrong on this one.
As someone else pointed out, they are ALL planted questioners that 'O knows about before he even selects them !
Really? How incensed was Milbank over the whole Jeff Gannon thing?
MILBANK: "The fact is he was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership, it's affiliated with something called GOPUSA. So, there are many people, Fox News, Washington Times, they are conservative but they are legitimate organizations. So, this guy is not a real journalist. And he was hanging out there wasting everybody's time in the press room."
Though I doubt the objection to Pitney is that he's not real...
Gannon:
Not only was Gannon incredibly deferential towards the Bush Administration, he mistakenly attributed to Harry Reid fictional satire from Rush Limbaugh that served to marginalize Reid's position.
This is such a pathetic and useless non-issue that I'm not even slightly surprised that the right-wing corporate owned media is having a cow over this. This will be the fake outrage for the next couple days.
I said this in another thread...
I truly hope that President Obama keeps this up!!
What is interesting is that this question came from HuffPo. Why is that? Isn't the mainstream media in contact with dissidents in Iran? It looks like the MSM is being scooped again.
As long as he didn't know what the question was going to be, there is no problem.
The thing with Bush, is that often, he knew the questions in advance (like during his campaign where he had all questions screened and approved before they were asked).
There is a difference.
This is an 'extremely fawning, leading and/or obsequious' question?! What, pray tell, was he being 'led' towards?
'Well, I'd accept the phony election results if they swore on the blessed Qur'an that they were accurate. And, yes, I've thrown the Iranian people under the bus.'
Jesus, you are so transparent. Just stop. You're not convincing anyone of anything. Fail troll is fail.
My imagination is apparently not as vivid as yours. But I did see a gay prostitute was allowed into a Bush press conf. without proper credentials to ask if how Mr. Bush could deal with Democrats who were "detached from reality"
Tell me Tommy, who do you imagine Gannon was servicing in the White House? My guess is Rove.
The deflection seems to be in your own comments trying to blunt the conversation from going in that direction.
Couldn't he have asked a real Gannon classic like 'Some of your critics on the left have said that Iranians hate democracy and kill kittens, and that this is because of the color of their skin. Do you think their vile racist sentiments endanger the American people?'
Instead, he asked a pretty tough one, asking him to contradict his earlier standoffish position and basically calling him out for hating freedom if he doesn't force a regime change.
Here Obama does virtually the same thing and they are defending it.
Typical liberals.
If the Huffpo reporter had asked why Obama is so awesome or how can Obama work with the crazy Republicans, then I think you would have a point. As it does not appear to be even remotely the case here, it seems you are reaching.
I think it shows the sad state of the press that the President even feels the need even to suggest to anyone that someone representing a typical Iranian point of view should be heard from.
It is virtually the same thing because each administration tried to manipulate the press conference with pre-selected and sympathetic questioners.
If one objected to Ganon, one should object to Pitney as they both acted as the foil for the each of the Administrations.
Tell you what -- if we find out from a FOIA that Pitney spent as much time checking into {and not checking out of} the White House, including on days in which there was no scheduled press conference, as Gannon, than we'll be equally objected. Deal?
Gannon was a gay prostitute NOT a journalist!!
I suggest you Google Gannon.
"It is virtually the same thing because each administration tried to manipulate the press conference with pre-selected and sympathetic questioners."
If you don't know whether they knew the question in advance or not, how do you figure that they were trying to manipulate the conference with sympathetic questioners?
Also, can you explain how that question benefited Obama? Was it a softball?
Typical ignoramus.
Typical liberal sophomoric name calling.
RO:"Perhaps, but can you imagine the complaining around here if Bush had invited a blogger from The Weekly Standard into his press conference and solicited a question directly from an Iraqi citizen?"
Foghorn:"But I did see a gay prostitute was allowed into a Bush press conf. without proper credentials to ask if how Mr. Bush could deal with Democrats who were "detached from reality""
RO:"I love it when liberals can't argue something, they always fall back on Bush on Rove as a deflection. Good work."
So you bring up Bush in contrast to AA's comment about Obama, but Foghorn's to blame for talking about Bush in response to you.
Good work, indeed.
And you know, if that were to actually happen, where Bush had not known the content of a question but he was criticized for that, then the criticism wouldn't be worth anything. So what's the purpose in speculating about that hypothetical, since it doesn't make the criticism against Obama any more valid? You're basically crying "you would be wrong too!" Um, OK. Then those people would be wrong, just as Obama's critics are here.
And I love it when righties like wrongO will bring up Carter or Clinton -- two presidents whose terms ended almost 30 and 10 years ago, respectively -- at the drop of a hat . . . but don't like bringing up the name of one whose term ended a scant six months ago . . .
Perhaps, but can you imagine the complaining around here if Bush had invited a blogger from The Weekly Standard into his press conference and solicited a question directly from an Iraqi citizen? Oh, the uproar."
But it's OK for you to use Bush to make a point, not liberals. Double standard, thy name is Republican.
Randy
No Weekly Standard or Iraqi citizen, but press credentials and planted questions?........
James Dale Guckert (born 1957) posed as a conservative columnist under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon and was given credentials as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, eventually being employed by the news organization Talon News during the latter part of this period. Gannon first gained national attention during a presidential press conference on January 26, 2005, when he asked United States President George W. Bush a question that some in the press corps considered "so friendly it might have been planted." Gannon routinely obtained daily passes to White House briefings, attending four Bush press conferences and appearing regularly at White House press briefings. Although he did not qualify for a Congressional press pass, Gannon was given daily passes to White House press briefings "after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number." Gannon came under public scrutiny for his lack of a journalistic background prior to his work with Talon and his involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name "Bulldog". Gannon resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005. Continuing to use the name Gannon, he has since created his own official homepage and worked for a time as a columnist for the Washington Blade newspaper, where he confirmed he was gay after he was outed as a homosexual prostitute.
And you expect to win arguments this way?
Pitney's question from a real Iranian, which the White House (gasp) KNEW would be a question from an Iranian -- a fact not actually concealed, if you read Obama's introduction of Pitney in the transcript -- Now that's overstepping the line!
I especially liked Major Garrett's follow-up question concerning Iranian diplomats inside the US for the last 30 years. Wow. Glad to know I wasn't the only one saying, "Huh?!"
And to those that have not heard or read a transcript of the press conference - you may want to before you make yourself look even sillier than you already have.
OBAMA: Since we're on Iran, I know Niko Pitney (ph) is here from the Huffington Post.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
OBAMA: Niko (ph), I know that you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?
QUESTION: Yes, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: 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 -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?
Hey, Milbank -- get used to it. You're a dinosaur.