February 09, 2005

• "The voice is silent." Please STFU, Jeff. Man, journalism just can't take any more black eyes.
• more at editor & publisher. i also love it that he's into hot gay military sex. heh. this guy was no journalist, mid. how he got credentialed is the scary part.
• He was just running those sites to out members of our military who would get memberships. Thusly doing his civic duty in ensuring the army is gay-free... God, don't you people know anything?
• Our Pal Jeff. how very.... republican?
• No, I know, SideDish, but to a lot of people I bet there's no distinction. Many will just chalk it up as one more reason why you can't trust the news, and pro-Bush spin on this will encourage that sentiment.
• thanks for posting this rocket, I'd been meaning to do it pretty much every day for about a week. Is it just me, or do those MeFi threads become invisible when they're off the front page? I mean, I don't see them in a sidebar like we have here at the Monkeyhaus.
• It's scary how many Joe Sixpacks I know who believe in the "liberal media" myth. I wonder if they'll see Mr. Jeff as some kind of hero.
• Honor and integrity, my ass. If their message was any good, they wouldn't need shills in the press corps, would they? When will the voting majority get sick of the lies and deceipt?
• Why do they need this guy when the NY Times prints every piece of bullshit they put out?
• I gotta say, listen to the NPR extended interview It is interesting.
• It's that liberal media.
• Glenn Reynolds links to a post saying that the left is gay bashing Jeff Gannon.

  I mean, seriously. We hear constantly about how our side is gay intolerant. But who on our side would be interested if it turned out that some minor lefty or righty blogger/journalist turned out to be gay? I've heard rumors about various Republicans, but you know why? Because I read the lefty blogs. This may shock the left, but we really, really don't care who's gay. Letting us know won't change our opinion of them. What it's really about? The liberals like to claim that it's hypocrisy, but you know how that goes; if you're a liberal gay journalist people would be horrified at the notion of "outing" you to the world like this, but if you're a conservative gay journalist it's quite alright. This is not about gay or straight, this is about liberal or conservative. And who are they fired up about being gay? No offense to Mr Gannon, but he's a nobody. Hey, so am I for that matter. So if you're a little guy, and you're gay, and you're conservative... well, according to the tolerant left, you're fair game. And not only that, but worthy of being swarmed by the biggest bloggers on the left for signs of homosexuality.

