Facing up to Dana Milbank

[the_spectator]

(worked up from a post on another thread)

As we have seen in a number of links on the boards today, Dana Milbank has been called "The most hated man in the White House press corps."

Yes, because the WHITE HOUSE hates him.

Look, it takes only the most basic research to realize that amongst the right-wing, National Review crowd, Dana Milbank IS THEIR most hated reporter. HE is the one they have long seen as the worst example of "liberal media bias."

Yes, he is a bonesman. He went to Yale. Yale is NOT white-shoe, WASP ascendancy, G.H.W. Bush Yale anymore. At Yale, Dana Milbank was active in the Political Union. He was Chair of a party in the Political Union. Which party? THE LIBERAL PARTY.

He works for the Washington Post, not Faux, not the Washington (Moonie) Times.

Guys, we need to understand who is on our side. Dana Milbank is a liberal. He would love to see Dubya impeached. The fact that Dana Milbank was the man who wrote that "article" about Conyers' forum yesterday tells me something, I am sorry to say.

It tells me that he thinks the DSM cannot and will not have legs.

Conyers in his response to Milbank today explained very WELL why people were calling him "Mr. Chairman"- he HAS been a Chairman of a House of Representatives committee in the past, and it is proper protocol to call him that still (the way its proper to call Bill Clinton "Mr. President.") HOWEVER, that gives no explanation for the official committee language from him yesterday, like "By unanimous consent so ordered" and the like.

Was Milbank being unduly snarky when he called yesterday's forum play-acting and pretend? Yes he was. But Milbank's snark is usually aimed at Bush, not at our side.

The fact that he aimed some our way today HAS TO GIVE US PAUSE ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF THE DSM.

Either that, or yes, Bush "got to him." But if so, Bush got to him just in time.

Please forgive me for this, but I think we here need to understand when bad news is from enemies like Faux, and we can discount it, and when bad news is from our side, when unfortunately we need to find a way to accept it.

[Erika]

1. What are you smoking?

Hope you enjoy it. Now, try reality.

[Carolab]

2. Sorry, I never felt Milbank was any sort of "liberal".

I have rarely, if ever, agreed with what he has to say when I've seen him on Olbermann, etc. I don't trust him and I don't like him.

His article was, as Conyers pointed out, snarky and inaccurate.

The DSM has legs, alright, and that's why so many are trying to hard to discredit it in the corporate media.

Methinks Milbank drinketh liberally of the Kool-Aid.

[cry baby]

3. can't except lies...and he is so far afield from most papers that covered

the hearing...uh...forum.

Welcome to DU!

[grasswire]

4. I can't fully agree.

Milbank runs hot and cold, like most of the WH correspondents (he covers Congress now, not the WH). I find it hard to forgive him for helping to tear down Al Gore just because Milbank was bored on the campaign trail. He has said some things that show a deep disdain for democratic processes and reveal that special vanity of Washington insiders.

[Carolab]

5. Yes, and he has "learned his lesson well".

Since leaving his "White House beat" a while back.

[kittenpants]

6. he's like a cross between Hitchens & MoDo

w/ the most annoying characteristics of each.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. WTF?

No, I don't think so. Milbank isn't a "liberal"; he's just another full of himself, inside-the-beltway bloviator who thinks he knows something. He's the same guy who blew off Olbermann's questions about how "Jeff Gannon" got special White House access. Milbank doesn't know shit and his stupid, snotty, disrespectful article doesn't mean shit.

[G_j]

8. regardless

the article was beyond snarky. It was mean and also distorted.
I don't see any excuse for that. It was crappy journalism and it just plain sucked!

[pointsoflight]

9. That's ridiculous.

Even if you believe that he's a liberal and honestly doesn't think the DSM has legs, are you suggesting we just accept this one person's opinion and ignore the fact that the interest and coverage of the DSM has been growing by leaps and bounds over the last week? Come on, why would we do that right at the time when so many people around the country are finally figuring out the importance of the DSM? Just because this one rude, snarky journalist doesn't think it's important?

[LuPeRcALiO]

10. That article was a sneaky hit piece

posing as fluff. Basically a bunch of snark wrapped around four paragraphs of bogus anti-semitism designed to stop Conyers dead in his tracks.

Milbank is no friend and the NY Times and Washington Post are not liberal. They are 100% establishment.

[Clark2008]

16. It was a lot of things, but anti-Semitic?

Huh?

[kittenpants]

18. I think maybe he means that Milbanks was making

bogus charges of anti-semitism, not that HE is anti-semetic...IMO

[LuPeRcALiO]

22. yes, I mean that Milbank is trying to make the whole

thing look anti-Semitic.

[LuPeRcALiO]

21. here's what I'm talking about:

"The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration 'neocons' so 'the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.' He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"'Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,' McGovern said. 'The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.'

"Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his 'candid answer.'

"At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an 'insider trading scam' on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."

