Washington Post v. Huffington Post

Wow.

Did Scherer reach that assessment? He certainly waffled a lot, and spent time defending Milbank rather ineptly in comments. I don’t remember him actually offering such a clear-cut judgment at all. But I am glad you have seen the light, Joe, although the petulance on the Kurtz show was much more from Milbank and the female journalist (who was she – anyone know?).

We’re moving through another phase in western culture. To recap:
.
1. Kill the messenger.
2. Mistrust the messenger.
3. Respect the reliable messenger.
4. “The medium is the message” – distorted by messengers into “The messenger is the message.”
5. Mistrust the messenger.
6. Let’s all sit back and be entertained by the messengers fighting with each other.
.
Looks like we completely lost our focus on the message somewhere around #3 1/2.

Well said, Joe. And kudos to you for having the courage to side with Pitney, instead of retreating into a cheap, easy “pox on both their houses” equivalence.
.
The real question is why this has become such a big deal.
.
I think it has a lot to do with the insecurity of the current old media establishment. They feel threatened by upstarts like Pitney, who (it’s worth repeating) has provided far better coverage of the Iran situation than most traditional outlets.

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Obama didn’t know what the question would be, and really didn’t answer it very well. I am reasonably certain Obama has already given more press conferences in the first 6 months of his presidency than Bush gave in several years. So it seems to me that more reporters are having a greater opportunity to be called upon in this administration and can certainly stand aside while a question is asked from someone outside the press corp. I thought it was interesting to get a question from an Iranian, and I’m sure word spread back to that country rather quickly through various channels.

It’s not ALWAYs about the press, guys!

You “generally agree” with MS’s assessment, but “Pitney was right and Milbank was wrong”? HUH?

Your blog here sounds more like trying to have it both ways Joe…I watched the whole thing, and while Pitney, as a newcomer to the Kurtz game didn’t come off as well as he could have, I along with most of the posters under Scherer’s column thought Milbank came off a a total self-absorbed d*ck!

Joe, I’m rather impressed – these last few months, it’s like somebody’s been slipping steroids into your Wheaties. Disregarding your reflexive media-apologist’s framing, you have pretty much cut to the core of things in your last bunch of columns. I’m almost beginning to respect your work (which I know will make your otherwise drab and meaningless day full of sparkle and ponies..). Keep it up!

trying to have it both ways Joe
.
Actually it’s quite appropriate. Milbank was a WATB when he wrote his column, and nothing that’s said on TeeVee actually matters.

What silliness. As JayAckroyd suggested via twitter, if this is such a big deal, why not pick people at random. Maybe that would ensure that a little thought and work was put into the questions rather than just popping up with a gotcha.

Joe: re: Why this is such a big deal.
.
A: A blogger’s question was selected in the #2 spot. The serious MSM feels slighted; wants to take notepads and go home.
.
Imagine, for example, if a young, upstart blogger, new to the Swampland staff had taken “your” TIME seat on a candidate’s election bus. You wouldn’t blow a gasket and berate her at the next campaign stop, would you?
.
…oh, wait….

Its a big deal because a DFH blogger got to ask a question that was not framed by right wing talking points. Right Amanda Carpenter, right David Gregory, right Morning Joe, right George Stephanopoulos, right Howie Kurtz, right Dana Milbank?

.
The real question is why this has become such a big deal.
.
Certain media types have their knickers in a twist and are using the only tool they have – the media megaphone – to pressure the White House into giving them more face time…Heavens forbid that someone who isn’t part of the Big Media elite gets to sit at the grown-up table.
.
Maybe, just maybe, Obama is a little tired of having to answer questions about flag pins, swimsuits, and birth certificates posed by supposedly serious journalists.
.
A good question is a good question. Period.
.
Good on you, Joe.

darius3 has it, in my opinion. The old media is feeling the pressure, with outlets and subscribers disappearing. As Pitney (inartfully) pointed out, these problems are exacerbated by the fact that the old media, such as Dana Milbank, does a terrible job at reporting the news. Hence, tantrums and petulance from Dana. He’s a less pugnacious Maureen Dowd.
-
Fine post, Joe.

The real question is why this has become such a big deal.

Bingo.
.
Establishment Washington is very insecure these days, willing to point fingers at everyone except itself…

I’m with SZ upthread — just wow. At a time when so many face enormous challenges worldwide, a pi$$ing match ensues in the US MSM about how a question was/should be asked.

Good for you, the petulance of Dana Millbank was shameful , there were some similar whining comments in the New York Times. The main impression I had from the press conference was the poor quality questioning of the main stream media., a bunch of gotcha questions and soundbites. Ed Henry set the low standard some conferences ago and it seems the rest have been competing with his example. And the media wonders why it is in low disrepute and why people are going to other sources for news.

