About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Milbank incensed by "planted question" -- but not enough to tell readers what it was

June 24, 2009 10:50 am ET

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."

102 Comments

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by progressiveright (June 24, 2009 11:06 am ET)
      4  
      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 24, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
        1  
        And yet somehow W. STILL coudln't ever seem to formulate an intelligent answer!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (June 25, 2009 6:57 am ET)
           
        the questions that jeff gannon was asking the bush white house were things like don't you agree that the democrats are a bunch of incompetent liars. that's hardly the same as this.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 11:07 am ET)
        15
      Sometimes MMfA has the silliest complaints. The point isn't that the question was "tough" or not, and Milbank was under no obligation to point out other people's opinion on that anyway, it was that he was a planted questioner with pretty detailed specifics on what the White House wanted him to ask. Milbank's column was perfectly fine in its criticisms.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (June 24, 2009 11:17 am ET)
        4  
        Wrong as usual. The White House wanted a question from an Iranian and certainly did not outline "pretty detailed specifics on what the White House wanted him to ask". Pitney had been in communication with Iranians through the web. Pitney posed a question from an Iranian. If any of the "mainstream" media had had as much access to the protesters in Iran as Piney had, one of them may have been asked to pose a question from an Iranian.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 11:22 am ET)
            16
          He was a planted questioner with a planned topic, right down to the specifics from the WH. That was Milbank's point, perfectly reasonable.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NG_Officer (June 24, 2009 11:24 am ET)
            7  
            Continuing to say it over and over again doesn not make it true.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 11:26 am ET)
                11
              Really, what about what I said, or what Milbank said is not true?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NG_Officer (June 24, 2009 11:32 am ET)
                3  
                Right down to the specifics from the WH -- RO

                Pitney asked his arranged question -- Milbank


                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 11:39 am ET)
                    11
                  You just said it yourself, the WH wanted a question from an Iranian, so Obama called on Pitney knowing he would give him one. - "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?"

                  So you can disagree with Milbank, which is all MMfA is doing here, but you can't refute the facts, sorry.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NG_Officer (June 24, 2009 11:41 am ET)
                    7  
                    Off on a tangent as usual. You asked:
                    Really, what about what I said, or what Milbank said is not true?

                    I answered. You chose to ignore my answer and go off in another direction.
                    game over...
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 11:47 am ET)
                        13
                      Baloney, you questioned what was written by Milbank as not being true. It is. The specifics was that the question be from an Iranian, which is what Milbank said. The truth. Milbank very explicitly states that the WH did not know the wording of the question. The truth. So you have nothing but a disagreement.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
                        7  
                        So let me get this straight. You think that "[T]he question be from an Iranian" amounts to specifics? Seriously? How many possible questions could there be do you think? I would think there are millions of possibilities, but call me crazy.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by fawltylogic (June 25, 2009 12:14 am ET)
                        1  
                        You're a moron.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 3:32 am ET)
                        2  
                        You are so dishonest. You cant possibly be that dense and still work a keyboard. Saying he knew the specifics of a question simply because he knew it came from an Iranian is like saying you know the specifics and value of a diamond because you know its color. No one could be dumb enough to think that makes sense. Either you are just a plain troll trying to waste everyones time or you are dumber than the water in my fishtank
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by carlileb5935 (June 25, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Wrong.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by captfoster2 (June 24, 2009 11:50 am ET)
                    4  
                    "You just said it yourself, the WH wanted a question from an Iranian, so Obama called on Pitney knowing he would give him one."

                    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...
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by creeksneakers2 (June 25, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                         
                      Bush not only knew what the questions were going to be. Questions needed White House approval to be asked. Bush chose his own questions.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by mk3872 (June 24, 2009 11:41 am ET)
                7  
                So using Right On's logic, that means that the AP, Reuters, CBS, ABC, FOX and NBC were all "planted", too, right? Because Obama sure seemed to know that they were there in the room, too!

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 11:49 am ET)
                    13
                  It may be, but if you don't think MMfA's complaint about Milbank's column is also silly, well, it is. Just because MMfA doesn't like any criticism of Obama, which this thread proves they don't.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (June 24, 2009 12:39 pm ET)
                    6  
                    It's on and on and on and on.......