Notice how Tenet's remark helpfully clues in anybody who might be skeptical, and how the 9/11 flyers appear to be coming from the DNC.

[hemp_not_war]

19. I figured McGovern was dead

I thought he would be painted as a neoNazi after bringing up Israel. Apparently he has too much of a reputation to smear it with a simple technique such as this. The article says it was 'awkward' to bring up Israel. It has gone from being racist to simply awkward to bring up Israel. This is a victory I would say for people who want Israel's involvement investigated along with everybody else that was involved, oil, PNAC, media, you name it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

23. if this kind of hit doesn't do it

they'll have to assassinate him the old-fashioned way.

[TahitiNut]

11. He's intellectually lazy and ambitious.

That's a recipe for corruption. He's not even as amusing as Andrew Sullivan.

[the_spectator]

12. Thanks for the responses -

They give me a modicum of confidence. I will admit I can be a bit of a Nervous Nellie.

Well, as I was reminded recently on a Lounge thread about Muppets, as Grover the waiter said at one point after getting the customer's lunch order wrong for the umpteenth time -

"Where there is life, there is hope!"

[ElectroPrincess]

13. What parallel universe YOU live in? ... Whoa! Such lies.

[libertypirate]

14. He is a member of skull and bones

He has nothing for us but bullshit, plenty of Americans and we don't need people with loyalty oaths clouding their judgements.

[hemp_not_war]

15. skull&bones that explains it all

A wolf in sheeps clothing. Don't trust him just because the right thinks he is 'liberal'. It is a trick to make people think only crazies can be more liberal then Milbank or Rather. His 'liberal' attacks are framed. If there was anything to the DSM, the 'liberals' like Milbank would be all over it (you are to think). Thats what most the country thinks. Thats what this poster thinks. Open your eyes. Rather owns a ranch with Rummy. Milbank is skull&bones. These people are worse then Rush limbaugh to the anti-Bush cause. how lucky Bush is that his biggest critics are skull&bones. How convienent they won't bring up the stolen elections, LIHOP, or the DSM.

[eleny]

17. I'm not buying what you're selling

So, go peddle your rack shellac somewhere else.

[stickdog]

20. Unduly snarky? The guy's not a fucking editorial columnist!

That type of "evenhanded reporting" would get an F at Poduck Community College Journalism School For The Ethically Challenged!

Who cares that Repukes think a reporter who OCASSIONALLY actually reports is their worst enemy? Shit, they think gays want SPECIAL rights and that taxing earned income is FAIRER than taxing unearned gifts. They can convince themselves of ANYTHING, their hubris is infinite, their skin is thinner than soap film and their tolerance for questioning is negative.

The fact remains that Milbank wrote a fucking WorldNut Daily editorial that the WaPo pretended was a NEWS STORY. This (along with the WaPo's shameless "nothing to see here" DSM editorial) tells us everything about the WaPo's agenda, but nothing at all about the objective journalistic efficacy of the DSM's contents.

[Quixote1818]

24. I just read about ten of his articles and I think you are wrong

Here is a sample of one of his articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2549-2005Mar2.html

Most are pretty good and seem balanced but I detect an undertone in some of them that indicates he does not care for liberals. Their is NO WAY Bush hates this guy as you suggest based on the ten articles I just read. I got the feeling he leans Right and if I can detect that then he is probably very Republican.

Please provide some links to show he is a 'liberal' please! Don't just say things like this without proof.

[wookie294]

25. The Post has never been on our side

The Post's editorial board supported the invasion of Iraq. It is not a "liberal" newspaper.

[BurtWorm]

26. Welcome to DU, Dana!

;)

[Coexist]

32. holy cow! That's exactly what I was thinking!!

Good one, BurtWorm.

[Corgigal]

33. so was I

I was thinking he might be tired of reading all our e-mails.

Too bad.

[senseandsensibility]

27. You are so wrong

First of all, I am not going to accept your vague assertions that Milbank is THE nost hated reporter by the right. Prove it. Second, right wingers think everyone who is not limpballs is liberal and biased, so why should their opinion matter? Third, Milbank does not stand up to this administrtion, and if you think he does, prove it. Fourth, his article today speaks for itself. It is a textbook example of shilling and empty headed partisanship. Enjoy your stay at DU, and thanks for the insight.:sarcasm:

Oh and by the way, prove that Milbank would love to see * impeached. Sorry, not willing to take your word for it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

28. Yeah, Yeah, So He Wrote A Few Articles Against The Bushies

He's. still. a. dick.

[LiberalEsto]

29. I have to disagree with you

Milbank's article was the type of shoddy reporting I would expect to see in a supermarket tabloid. I don't care what he's written before -- this particular vicious attack on Conyers and the DSM hearing stinks to high heaven.

If he really was a liberal in college, I doubt he still is one, and besides, that's irrelevant. Anyone who can compose such a hatchet job for a major media outlet is not on our side.

