White House spokesman Robert Gibbs took heat on Wednesday over the use of what one reporter called a “designated hitter” to ask President Barack Obama about protests in Iran.
“What kind of a message do you think that sends to the American people and to the world about the kind of free flow and pure questioning that’s been expected at presidential news conferences?” CBS 
White House correspondent Peter Maer asked.
Iran’s disputed election and the violent crackdown on the huge protests that followed dominated Obama’s fourth news conference on Tuesday.
But Maer and other reporters objected to Obama taking an arranged question from the Huffington Post website.
“What led to your decision to plant a designated hitter right here to ask the president a question,” Maer asked.
White House aides had arranged for Nico Pitney from the Huffington Post to attend the press conference and Obama called on him second, after answering an earlier question on Iran.
“I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?” Obama asked.
Pitney then relayed a question from an Iranian who wanted to know under what conditions Obama would accept the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the disputed poll.
Obama dodged that but said “a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It’s not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.”
Gibbs defended the White House’s decision to invite Pitney to the press conference to ask a question. He insisted the White House had no idea “what the exact question would be.”
He called the exchange a “very powerful message” of press freedoms Iranians do not currently enjoy in their own county, rather than an example of contrived newsmaking.
The Huffington Post and other liberal outlets often accused former President George W. Bush of planting questioners in news conferences to ask softball questions.
Gibbs left open the possibility that Obama could use the same tactic again, saying the president thought it was important to try to take a question indirectly from someone in Iran.
“I won’t make any apologies for that,” Gibbs said.
For more Reuters political news, click here.
Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque (Obama, Gibbs (left) at June 23 news conference)
Trackback
7 comments so far
Yes we can!
- Posted by ShauneSometimes, presidents call on specific journalists because they know, not what the question will be, but what the subject matter is likely to cover. At one of his press conferences, for example, Obama called on a reporter from Stars & Stripes. Did the president know what the question was going to be? No. Did Obama know it was likely to have something to do with U.S. troops? You bet. And why is that? Because that’s what Stars & Stripes covers.
Obama also not too long ago called on a journalist who covers the auto industry. He didn’t know the question, but Obama had reason to assume it would have something to do with the auto industry, and the president had something to say. That was the point.
Yesterday, Obama called on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language E.F.E. news agency, and who asked about Chile and Colombia. Did the president know what the question was going to be? No. Did Obama know it was likely to have something to do with Latin America. Of course, which is why he called on her — the president wanted to talk about his upcoming talks with President Bachelet.
This isn’t collusion. It’s not unethical. There’s nothing here that breaks with journalistic standards. Specifically with regards to Nico Pitney, the White House saw some value in responding to a question that came from someone in Iran, and knew that Pitney, given his recent work, was likely to ask just that. It’s no different than calling on someone who covers the auto industry and expecting a question about that industry.
If someone has a legitimate concern about Pitney’s specific question, that’s one thing. But that’s just it — it was a terrific question that the president wasn’t anxious to answer.
But I have a more general question: if the White House were “preplanning” a “planted” question with a sympathetic journalist — it wasn’t, but I’m speaking hypothetically here — wouldn’t the president’s team make it an easy one? Wouldn’t Obama want a softball he could just hit out of the park? When the Bush White House invited Jeff Gannon, a former male prostitute and friend of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan ask questions, he was called on specifically because he’d help Bush get his points out.
In Nico Pitney’s case, the question was really good. So good, in fact, that President Obama largely dodged it.
- Posted by SteveSo what’s all the fuss about?
A young Iranian student has arrested the world’s attention in her dying moments. Neda has energized a revolution.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009 /06/neda-agha-soltan-innocent-symbol-of .html
The emotional connection has moved Western leaders to respond, and Obama has been kicked off his mark.
- Posted by James RaiderObama is Bush is no different. Same wars, same hidden agendas, lots of talk and little action, promoting the cold war as hard, lied about “openness” and about the “rule of law” too. Obama still denies people the right to even be charged and plans to keep some (unknown who) people prisoner for life with no charges and no trials. Even the old Soviets did better that Bush and Obama. Obama is even hiding the locations of the waste from coal power plants as a “national security issue.” He’s just another corporate president paying off his creditors with billions of U.S. citizens tax dollars. The “energy bill” is worse than what we have now. The “medical reform” is worse than we have now. Shame on Obama! Anyone who trusts this man is a fool.
- Posted by Robert1234As for Iran, there is actually no indications or even vaguely accurate claims at all that the election was crooked. Not one real indication of wide spread fraud. Even the U.S. can’t point to any specific thing. This is indeed being promoted by outsiders like the U.S. and G.B. but it’s backfiring. The ONLY reason Iraq always had honest elections was the international and internal perception it earned. Now an honest election is being touted as crooked, thus removing any reason to have honest elections in Iran. Once again, the U.S. and G.B. screw up the world for everyone else.
- Posted by Robert1234The Iran elections are rigged from the get go the same way upstate ny republicans rigg the ballot system.
- Posted by hhkellerNico Pitney was used a human tele-prompter!
- Posted by DAVID