                    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






                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
                        9
                      If your lowly obsessions about who is who are getting the best of you, perhaps you could take your search to Facebook or something. The topics discussed here might be too much for you. just sayin'
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
                        4  
                        It's obvious that getting your facts correct is too much for you.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne1 (June 24, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
                        4 1
                        Ah TJ, just joshing ya. Have a sense of humor, guy. The topics here are repetitive and I get bored....Cut a sister a break, boyo! ;-)
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
                        6  
                        You dont get the best of anyone. Your posts are inane. You have no point whatsoever. Milbank said the question was planted, it wasnt, he said the specifics were known. They werent. Milbank is a liar and you are sopping it up because you are determined to pretend it is true. Asking for a question directly from an Iranian not knowing WHAT the question was is NOT getting a planted question. Try to keep up
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by seahawks123 (June 24, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
                      3  
                      It's Tommy. He doesn't dispute it. What I find funny is that Tommy used to assert that he was neither right nor left. His choice of new alias has betrayed his true alignment.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne1 (June 24, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
                        2  
                        I think he's actually in the mode of Andrew Sullivan, and is more a libertarian Conservative. But he did say (I believe) he was an independent, which is a patently false.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (June 25, 2009 12:18 am ET)
                        1 1
                        First of all I doubt it's Tommy. They both have been posting for years, but Tommy seems to have left.

                        Let's cut the speculation anyway as it is neither productive nor relevant towards any remarks or arguments made.

                        Thanks.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by seahawks123 (June 25, 2009 3:15 am ET)
                          2  
                          It's not speculation. Tommy has effectively confirmed it. Knowing the track record of who you are talking to helps when combating their nonsense.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by LuvLuLu (June 25, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
                          1  
                          It is relevant to point out for two reasons. First off, Tommy stopped posting, either because that screen name was banned or because he decided that screen name had lost all its credibility. Then JamesB took his place. Then RightON came back. RightON hasn't posted in 3 years until recently, and at that time, FunnyManPants and others accused RightON of being a sockpuppet of Tommy! This is not a new accusation.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by Scribe57 (June 24, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
                    2  
                    I had noticed the same thing about Milbank's column. Milbank cited Reid's question, and Garrett's question, but didn't even allude to the substance of Pitney's question.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
                    3  
                    MMfA's complaint is not silly.

                    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!
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by carlileb5935 (June 25, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Just because MMfA doesn't like any criticism of Obama, which this thread proves they don't.

                    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?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by carlileb5935 (June 25, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
                       
                    Just because MMfA doesn't like any criticism of Obama, which this thread proves they don't.

                    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?
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by tinka (June 25, 2009 11:42 am ET)
               
            right ON: How would Milbank know what transpired between Pitney and the Obama? Was Milbank the fly on the wall or was Milbank on the line when Obama's people were talking to Pitney?
            Really, you are reaching!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ajzito (June 24, 2009 11:49 am ET)
          3  
          NG Officer, you are wasting your time on right ON, who is not going to acknowledge that Obama did not know anything specific about the question itself. True, he knew that Pitney would be ready to relay a question from Iran, so the source was known, in general; it does not appear that he knew what the question would be. He can't have wanted the question he got, to which he certainly did not have a rehearsed answer. It was possibly the hardest queston, and his worst answer of the day. It looks like the Huffington guy agreed to be there with a question from Iran, but did not agree what the question would be.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NG_Officer (June 24, 2009 11:55 am ET)
            4  
            I know it was a waste of time, but it was fun reading his rants.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
              3  
              What RightON was doing is the same thing that many do. Distract from the original topic.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
            3  
            I think the tough questions are the best ones. If Obama did not have a good answer, perhaps that will urge him to think about the question more in order to understand the situation and his own policy better.

            Sometimes the best answer is: "I will have to think about that" or "I don't know".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (June 25, 2009 12:25 am ET)
              1  
              I agree. It's a tough question because it isn't a question that CAN be answered until this crisis has been resolved in some way. WE will have to engage Iran.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by jbindc (June 24, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
            3
          Worng. This isn't the first time that Obama has had plants asking questions going all the way back to the campaign, but that's beside the point. The point is that at a press conference, POTUS shouldn't know anythingthat's going to be asked - that would be a) the press actually doing it's job, and b)the WH not working the system. If Obama wanted a question from an Iranian, he didn't have to call on a blogger/reporter to ask it, as if it just came to him. The WH could have gotten the question before and addressed it in his remarks before hand - just like Obama did with the alleged woman who introduced him in Wisconsin who had breast cancer, blah, blah, blah.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
            2  
            There is no evidence that Obama DID know anything that was going to be asked any more specifically than I would know the answer had I told you to pick a random number from 1 to a trillion.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by thesimulacra (June 24, 2009 11:51 pm ET)
               
            You're right, I mean, if someone hadn't told President Obama that he was going to get a question about Iran beforehand, I'm sure he wouldn't have been expecting it. I mean, it's not like it's been in the news or anything.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
                 
              Good post. Hey is your nick from the famous Philip K Dick novel I read as a kid?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by fawltylogic (June 25, 2009 12:17 am ET)
               
            Obama didn't know what the question would be. Your post is meaningless.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jon wisby (June 24, 2009 11:23 am ET)
        4  
        If ignorance is bliss, why are you always whining?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 24, 2009 4:14 pm ET)
        2  
        Shullbit. Complaining about a planted question (something he can't truly proove anyway) suggests that the question was a softball, design to make the presdient look good. The substance of the question IS important, because it was NOT a softball question, and actually undermines Milbank's basic complaint. Who the heck would plant a question that's as sticky as THAT ONE is? And is they DID, the good on them, since the rest of teh press was apparently too afraid to go there, for whatever reaosn.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
        2  
        This isn't about a "planted questioner with pretty detailed specifics on what the White House wanted him to ask''. It's about Milbank saying that there was a planted question. There wasn't.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (June 25, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
             
          Technically. Milburn says "planted questioners." It's a dishonest evasion, though-- because he's trying to pass the one off as the other.

