MILBANK: Your Web site was complaining about I was not holding the Bush White House to account. I’d like to say that here’s a full list of documentation of me holding the Bush White House to account….
Let’s pose — can we just pose one question, Nico? If the White House called up Fox News and said, “Major Garrett, we will call on you tomorrow if you ask a question about health care, and you ask it in a certain way?” Would you say that’s OK?
PITNEY: They didn’t say in a certain way. See, this is dishonest. And it’s been dishonesty and errors from the beginning.
The problem with slinging mud, of course, is that the slinger tends to get just as dirty as the target. And both Pitney and Milbank, in the exchange, ended up looking, as Time’s Michael Scherer put it, “like petulant politicians.” After a few minutes, as the novelty of the insult-filled-fight-on-morning-TV wore off, the thing just became…sad. Not just because of its vague airing-dirty-laundry-on-national-TV intimations (not in front of the viewing audience, honey), and not just because both journalists are so much better than their performances yesterday let on. Sadder still was the fact that what got attention, yesterday, unsurprisingly, wasn’t the substance of the fight, but rather the fact of the fight itself.
Over at CafePress, you can now buy all manner of clothing, accessories, and gadgets commemorating You’reSuchADickGate. For sale are T-shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts, hoodies, onesies, baby bibs, coffee mugs, messenger bags, mousepads, water bottles, pet bowls, wall clocks, aprons, boxers, and, of course, “the classic thong” (Made in the USA!)—all printed with a photo of Dana Milbank and emblazoned with the line “THE DICK WHISPERER.” Again: what a proud, proud moment.
Knowing everything we know about the way the White House Press Corps is run... Frankly, the burden of proof falls on Milbank to show that the HuffPo setup wasn't just a particularly stylized instance of business as usual.
The White House Press Corps (not the Senate) is the most elite club in Washington. And its members crave continued access more than just about anything else. The Bush and Obama administrations have exploited this to great effect--the former with vinegar and the latter with honey.
#1 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 05:00 PM
Well, I think you are guilty of false equivalence here, Ms. Garber. Nico Pitney, and his work, has been unfairly smeared in a very public way by Milbank. Milbank has accused Pitney of "collusion." That's a pretty inflammatory charge, and demonstrably untrue. You and your colleagues have given a pass to Milbank and those self-important princesses in the WHPC, who have manufactured charges of "collusion" and "planted questions" out of whole cloth. More honest reporters have gone on the record to inform us that it is relatively common for reporters with smaller outfits to be notified ahead of time that they might get a question. There was NOTHING out of the ordinary about the way that Pitney was able to ask his question. Why don't you report that?
Indeed, your co-blogger Kate Bachko has repeated those accusations wholesale without evidence, all of which have been demonstrated to be untrue, and has refused to correct her post "Planted Questions." What are we to make of the credibility of this so-called "media watchdog" site which repeats this kind of false and inflammatory accusation made against a hard-working journalist? Her dishonesty reflects upon you as well. Both you and she has done nothing to shed any light, but are merely repeating unsubstantiated gossip like the National Enquirer.
What you don't do in this piece is to start with the unfairness of the accusation against Pitney. All you are doing is putting a "pox on both houses" implying that they are both at fault here, without exploring the fundamental unfairness of Milbank's false accusations. Scores of Washington pundits have weighted in with that kind of false equivalence, so you have actually added nothing of value here.
Doesn't Columbia Journalism Review have any standards against repeating and spreading this kind of gossip and smearing without evidence? I'd like to see your editors come out and defend or apologize for your and Bachko's unfortunate work.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 05:54 AM
I guess somebody on HuffPo's labyrinthine staff was dispatched to the CJR comment threads to counter-spin. I wonder, do you feel honored?
James, get back to scouring the internet for those celebrity nipple slips!
#3 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 01:27 PM
Oh, Touché D.R.! How on earth can anyone argue with such faultless logic? And such detailed point by point rebuttal!
Although, I must say, your post is a bit wordy. I think it could have been boiled down to something more pithy that still captures the utter douchebaggery of your reply... like "You're such a dick" or something like that.
#4 Posted by Sarcastro, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 02:16 PM
dick
#5 Posted by D. M., CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 04:03 PM
Mr. Sarcastro, I strongly suspect that neither the compliment you paid my logic nor the criticism you levelled at the length of my post were made in earnest.
#6 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 06:41 PM
I've come late to this party.
Given the months that have passed, I have to reiterate what James posted even more strongly.
Please update and correct yourselves.
Thanks.
#7 Posted by Janus Daniels, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 07:53 PM