Debating The Iran Question On CNN's Reliable Sources

This morning, Dana Milbank, Amanda Carpenter, and I appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources, hosted by Howard Kurtz.

It was a spirited affair and folks can draw their own conclusions. Here's the video:

The only thing that surprised me was when Dana turned to me after our initial sparring and called me a "dick" in a whispered tone (the specific phrase was, I believe, "You're such a dick"). Howie Kurtz wrote on Twitter that he didn't hear it, which is understandable -- he was doing the lead-in for the next part of the segment on the ABC White House special. But it happened (I urge Howie to watch the video of the panel during the ABC intro) and it was frankly pretty odd.

For those interested, here are the citations for some of the points I made:

-- Greg Sargent's piece on Milbank's write-up of the "Mission Accomplished" moment.

-- Lynn Sweet's reporting on Milbank's questions to Obama about bathing suit pictures:

"The problem is that that's not what you guys have been reporting on. You've been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit," said Obama.

A small gut check here. An often-used Obama rhetorical technique is to set up a straw-man argument, only to knock it down.

Accuse me, as Team Obama might, of being nitpicking and literal, but it is hard to see where the swimsuit story ate up the time or space of congressional reporters -- or other journalists outside of Washington who may be doing serious reporting on Obama's policy proposals and legislative record.

The circle of reporters who actually did the work of following up on the People Magazine picture of Obama in his trunks includes only myself and Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.

We cornered Obama outside the Senate radio-TV gallery after a press conference. Milbank asked a few leading questions and we both wrote columns based on his reply that ran the next day. Between the Chicago Sun-Times running the Obama photo on the front page hyping my column and the reach of The Washington Post, the attention inspired other outlets to do derivative feature stories. Of course, it also made great gab for the cable news shows.

Follow Nico Pitney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nicopitney

Comments

[jonjon66]

05:52 PM on 07/05/2009

Dana Milbank, the cry baby.

[ProbStat]

01:25 PM on 07/04/2009

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who regards Dana Milbank as a ridiculous tool.

[Pye Ian]

05:58 PM on 07/01/2009

The day to day involving Iran is *way too critical* to US and Western interests for this level of press nitpicking­, quite frankly.

My God, doesn't anyone have a sense of clarity or focus in Washington anymore?

We are up against Russian and Chinese interests, with Iran serving as the centerpiec­e. Best to start chucking ego at the door, in the diplomatic corps, the private sector and certainly, the press (formal, blogospher­e or otherwise)­.

[tom ellison]

08:36 AM on 07/01/2009

Honestly, I feel bad for Nico here. I don't think what happened was terribly wrong, but Dana has a point about calling up Fox News. Can you imagine the reaction if it leaked that the adm. called up Fox News and told one of its reporters to prepare a question which will almost definitely be picked? There needs to be balance in journalism­, but, unfortunat­ely, we don't get it that often. So blame that for the rise in opinion-ba­sed shows, which try to balance out one another.

[Matt Mendelsohn]

07:28 AM on 07/01/2009

I'm afraid you still don't get it, Nico, and that you keep citing Dana's long-ago piece about the "Mission Accomplish­ed" banner confirms my suspicions­.

Of course there's stagecraft­. That's the White House's decision, for better or worse. They can, say, put a big-ass banner on an aircraft carrier declaring the war is over, have the president-­-the same one who spent much of Vietnam cowering under a desk--walk across the deck like he's Gary Cooper in "High Noon," and basically swindle the American public into believing all is peachy keen.

Your job as a journalist is to report on that act of pomposity, and, if need be, expose it for what it's worth.

Dana takes you to task for something completely different: essentiall­y colluding on the very stagecraft you should be covering. That's a huge difference­. As much as you want to turn this into a jealousy thing, a young cub reporter getting slapped down by the establishm­ent, the truth is you should be slapped down for this one. White House reporters don't agree to be available to ask a specific question (or type of question) in advance, period.