          As someone else pointed out, they are ALL planted questioners that 'O knows about before he even selects them !
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 11:09 am ET)
      5  
      "The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences..."

      Really? How incensed was Milbank over the whole Jeff Gannon thing?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (June 24, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
        3  
        Somewhat, it turns out:

        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...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
        2  
        I would generally agree with Millbank on that quote. That said it is interesting how different liberal "planted questioners" are from conservative "planted questioners".

        Gannon:
        "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And (Senator) Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work – you've said you are going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?


        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.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (June 24, 2009 11:12 am ET)
      4  
      Shocking... the right-wing and it seems, some of its lesser players, in this case, Dana Milbank are having a collective cow that President Obama dare take a question from an Iranian via a blogger, a progressive one at that??

      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!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Tegan (June 24, 2009 11:28 am ET)
        3
      Does anyone want to become "Famous"? Here's a question for Mr. Obama. What would it take(from America),to get South Korea, to APPLY for Statehood? Just apply, or at least "claim to". Can you say HEADLINES!!! Just think "CHANGE THE WORLD". Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, NORTH KOREA, let's not Invade, lets "Move next Door". Permanently!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (June 24, 2009 11:45 am ET)
      3 4
      I have no problem with the Obama administration soliciting a question from Pitney as long as they did not know the question in advance. Having known he might ask a question, Pitney probably was better prepared.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
          12
        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Eric Jaffa (June 24, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
          3  
          If it were a tough question, and Bush didn't know the question in advance, then probably not much of an uproar.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
            3  
            Bush didn't know the answer to simple questions. Tough questions weren't allowed into press conferences.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 24, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
          3  
          Wrong 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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 12:50 pm ET)
            4  
            I think Gannon is an example of extremely fawning,leading and/or obsequious "questions" as well. The Bush Whitehouse used "reporters" like Gannon in a pinch to bypass hard questions and to help "catapult the propaganda" and obscure the truth.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by scarshapedstar (June 24, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
                 
              "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?"

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by scarshapedstar (June 24, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
              1  
              Oh geez, I'm so sorry. I thought your comment was posted by that wingnut. Clearly I need more caffeine today.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (June 24, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
          4  
          "can you imagine"

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
              8
            I love it when liberals can't argue something, they always fall back on Bush on Rove as a deflection. Good work.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
              3  
              It would seem fair game to comment on Bush/Rove as Millbank's column (which MMFA is commenting on) makes that very comparison.

              The deflection seems to be in your own comments trying to blunt the conversation from going in that direction.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (June 24, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
                  6
                Fine, but I would say those ignoring this overblown MMfA complaint about Milbank and focusing on Gannon, a story years gone by, are the ones trying to blunt the conversation in that direction.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by scarshapedstar (June 24, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Couldn't he have asked a softball like 'Do you have any inspirational words for the Iranian people'?

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (June 24, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
                  7
                What is funny is the lack of outrage by the libs who had conniptions regarding Gannon.

                Here Obama does virtually the same thing and they are defending it.

                Typical liberals.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                  4  
                  How is it "virtually the same thing"? Please compare and contrast for me.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (June 24, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
                      4
                    open,

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
                      2  
                      "If one objected to Ganon, one should object to Pitney as they both acted as the foil for the each of the Administrations." - anotheramerican


                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Ludicrous. Obama asked for a question FROM an Iranian. Quite relevant in the context of what is happening. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is a joke
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 24, 2009 3:50 pm ET)
                      2  
                      If one objected to Ganon, one should object to Pitney


                      Gannon was a gay prostitute NOT a journalist!!

                      I suggest you Google Gannon.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (June 24, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
                      1  
                      "I have no problem with the Obama administration soliciting a question from Pitney as long as they did not know the question in advance."

                      "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?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by fawltylogic (June 25, 2009 12:20 am ET)
                         
                      What about the question asked was "sympathetic"?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (June 24, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
                  4  
                  AA - the lack of outrage is because it's FALSE outrage, a wholly owned subsidiary of the conservatives and posters like yourself.