The actual news from that question wasn’t the question itself. It was that Pres. Obama took a question directly from an Iranian citizen currently protesting in Iran. Talk about sending the message that “I hear you” to those people in the streets.
.
His answer was boilerplate and evasive, but it’s exactly what it had to be. He wasn’t going to draw a line for how he would consider Iran’s election legit or not, because he doesn’t know who he’ll be dealing with in 6 months.
.
But the fact that he purposefully made sure that a regular Iranian got to ask a DIRECT question of him is a powerful statement in of itself. And it’s apparently something that’s gone over everyone’s head, because Milbank got all pissy about it and the rest of the DC media was happy to promote a mudfight.

Without any apparent irony whatsoever,

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will soon introduce legislation to sanction any company that sells sensitive technology aiding the Iranian regime in monitoring or blocking the Internet connections or cell phone conversations of protesters.

Question: is it “petulance” to correctly claim to being unfairly smeared? Anyway, the reason “this has become such a big deal” is because certain self-important Village hacks decided it was a big deal. Don’t you know how your own industry works?

“I generally agree with Michael Scherer’s assessment of the great Wapo-Huffpo faceoff.”
~
“The real question is why this has become such a big deal. A good question at a press conference is rare enough. A good question is a good question. Period.”
~
Apparently, one reason why it’s such a “big deal” is that two of Time’s esteemed bloggers are clucking about it, one of whom (who you “generally agree with”) spent 1400 words clucking.
~
The question might be how this courtiers’-only discourse “caters to” Americans’ interests?

If the President feels he’s not getting asked good questions, why shouldn’t he step outside the regular suspects? A fairly recent thread was about the press giving Obama a hard time at a White House press conference and the comment that he wouldn’t be “doing this again anytime soon”. This could be President Obama saying “And neither will you”.

The Posts, New York Times, ABCs, etc. expect to get called. Telling Nico to expect to be called is to make his expectations than any of the big whigs.
And speaking of ABC, do you think that the Insurance CEO or the head of the AMA that they invited to their little party with the prez the other night might have gotten a heads up that they might get a question? Do you think the other 170 people there that had the expectation they might get to ask their question, but got edged out by powerful insider interests have the right to be really pissed off? Why can’t we hear from Joe average who was in that crowd about cheating during presidential Q & A sessions? I’d rather hear from them than a clownshoe like Milbank.

This might not be a good post for me to dip my toes in, since it’s more about internal US policies, which is not my strongest suit, but since crappy media is everywhere these days I guess it’s relevant enough.
.
Short: I think this post by Joe is great.
.
Why: Because in blogging it’s ok to make a short post about a minor detail. It doesn’t have to be 1500 words of detailed analysis. If a blogger has a good point to make – and can even do so succinctly and pointedly – then they should be all means make it. And that’s what Joe does very well here. So I think those complaining that he really should ignore it are missing the point here. If he made an article in TIME (paper or online) it’d be something else. But nothing wrong with a quick and direct point made. So to those blaming Joe for even this short (and sensible) post about the matter I’d suggest you consider that we are on a blog – albeit one run by jounalists.

[...] UPDATE #4: Joe Klein [...]

“So to those blaming Joe for even this short (and sensible) post about the matter I’d suggest you consider that we are on a blog…”
.
Actually, I think people are blaming Joe for being obtuse (not sensible) about why this is a big deal. The reason is because journalists often get to decide what is news, which is often what’s of parochial interest in their rather insular and political lives, and either don’t understand that or pretend that it isn’t so.

Opensourcepundit at #17 wins the thread. This isn’t about Pitney, it isn’t about Milbank, it isn’t about the MSM of unblessed memory, it isn’t about bloggers. It isn’t about whether the press corps could or couldn’t have asked a better question. It’s about Obama dealing a fat dollop of respect to ordinary Iranian citizens.

That said, Nico may have been better advised not to let his contempt for Milbank show so nakedly. But these weren’t equal displays of petulance. It was Goliath who started the whole brouhaha by going out of his way to sling rocks at David. And those rocks, seeing that they consisted of outright lies, should have been contraband weaponry in any journalistic dispute. David’s return pebbles might have come off as petty, but at least they were truthful. And that’s why Goliath took more damage from the exchange.

Beautifully worded post nicteis (26)…thanks!

“It was Goliath who started the whole brouhaha by going out of his way to sling rocks at David. And those rocks, seeing that they consisted of outright lies, should have been contraband weaponry in any journalistic dispute. David’s return pebbles might have come off as petty, but at least they were truthful.”
.
All true. But as Mr. Klein’s false equivalence above demonstrates, the MSM doesn’t care about relative truth – assuming they can still discern it – when they decide who’s being petulant and who’s countering a dishonest smear. And that’s exactly how we got eight years of George Bush and everything that went with it.

[...] ButJoe Klein sums it up and hits the nail on the head: [...]

[...] ButJoe Klein sums it up and hits the nail on the head: [T]he Administration didn’t ask to know what the question was in advance. And–here’s the point–it was a great question, about whether the President would continue to seek negotiations with the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime. And Obama ducked the answer. [...]

[...] ButJoe Klein sums it up and hits the nail on the head: [T]he Administration didn’t ask to know what the question was in advance. And–here’s the point–it was a great question, about whether the President would continue to seek negotiations with the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime. And Obama ducked the answer. [...]