Barack Obama's press conference yesterday started much like his previous ones: with the 44th US president turning to field a question from the Associated Press, as is traditional. But then, after some short comments on the situation in Iran, things in the White House briefing room took a surprising turn.

President Obama turned to Nico Pitney, a reporter for the Huffington Post website, who had another query - but this time from somebody outside the room.

"I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian," Pitney said. "We solicited questions last night from people who are courageous enough to still be communicating online."

The enquiry – about the conditions under which the United States might accept an election result favouring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – was fairly standard, but its source was not. Bringing a voice from the streets of Iran and into Washington was a novel for departure for an administration that still clings to the mantra of change.

"Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of the – of what the demonstrators there are working towards?"

Obama's answer?

Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable 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. And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government. What we can do is to say unequivocally that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with peaceful dissent, that spans cultures, spans borders. And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles. I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

It might not have been the answer everyone was hoping for, but it was an answer addressed directly to an Iranian (perhaps the closest Obama has come to direct address in this diplomatic standoff).

That wasn't the only social technology used to spread the message, though: in addition, the White House quickly made a version of Obama's remarks on Iran – also streamed on Facebook – that had subtitles in Farsi and pushed out the message on Twitter in Farsi too, with a message reading roughly: "President Obama's remarks in his press conference, with Farsi translation".

While, on the surface, the seems natural for a man whose team is well-known for their manipulation and mastery of social media, something deeper was taking place here. As an attempt to talk to several audiences at once, it was audacious. As an exercise in opening up the stuffy clique of White House reporting, it was, as my colleague Michael Tomasky has said, "a Moment".

Given the remarkable volume of stories surrounding the use of technology to spread news of the Iranian protests – through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and more – it is easy to skim over Obama's choices here and see them as humdrum.

The move, however, marks a huge change on a number of fronts – not least of which is the use of communications technology to break down of yet more barriers between the Oval Office and the public.

It is also an unprecedented chance for citizens of a country halfway around the world to ask questions of the leader of the most powerful country in the world in one of the most tightly-monitored, carefully monitored situations imaginable.

That is something that would have been beyond the ken of most politicos just a few years ago, but now appears so normal in our lives as to seem obvious.

Even if it was staged (which it appears not have been, despite the complaints of the press corps) it sends a message. And whether or not centres of power are actually being democratised - or simply shifting from one place to another – is something we cannot truly know.

But, hot on the heels of a statement by Gordon Brown - who told the Guardian last week that the internet had "changed foreign policy forever" – it's clear that the old boy's club may be opening up… just a little.