                  Typical ignoramus.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
                    4  
                    I agree. I think it is false outrage over a false comparison. It just looks kind of desperate to even compare the two incidents in the first place beyond the most vague similarities.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
                      3  
                      The cons are attempting to compare apples and poodles once again.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
                        3  
                        The Obama Administration and the Huffpo reporter have been clearly transparent about the whole thing all along AND there is no evidence the Obama Administration knew the actual question in advance AND the question was not overly deferential or attacking the President's critics in any way, but other than all of that, it was exactly the same as the Gannon/Guckert controversy.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (June 24, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
                      6
                    fog
                    Typical liberal sophomoric name calling.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
                      5  
                      You are such a hypocrite. Typical liberal logic you say. You call us un-American, typical liberal you say. Then its WWWWAAAAAAHHHHH you guys are so mean to me WWWWWWAAAHHHHHHH. You snivel so much it would embarass a girl scout when you are treated the way you treat us.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (June 24, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
                  3  
                  You are typically obtuse. This isnt anywhere NEAR the same as Gannon. To even compare the two is laughably clueless. Pitney gave a question from an Iranian.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (June 24, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
              2  
              AA:"I have no problem with the Obama administration soliciting a question from Pitney as long as they did not know the question in advance."

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mjh (June 24, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
                 
              "I love it when liberals can't argue something, they always fall back on Bush on Rove as a deflection. Good work." - wrong OFF

              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 . . .
              Report Abuse
            • Author by fantagor (June 25, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
                 
              "by right ON (June 24, 2009 12:05 pm ET)

              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
              Report Abuse
        • Author by rtwmd1230 (June 24, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
          6  
          Even Bush knew that taking Rove-scripted questions from an aging male hooker was more reputable than calling on the Weekly Standard.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 24, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
          2  
          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?


          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.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Ankhorite (June 25, 2009 12:05 am ET)
          1  
          You want to imagine something you acknowledge never happened, and then be offended by an episode which is 100% imaginary?

          And you expect to win arguments this way?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 3:35 am ET)
          2  
          I am sure you can imagine all kinds of fantasies and pretend they have some connection with reality but they DONT. All they show is how brainwashed you are. They say NOTHING about Planet EARTH.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by rtwmd1230 (June 24, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
        4  
        Exactly, that's what got Milbank's panties in such a wad: he knows that the bloggers have snowed the MSM on this story.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Whispers (June 24, 2009 11:57 am ET)
      5  
      Given all the idiotic questions at that press conference, it's simply bizarre that Milbank would pick that one by Pitney as the one to be upset about.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (June 24, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
        6  
        Indeed: Question from FOX News' Major Garrett falsely implying President Obama's response hadn't been forceful enough until then? Fine. Even stupider follow-up incorrectly assuming Iranian diplomats have been inside US for the last 30 years? Fine. Question from Chip Reid begging to get owned on whether Obama's been influenced by shrieking Republicans who shouldn't be allowed within five miles of foreign policy? Fine. Two tantrum-throwing post-owned follow-ups by Reid? Fine. Chuck Todd eagerly displaying his enthusiasm fo a world simple enough for him to understand? Fine. Todd's crybaby follow-ups? Fine.

        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!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 24, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
          3  
          I don't get it either. To compare Pitney to Gannon displays nothing but partisanship. To pretend that Pitney's question was one that should get us all up in arms is just stupid.

          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?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (June 24, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
      4  
      The broader issue is that Milbank's column is just more whining from the established media about the new media receiving equal treatment.

      Hey, Milbank -- get used to it. You're a dinosaur.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by CybScryb (June 24, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
      2 1
      I'm trying to recollect the column where Millie bagged on the Bush administration for using the plant who lobbed softball questions. I can't recall the guys name nor any reaction from Millie. Jeff something was the guys name.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 24, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
        1  
        There's an entire section earlier in this very thread about Jeff Gannon. Perhaps you should try reading before commenting.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (June 25, 2009 10:10 am ET)
         
      Nico and the Huffington Post was the only media outlet that was on top fo this story 24 by 7 using the various internet machines to keep people updated on what was going on over there. The entire media can take a lesson to how Nico kept this story up to date and accurate. There was no hiding the fact that Nico was there and was going to ask a question from someone in Iran. There is no proof anyone other than Nico knew the question. Just more BS from the right wing spin machine.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by SMTDL (June 25, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
      2  
      This is the type of nitpicking that makes me marvel at how conservatives get away with crying liberal media bias.The president did a European "town hall" meeting which never(to my knowledge) has been done before.Here he makes a special effort to take a question directly from Iran on this very tough issue....How open and courageous of him.Instead it gets turned into another 24/7 gotcha/innuenedo/conspiracy issue based on nothing but conjecture!!!George Bush never even went to speak wher he was not facing a group of his fans.They even barred anybody that they thought might be in opposition!!!Of course they screened teh questions.Other than making lists of what reporters get to ask questions ,this admin has been much more substantive and open to genuinely answering questions!!!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.