Dana Milbank

Mike's Blog Roundup

Calculated Risk: Fed Chairmen never learn. Meanwhile, in the UK the gubmint is trying to rein in the bankers...

Little Green Footballs: Has seen the light!

Pulp Friction: America has become one big, crappy reality show

Pressing Issues: No terrorist angle, not news

Legal Schnauzer: A "Deep Throat" emerges in the Mike Connell plane crash

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Journalism 2009...Dana Milbank is an ass...Politico reports wingnut talking points as news...Cato rips Fox...Politico deep in the tank..."Bold Strategy"...Moonie Times to lay off 40% of 'staff'...WH Mainstream hacks object to bloggers...Watching America...Steyn/Beck's Fakes of Wrath...Celebrity Nonsense...Don't think, kill!...Ask This



Andy Cobb: Washington Post's New Editorial Team -- TDAAWC II

Andy Cobb and Josh Funk have a bit of fun with the Washington Post and their America's Next Great Pundit contest.


Washington Post's New Editorial Team-TDAAWC

Andy Cobb and Josh Funk have some fun with Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza for their terribly unfunny attempt at humor at the Washington Post, Post's Milbank, flashing Hillary Clinton photo: "We won't tell you who's getting a bottle of Mad Bitch" beer.

Update:
From Howard Kurtz: Post's Video 'Theater' Ends Its Run, Hosts Apologize for Off-Color Clinton Joke:

Continue reading »


Washington Post Sells Access To Obama, Others To Lobbyists

money-exchanging-hands-thumb_084b1.jpg

Apparently the Very Serious People™ in the Village have a very different idea of journalism than they led us to believe. After their own columnist Dana Milbank lost his marbles and dignity over a DFH blogger asking a question, the Washington Post hits an all new low:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a staffwide e-mail that the newsroom would not participate in the first of the planned events — a dinner scheduled July 21 at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth.

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

So they're decided that the new business model for newspapers is to effectively pimp their access and reputation to the highest bidder. No wonder they got so pissy about Nico's question. They figured they could hit up some Iranian for some serious scratch to ask their question.

Apparently red-faced at being caught with their metaphoric pants down, WaPo announced this morning that they were canceling these pay-for-access salons.

UPDATED: Howie Kurtz puts out the typical CYA article: We're horrified to find pimping going on around here!


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (106)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (375)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Dana Milbank makes Keith's Best Person's segment for comparing Nico Pitney to Jeff Gannon.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (963)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1988)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Such a dick, indeed.

So Dana Milbank is outraged, outraged we tell you, that the White House prearranged a list of journalists it intended to call upon at last week's press conference -- as though this were not something, as we just noted, that's been going on for years, and which reached its zenith with the Bush White House using a fake reporter named "Jeff Gannon" to raise questions favorable to its talking points.

Of course, what Pitney did was precisely the opposite: He actually asked an extremely tough question that President Obama had a difficult time answering (and in fact failed to answer). Yet this is what the Village folk are all waving their Gucci torches and Armani pitchforks about.

Moreover, as Eric Boehlert observes at Media Matters, Milbank never bothered to even write about this on the pages of the Washington Post, either while it was happening or afterward.

However, he did in fact appear on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Feb. 9, 2005, to talk about Gannon. And while he was happy to kick Gannon around a little, this was his rationale about the whole affair:

MILBANK: Let's call him Mr. G. He did get to ask a question of the president whether that was deliberate or not.

You know, what it really comes down to here is that it is not the type of question he was asking. I find that funny, it was a brief break, it was an amusement. 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 GOP USA. 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.

Now, Milbank can't possibly object to Pitney's presence or inclusion in the press conference on the grounds that Huffington Post "doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership" -- it in fact has one of the largest readerships of any entity on the Internet, dwarfing even the Washington Post's.

So he's left to cling to the thin fiction that Pitney's preselection by the White House was some kind of massive transgression of the unwritten rules of White House press conferences. And in a way it was: It proved that the old unwritten rule -- that Beltway hacks like Dana Milbank will be permitted to dominate our national conversation by trivializing press conferences with dumbass questions about baseball and swimming suits -- is no longer quite so operative.

Indeed, no one seems to have asked the really relevant question here: Why did the White House feel compelled to ensure that someone asked an Iran question? Answer: Because they almost certainly feared the usual onslaught of swimsuit, baseball and Michael Jackson questions.


You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1409)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4275)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
(h/t Heather)

On Reliable Sources this morning, Howard Kurtz brings on Huffington Post's Nico Pitney to deal with two naysayers eager to scream "collusion!" over Nico's question to President Obama this week regarding the Iranian election: WaPo's Dana Milbank and TownHall's Amanda Carpenter. The fact that hyper-partisan Carpenter is even asked her opinion shows how little interest Kurtz had in an honest dialog. Seriously, Amanda, the video shows Nico in the back of the room behind other reporters--your complaining about Nico being "pushed to the front of the room" is discredited just like all your other "facts"--who you gonna believe? Amanda or your lyin' eyes?

