Last week, after Nico Pitney asked his now-controversial question at President Obama's press conference, Dana Milbank wrote a column about it.  I used to like Dana Milbank; his book on the 2000 election was sharp and funny, and actually posited a theory about negative campaigning that I found sound.  His work since then, particuarly at the WaPo, has been less interesting; in fact, his work gives the same sense that Bob Woodward's work often does, that he's writing toward his next book publication, and thus has to keep his friends close and his subjects closer.

Milbank's column includes this:

Well, there's a problem with this.  Everyone's essentially a planted questioner in a Presidential Press Conference.  It's not like they open up the doors and invite in random citizens off the street.  The whole thing is always pretty damn scripted -- and that is, in part, because of the laziness of journalists like Milbank, who count on their status as Washington Post reporters to stand in for actually earning their spot in the sun.

I agree with Milbank that we do go further down a dangerous road when the president specifically invites someone to ask a specific question on a specific topic just so he can get a specific message out.  What's more ridiculous, however, is that Obama knew he'd have to invite someone to get a decent question on Iran (and, in this case, from people in Iran, which was the president's invitation).

It's also ridiculous for Milbank not to see himself as part of the problem.  Which brings us to this Sunday's interview on Howie Kurtz's "Reliable Sources," which is neither reliable nor regularly worth using as a source of information.  Let's go to the tape (h/t Smooth Like Remy):



Essentially, Milbank and Pitney call each other hacks, and Howie Kurtz tells them to take it outside lest an actual discussion of journalistic ethics break out on his cozy little chat show.  The interesting part of this was where Milbank used posts from Huffington Post to attack Pitney -- posts that Pitney, it seems, didn't write.

Now, we can probably agree that Huffington Post does have exactly the slant that Milbank says it does -- but the entire site isn't a homogenous outfit.  Blaming Nico Pitney for the frivolities of HuffPo's publication is a bit like saying, "Well, Dana Milbank, you work for the Washington Post, so why do you think Global Warming is a hoax?"

Of course, for Milbank to recognize that, he'd have to recognize that Huffington Post is an actual news source whose bloggers do actual reporting, which makes it harder to reduce the discussion to "but but but you WRITE for the INTERNET!" as he wants to.  To say that HuffPo is less worthy because it takes a side is fine -- unless you work for a paper that's recently dismissed its best, critical, liberal writer in order to better shore up its position as the conservative outlet of choice.

I'm not completely on board with Ana Marie Cox's reasons for throwing out the press conference completly, but I'd love to see the doors at the White House getting opened up to those who've earned the seats -- those who write news stories and traffic in fact, not just those who show up for the fireworks and friendly banter.