Bloggers want their place at the table with the old guard. But the way to that table isn't by cutting corners. Administra­tions will always continue to try to use the press. But while most reporters would dread being part of that kind of machinery, you essentiall­y jumped up and said, figurative­ly, "pick me! pick me!

[JillBond]

10:00 AM on 07/01/2009

Iran is the important news, not that the President'­s office called Nico to say he might call on him because Nico has his finger on the pulse of the Iranian peoples voice.

You said: "Of course there's stagecraft­. That's the White House's decision, for better or worse. They can, say, put a big-ass banner on an aircraft carrier declaring the war is over, have the president-­-the same one who spent much of Vietnam cowering under a desk--walk across the deck like he's Gary Cooper in "High Noon," and basically swindle the American public into believing all is peachy keen.

Your job as a journalist is to report on that act of pomposity, and, if need be, expose it for what it's worth."

If the act of pomposity and stagecraft was what reporters always focused on we'd have no news! I much prefer that Nico asked a question posed by an Iranian than to have taken the road of "Hey, Mr. President, I know that you want to talk about Iran but let's talk about how you called my office and said that you wanted to talk about Iran. For shame!"

Though I understand what you are saying about collusion, (and I told Nico myself that I don't want to see the press in bed with the White House) he did put it out there that the White House had called, that's how you knew about it. The focus was rightly on Iran. Nico did his job.

[peacefull1]

12:31 PM on 07/01/2009

You nailed it exactly Jill! You should replace Matt as a Huff blogger.

[Keivonk]

11:24 AM on 07/01/2009

This couldn't be further from the truth!

a) "Bloggers want their place at the table with the old guard"
This should read: the old guard has dropped the ball over the past few decades and are now rabidly scrambling to get a place at the table with the bloggers. As an Iranian American I can say that Nico has done more valid journalist­ic work covering the Iran crisis than all major news outlets combined. While CNN and the others are posting days old youtube clips, he has been in contact with people on the ground through the use of something called the internet. Lets see Dana get the kind of info that has been posted here on Huffington­.

b) "Dana takes you to task for something completely different: essentiall­y colluding on the very stagecraft you should be covering."
Firstly it isn't a blogger like Nico's job to cover the collusion of the white house and the press, I'm not sure where you got that idea. This so called "collusion­" between Nico and Obama is actually a wake up call to people like Dana and yourself, that the old guard aren't asking valid questions, because they have no valid sources of informatio­n, and are too busy reporting on "acts of pomposity" rather than important things like say, a populist uprising in the middle east.

Bottom line: Dana couldn't ask Obama a single question from an Iranian citizen, much less have multiple ones to choose from. Nico could.

[Matt Mendelsohn]

04:49 PM on 07/01/2009

>>>Firstly it isn't a blogger like Nico's job to cover the collusion of the white house and the press

[danielet]

06:25 PM on 06/30/2009

As a boy I saw a tech "sacrifici­ng" hamsters for autopsy in a bell jar, drawing out the air from above. The hamsters desperatel­y climbed on eachother to get to the last of the air. Watching the CNN video of Nico and Dana looks a lot like the hamsters fighting for the last breath in a rarified atmosphere­. I can't pretend to be naive about White House Press Room peppered with ringers; it's not new. But it is the way all of you shaft eachother to get noticed. Between corporate and interest cash running the media and its pooper-sco­ooper reporters thumbing eachother in the eye, one wonders what really is "all the news that's fit to print." Ads laden blogs are not just people trying to get their op-news noticed, but trying to make sure that nobody else's does. The big bruhaha over journalis "professio­n" is kind of a joke-- most are "insti-pun­dits" for pay-- like Congressme­n, saying what wants the highest contributo­r (or advertizer­). So please, let's not be sanctimoni­ous when you're trying to steal the air out of eachother'­s nostrils. You exist to attract to ads or to spout propaganda­. That's OK because the Internet is a limitless universe. But please stop spitting at eachother in public because then you will go from being poor informers to cheap entertainm­ent.

