Comments on: Flashback: Milbank Hailed Bush’s Mission Accomplished Moment As “Bold”

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:21:09 +0000

A number of you are saying these two situations aren’t a perfect parallel. I never said they were. The point is merely that media outrage about presidential stagecraft is highly selective.

By: oddjob

oddjob — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:17:36 +0000

“Only if Bush had a Fox reporter planted on the flight deck asking a loaded question could the two events be considered even remotely similar.” Not on the flight deck, but as was pointed out earlier Jeff Gannon was an even more blatant participation by the White House, except Shrub’s folks did it. Where was Millbank’s outrage then?

By: oddjob

oddjob — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:09:04 +0000

THE PRESIDENT IS A CIVLIAN! HE DOES NOT – EVER – WEAR A MILITARY UNIFORM!!!!!

By: oddjob

oddjob — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:07:37 +0000

the scene brought presidential imagery to a whole new level

IT CERTAINLY DID! It brought it to an imperial level George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. would have been HORRIFIED by!

By: Cuffy Meigs

Cuffy Meigs — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:10:26 +0000

===It seems to me the difference between this example, where Milbank wrote _about_ the stagecraft, and the Pitney question is that Pitney _participated in_ the stagecraft. A huge, huge difference, where journalistic ethics is concerned.===

Exactly. Only if Bush had a Fox reporter planted on the flight deck asking a loaded question could the two events be considered even remotely similar.

By: Matt D

Matt D — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:34:20 +0000

I don’t really think the passage you cite was journalistic malpractice on Milbank’s part. The passage pretty aptly captured the most important takeaway from the “Mission Accomplished” moment, namely that the whole thing was stagecraft, an attempt by the Bush team to wrap itself in the aura of the military. I’m not sure what more you thought Milbank should have portrayed?

By: Glenn Butler

Glenn Butler — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:12:52 +0000

Last years prima donna all in a huff that this newcomer was given a chance to interact in a new way… precisely because last years news was about which reporters are cool and how some dude looks in a bathing suit.

Frankly… I loved the question… and it was so very real and to the point that the president had to dodge it. To say such a thing was staged is bitchy and disingenuous to the extreme… which defines last years news style.

Congratulations to Obama for departing from the cliquish gossipy meaninglessness and encouraging relevance. What he got was a real and difficult question that I was wondering about myself.

No wonder that the only time I’ve read the washington post lately was when it was referred to by Huffington Post… and usually the reference was to point out the irrelevance of the entertainment approach to global news.

Indeed… I’ve been entertained by watching Milbank strut his inane stuff… and humor has been the only value he has delivered.

By: carlgt1

carlgt1 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:09:47 +0000

remember Jeff Gannon anyone? these same lame journalists such as Milbank happily accepted and even lamer non-journalist and “front man” into their ranks. and now we’re supposed to believe their hype over this blogger “scandal?” it’s just too funny…

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:22:15 +0000

It seems to me the difference between this example, where Milbank wrote _about_ the stagecraft, and the Pitney question is that Pitney _participated in_ the stagecraft.

A huge, huge difference, where journalistic ethics is concerned. However to Pitney’s credit, we know about his participation because he told people, there appeared to be full disclosure everywhere but on the press room floor when he was called upon.

By: Nicholas W

Nicholas W — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:26:56 +0000

From an International perspective (I’m Australian), it’s a bit amusing to see you guys dedicating so much attention to this press conference ploy over Obama’s actual response, which was quite vague and pathetic. I think it’s partly Nico’s fault and I think it is so because of his age; ie. he doesn’t have to prove himself on this issue, it’s Dana Milbank et. al. who are making fools of themselves, and everybody (from my understanding) knows this. At Obama’s non-event of a response, I’d be surprised if he did a similiar thing in the near-future, it’s shown that the internet-borne press has less to lose in asking bold questions like Nico did, which Obama wouldn’t be a fan of.

No doubt this issue of old and new presses is very interesting. It would be good to see more internet-only newspapers rise in popularity. Especially since HuffPost often publishes such rubbish!

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:13:31 +0000

WH reporters have long told themselves that the reason they aren’t more confrontational is that they need the “access”, and that if they behaved in a manner that could be seen as too adversarial, they would lose access, and that would of course be bad for reporting (not to mention to their own jobs).

Now, if people find out that the WH press corps isn’t actually even that influential anymore, since there are BLOGGERS who get to ask questions (the nerve!) and don’t feel the need to be subservient in exchange for access, where does that leave the “real” journalists?

That’s what it all comes down to. Poor little WH press corps.

By: Paul Camp

Paul Camp — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:46:46 +0000

What Pitney-gate involved was calling into question the importance of the press. And that makes all the difference. Obama told them they’re not that big a deal and Bush played to them with pomp and pageantry.

By: Paul W.

Paul W. — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:04:11 +0000

Sgw, spot on buddy. Those of us not invested in the system and who are instead looking for results rather than being mired in courtly conduct can’t even understand what all the fuss is about. Not to mention that after the amazing job aggregating news on the uprising in Iran better than any mainstream source, only Nico,Sullivan and a few others had earned enough credibility to ask about Iran. Witness the laughable questions about whether Senatorial grandstanding was the reason for Obama condemning the recent escolation in violence, the answer (of course) was Obama responded to events on the ground instead of domestic political squabling.

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:42:45 +0000

As I pointed out before, as you look through each MSM criticism of the incident is mirrored by one thing. None of them put the actual text of the question that Nico Pitney asked in their columns criticizing him being given that opportunity. It just shows you that they all know the question itself was more that worthy to be asked. And it also shows they know they are full of sh*t. None of them, Milbank included can explain why the didn’t include the text of the question in their criticism. What a bunch of losers.

By: jzap

jzap — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:24:37 +0000

Well, if Dana Milbank can’t take a joke…