But it's Dana Milbank who really gets his bitchy little knickers in a twist. He starts the segment incredibly defensive. It's hard to tell whether Dana is just miffed that he didn't get called on or that some upstart blogger who doesn't get the same Beltway cocktail party invitations asked a better question than he ever has.

This whole media-created "scandal" is ridiculously inane and smacks of a willful short memory which would be comical if it wasn't supplanting much more important discussions. Um, Howie, Dana, Amanda....does the name "Jeff Gannon" ring a bell? Jamison Foser:

Here's the thing: Nobody is actually claiming that Obama knew what question Pitney was going to ask. The allegations of "coordination" and "staging" are premised on the idea that the Obama folks knew what topic Pitney would ask about - Iran.

Well, it isn't all that unusual for a president to have a pretty good idea what topic a reporter is going to ask about. If you call on a reporter from Stars & Stripes or Army Times, you'll probably get a question relating to the military. Call on a Washington Post reporter, and you'll likely get a question about steroids in baseball or haircuts. Call on a New York Times reporter, and there's a pretty good chance he'll ask what enchants you about the White House. Call on a Huffington Post reporter, and they'll probably ask something a little more substantive.[..]

I'm pretty sure Dana Milbank knew what topic he was going to be asked about when he appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources opposite Pitney today. Ohmygod! Dana Milbank and Howard Kurtz coordinated! It was staged!

Oh, the stoopid hypocrisy. It hurts, doesn't it, Dana?

Just to put this into perspective, think about this. Nico Pitney has spent the last two weeks tirelessly developing sources from inside Iran, aggregating every relevant story available on the internet through every available form of the new communication technology and synthesizing one of the most most difficult and important foreign policy stories of the decade.

Dana Milbank has spent the same period bitching about the "low press" getting to ask questions at a press conference and filming snotty little gossip items for his little insider video embarrassment called "Mouthpiece Theatre."

And the newspapers wonder why they're dying. Let me remind all of you that WaPo decided to sack Froomkin, but kept Milbank. So goes the state of "journalism" at the Washington Post.

By the way, when I emailed Nico to congratulate him on a serious smackdown of the Very. Serious. Villager., he shared with me Milbank's comment to him as Kurtz was introducing the next segment: "You're such a dick." You stay classy, Dana.


DOWNLOAD (89)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (105)
WMV QuickTime

On The Situation Room, while discussing some "implied criticism" (in Wolf's words) of the Bush administration from Barack Obama about his choice for AG Eric Holder -- who Obama says might actually adhere to the Constitution and that Hillary Clinton will restore America's diplomacy around the world -- panel members Dana Milbank and Gloria Borger let Wolf know the criticism wasn't so much "implied" but pretty straightforward.

The conversation then moved to discussing the series of exit interviews that George Bush is giving, and Bush's admission that he was not "ready for war". Stephen Hayes then fills us in with this little tidbit:

Yeah it's pretty, it's pretty amazing stuff. I mean, I think that in his discussion about immigration and regretting the tone of the debate, I mean clearly I think that was a criticism of his own party. We're going to be seeing a lot more of this and there's an ongoing Bush legacy project that's been meeting in the White House, really, with senior advisers, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes has been involved, current senior Bush administration advisers and they are looking at how to sort of roll out the President's legacy.

Milbank counters with a bit of reality:

The whole country has been on a Bush legacy project and it's not looking very good for him. I think the extraordinary thing is how does he fix from among the various things to choose from? Now he looks at immigration. Something that certainly helped to torpedo John McCain and of all things now he tells us categories to say that to say that uh....

Blitzer interrupts him before he gets to finish his point and Borger finishes by saying that how Iraq goes will determine how Bush goes down in history. Ya think?

Gloria, don't you suppose there's already enough evidence now of how that debacle, and its accompanying theft of our tax dollars, has gone to make that assessment? Just how much more proof of the Iraq war being one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of our country do you need, exactly, to make a call on that one?

And Bush is working on a "legacy project", with the help of Karl Rove?? Excuse me while I lay on the floor laughing about this one for awhile. Who do they think they're fooling? I guess the twenty-some percent who still to this day think Bush was a good President, but I truly hope the history books are not so kind no matter what sort of "project" they have in mind, and no matter how many soft-shoe interviews Bush decides to give before he finally does us the favor of leaving.

Legacy project? Spare me. I wonder how much they'll be paying Hayes and his buddies to help work on it along with those Bush advisers?