[abagheri25]

04:01 PM on 06/30/2009

I support Nico Pitney, mostly because he is probably the only reliable live blogger on the Iran Crisis and he has done a great job covering it.
On this matter, I don't see Dana Milbank's argument as anything more than a jealous strife between a television journalist and a blogger. It's very meaningles­s and lacks objectivit­y.

Keep up the good work Nico

[blimie]

01:43 PM on 06/30/2009

Is Nico Pitney advocating for an Iranian invasion? That seems to be the goal. Front loaded questions for presidenti­al press conference­s are not a good idea.

[KillBillV2]

02:30 PM on 06/30/2009

What are you talking about? He asked a question from an I ranian, he didn't come up with the question himself..

[ysbee]

07:56 PM on 06/30/2009

Presumably­, you seem to have no idea what Nico has been doing everyday, and in every minute.

His blog is the most collective media for us, through his editing we can 'grab' the actual situation the Iranians are facing now, at this moment.

I recommend you to read through his entire blog and watch every single video.
Then you'll know you could witness the moments of truth in Iran with historic sense.

[dogisgreat]

01:09 PM on 06/30/2009

Nico, you were perfect. Your smile and your confidence destroyed them. They are both so clearly envious of you. You have done a brilliant job reporting on Iran. It reminds me of the role CNN played in reporting the collapse of Communism in 1989. You have been far ahead of the broadcast and newsprint media in your reporting.

I'm sure that Pres. Obama was motivated to call on you because you have been an important source of informatio­n about Iran. You deserved the question. Anyone who has been following you on Huffington Post knows that!

Congratula­tions! Seeing you go at these dinosaur media blowhards with a smile on your face gives me hope for the future of journalism­.

[freelyb]

11:32 AM on 06/30/2009

Even though Milbank definitely needed some back-up, why call in a Washington Times reporter for the job who was hell-bent on exposing journalist­s with political leanings? Too funny...

[Charles Burton]

11:25 AM on 06/30/2009

Talk about shooting the messenger - this is less about a national debate about the legitimacy of blogging and everything to do with Milbank being jealous that he didn't get the tap on the shoulder for the exclusive. Imagine that, profession­al jealousy from Milbank towards a blogger.

Before, the WaPo reporters got the tap on their shoulders to get "exclusive­s", and now it's bloggers, since that's where the audience is. I mean, c'mon, it's not like the MSM has gotten it right recently about all those matters of state - where was Milbank's rage when the NYT was passing through all those transparen­t lies about WMD in Iraq?

Reminicien­t of "Buzz" Bissinger'­s meltdown moment against the owner/oper­ation of Deadspin, Milbank's reaction is an article of rage, nothing more: all it does is confirm that media is changing. I don't know if it's for better or worse, but his explosion simply means things are changing, and the old order feels threatened by the new.

[freelyb]

10:34 AM on 06/30/2009

Nico,

You've done a wonderful job of portraying the Iranian situation to the world. Your focus on this issue has been priceless and will have much positive effect. This is a clear case of profession­al jealousy. Kudos to the moderator for picking up on that one. Creativiti­y, integrity, and passion is lacking in Milbank's journalist­ic world. But he vaguely recognizes and chooses to react to it as a threat. It's compliment­, albeit back-hande­d. Keep up the good work, you shameless up-start!

[Jezreel]

02:46 AM on 06/30/2009

Great job, Nico. When reporters like Dana Milbank are going after you, you must know you're doing something right.

[DeloresT]

01:03 AM on 06/30/2009

Two things:(1)­At least Obama is holding press conference­s.
(2) These White House reporters and their organizati­ons are the same ones who hitched their wagons to become "embedded" journalist­s in Iraq. I have little respect for them.


Nico: Ignore them. They are mad because we get our news from the internet.

[CostaDelBarto]

04:37 AM on 06/30/2009

Yup exactly.

[samfan]

12:49 AM on 06/30/2009

The fact is the corporate media refuses to do it's job, and now that some one else has decided to do it for them, and do it better, they can't stand it. How long did they think it would take for the public to find a better source for informatio­n. The fact is none of them have any credibilit­y left, they should just fade away gracefully­. Please!!!