Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tells Howard Kurtz that Twitter's to blame for the homogeneous punditry you see on TV.
Ask Dana Milbank what he thinks of Mitt Romney and he sounds a bit confused.
Weighing the candidate’s earlier campaign against his performance in the debates, the Washington Post columnist says, “we have no idea what the genuine Romney is. Possibly Romney doesn’t know what President Romney we’re getting…
“He didn’t just do the Etch a Sketch, he completely whitewashed everything. Probably every sentient voter knows he’s changed his mind on virtually everything, but he hasn’t presided over this awful economy.”
Still, I asked Milbank in a video interview, why hasn’t this been more of an issue?
“The Obama campaign decided early on that they weren’t going to go after the whole flip-flopping thing, that that idea was a loser.”
Milbank says the president’s campaign gets ticked off at him too, “and I have the Drudge clicks to prove it.”
Reporters would do a lot better under a President Romney, he would be a lot more int. Let’s face it. This Obama guy, he’s competent but he’s kinda boring.
The columnist was willing to make one pro-Romney statement: “Reporters would do a lot better under a President Romney, he would be a lot more interesting. Let’s face it: This Obama guy, he’s competent but he’s kinda boring.”
We chatted about Twitter, which Milbank says prods journalists toward a kind of groupthink. “It’ll look like you don’t know what you’re talking about if you defy the conventional wisdom,” he says.
What about those funny—and occasionally goofy—videos that he sometimes makes? Is he afraid of being taken less seriously?
“The whole notion there’s serious news and then there’s funny stuff over here, that it either has to be Associated Press or Jon Stewart, it’s a false distinction,” Milbank insists.