I'm sure the B*sh Misadministration and KKKarl Rove - who most likely dictated this article to Milbank - were filled with glee to see this puerile effort to diminish and demean a great man like John Conyers, and a critical cause like our effort to root out the truth behind America's entry into war with Iraq.

[kaitykaity]

30. Bullshit. n/t.

[blm]

31. Then Bush got to him. There was NOTHING honest about Milbanks "report"

and he is a REPORTER not a columnist auditioning for Newsmax.

[BiggJawn]

34. Just like Ben Nighthorse Campbell, eh?

Ben in case you've forgotten, started out life as a Democrat. But in 1995 or therebouts, and AMAZING transformation took place, and Ol' Nighty JUMPED THE AISLE!

Amazing what "30 Pieces of Silver" can do for one's outlook on life.

I don't give a rat's ass if Milbank smoked Weed with John Kerry and banged Jane Fonda when he was at Yale, I've seen him on Teee-Veee, and I've read him in print, and Dana Milbank is NO "Liberal".

I'll bet the BFEE didn't have to pay him the whole 30 pieces, though...

Which Muppet does THIS response remind you of?

[Trajan]

35. Milbank has, like another poster stated, ran 'hot and cold' ...

when it comes to coverage of our issues and questions ...

He was involved, along with Dana Priest and Walter Pincus, of exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the Bush WH prior to the start of the Iraw War. I believe Milbank co wrote a particularly damaging piece against the WH and how the senior CIA operatives would NOT go along with the PNAC WH pronouncements of WMD and ties to al Qaeda ...

Milbank is a mixed bag, which isnt bad for us ...

It is proper to register your complaints about his use of certain language in the Conyer's story, then move on while keeping an eye on him .....

[kodi]

36. who are you, milbanks' mommy? the guy fucked over Conyers and the DSM

i don't care if the man was shat from the anus of jesus. dana milbanks has produced numerous kool kid articles that clearly place him alongside howie the whore kurtz as a snarking excuse for a journalist.

what i want to know is why the hell isn't milbank on this DSM like hair on a gorilla? he is the white house reporter for the post and anyoner with the sense god gave to a gopher would expect such a beat would demand that he investigate the DSM instead of attacking those who want to make it more publicly known.

[grasswire]

37. Daily Howler on Dana Milbank

MILLION-DOLLAR LIGHTWEIGHT: The press corps’ alleged bias is constantly flogged. But often, it’s harder for people to comprehend how dumb the corps really is. How big a lightweight is the Post’s Dana Milbank? In Sunday’s Outlook section, Milbank confesses to what his headline calls a “bias for mainstream news.” The scribe’s worry? “Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the ‘mainstream media,’” he writes. “he consequences are ominous for the country,” the troubled scribe quickly explains:
MILBANK (3/20/05): Consider a poll two weeks before the 2004 election by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes: The survey found that 72 percent of President Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction or at least major illegal weapons programs. It also found that 75 percent of Bush voters believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Further, majorities of Bush supporters believed that U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer and the 9/11 commission backed them up on these points.
“It’s fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong,” Milbank writes. But we think you know the brain-dead rules that drive the work of Milbank’s cohort. If you say that conservatives are grossly misinformed, you must instantly say the same thing about liberals! Just like that, Milbank delivers:
MILB ANK: This is not to pick on Bush followers. Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact—about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
Two decades ago, the late senator-scholar Daniel Patrick Moynihan remarked that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Now, ideologues are claiming their own facts as well.
But how many people “on the left” believe that Bush “knew of 9/11 in advance?” Is it anything like 75 percent, the number Milbank has just cited in discussing those disinformed Bush supporters? And how many people “on the left” actually believe, as a matter of fact, that Bush was coached during that debate? In these cases, Milbank cites no polling data, because there is no poll on the face of the earth which would produce anything like the type of equivalence he so slavishly seeks here. Could liberals be as factually deluded, one fine day, as conservatives currently are? Of course they could, but that day hasn’t come. But so what? Milbank presents nonsense about Bush and 9/11 because it supports a gutless approach his flyweight cohort insists on.

You really have to be a lightweight to publish utter nonsense like that. But Milbank’s a million-dollar baby, paid top dollar for defending his tribe—and for typing their brain-dead scripts. How foolish is Milbank willing to be? At one point, he directly compares Jon Stewart to Rush Limbaugh! “Conservatives tune in to Rush Limbaugh,” he types. “Liberals opt for the late-night commentary of Jon Stewart.” It’s no wonder we’re so mixed up with a pair of book-end dissemblers like that!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032105.shtml

[Eric J in MN]

38. Milbank referred to the people at the hearing as "playmates"

That kind of language has no place in reporting.

From Greg Mitchell:

Milbank used the valuable real estate of the Post to mock Rep. John Conyers, who arranged the meeting, and his “hearty band of playmates.”

This fun-loving “band” included a mother who had lost her son in Iraq.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000964303