  This is the first I have even read about Gannon being gay.
• I have no idea how Glenn Reynolds has time even to read the headlines on all the stories he links to. He has a job, doesn't he? He can't really read them all, can he? Because I can't see how anyone would think his sexual orientation is the issue.
• I think it's about some random fake journalist getting white house press room credentials using an alias. But maybe that's just me. *shrugs*
• Jesus fuck. Y'know, I make a fucking living as a journalist, and Jimminy Glick or whatever the fuck his real name is just made my life harder. One more reason for people to distrust the news, one more reason for people who are already predisposed to expect a partisan bent, one more fucking hack bullshitting his way through stories. He got to the Whitehouse? How the fuck did that happen? I can't believe that those fucking Republicultists think this is about teh gay, when the sodomy has journalistic ethics as the catcher.
• lots of interesting updates on romenesko today
• Because I can't see how anyone would think his sexual orientation is the issue. Perhaps they don't. Oooh! Look over there! Hey everyone! Something over there!
• the issue for journalists is: someone using a fake name got credentialed (very troubling). this person also just happened to be a mouthpiece for the administration (doubly troubling). as for his sexual orientation, yeah, that's just hypocrisy.
• It wouldn't be out of line to discuss it if he was writing unquestionably anti-gay stuff, in the same way that Anthony Pierpont's race is fair game, since he was running a racist record label. But though a couple of people have thrown that accusation at him, I haven't seen evidence that he did any such writing.
• Several congressional Democrats have introduced a bill to stop what they termed taxpayer-funded "covert propaganda campaigns" that violate a provision included in annual appropriation acts since 1951. Under the new bill, dubbed the Federal Propaganda Prohibition Act of 2005, the prohibition on propaganda would become a permanent part of federal law. Federal agencies would also have to notify Congress about public relations, advertising and polling contracts, and the funding sources of all federally funded public relations materials would have to be disclosed. Firstly I'd like to thank Congresswoman Slaughter for having the guts to officially call out this abomination. Secondly, I really hope this thing grows serious legs. This is regarding the "well-informed citizenry" piece of Jeffersonian democracy that will make or break it.
• Federal Propaganda Prohibition Act of 2005(HTML) Press Release
• "Earlier this week, when asked about Gannon's access, White House press secretary Scott McClellan essentially threw up his hands and said he has no control over who is in the press room and whom the president calls on during his rare press conferences. "I don't think it's the role of the press secretary to get into the business of being a media critic or picking and choosing who gets credentials," he told the Washington Post." In-fucking-credible.
• and this, on romenesko, re: credentials... Having worked in the White House, I can assure everyone that not only would it be impossible to get a White House pass using an alias, it is impossible even to get past the gate for an appointment using an alias. Thorough FBI background checks are required for the former and a picture ID is necessary for the latter. Therefore, if Gannon was using an alias, White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover. that's what i find troubling. i've been cleared into the oval office (during clinton tenure) and it involves, as you can imagine, a total background check. as does credentialing for anyone entering or covering the white house. they HAD to have known who this guy was.
• In related news, Chief of Staff Andrew Card told reporters that he was "tired of telling everybody at the White House what to do all the time. What am I, the ringleader in this damn circus?"
• I think it's about time the jounalism profession started acting like other professions and create a governing (even licensing) body for their membership. The license could be required for press access to certain events (White House press conferences being one), and could be revoked by the governing body for breaches of journalistic ethics (like taking money to support a government program). It's the only way to restore public faith.
• So, Rocket88, your suggestion implies the creation of a regulation and discipline body similar to those of lawyers and doctors. Do you think that would interfere with subjectivity, which is sometimes necessary? I don't think of journalism as a practice as much as I consider it a profession. Otherwise your idea has merit. I certainly agree with you, though. Reporters' credibility has really taken a dive in the past few years.
• I'd be happy if we just pass something like the above bill which would let us know when the administration is paying some joker to shill for them.
• Licensing? No, thank you. But the 2005 Anti-Propoganda act is a good start.
• Of course subjectivity would be allowed, just like for lawyers (who are never impartial), but unethical behaviour would result in punishment from the regulatory body.
• Ironically, licensing journalists would likely put up barriers to the blogging world such as the groups that broke this story. But I do like the idea of punishing journalists! MwuAHahAhahAaaaaaa!! . . . eehh . . *cough*
• Being able to determine which 'journalist' bloggers are licensed or unlicensed would be a good thing.
• There's a can of worms...
• Oooh! Look over there! Hey everyone! Something over there! Yup! Pete's nailed it. Smoke, mirrors, and propaganda.
• Finished my comment; looked at my email; cracked up. Check out this Non Sequitur cartoon. Ain't it the trut'.
• journalists can't ever be regulated because we need total freedom of the press for democracy to function. that said, there are indeed professional groups (such as SPJ and Committee of Concerned Journalists) that keep ethical issues at the forefront -- basically, they continually remind us of our responsiblities to the public.
• What I had in mind wasn't government regulation, but self-regulation, with journalists deciding among themselves what their ethical standards should be.
• What does the mass media need to train its spotlight on a press-manipulation scandal that has been festering for a couple of weeks on the Web? Well, a bit of hotmilitarystuds.com fairydust, as it seems... The curiosest thing is to suddenly see media pundits accuse the bloggers of going beyond the line in "exposing Gannon's private life" (all the while very pruriently listing the names of all sexually evocative websites linked to Gannon/Guckert). As if there had been anything private about it... But a quote of media ethics pundit Kelly McBride amuses me to no end: "Those are not tactics you would see practiced in most traditional newsrooms" Oh, really? You know you are in trouble when a bunch of amateurs and the Daily Show do a better job than the real newsrooms...
• Skeptic's link had a typo above. Warning: the AOL webpage is in there. It's very small. The picture of the webpage I mean.
• i'd say that "most traditional newsrooms" definitely does not include the NY daily news. and that's the point. we can't have one organization decide the ethical standards for the press in america -- there are many different types of press, all of which have VERY different standards, ethical and otherwise.
• FYI, press gaggle mentioning gannon...
• I agree with SideDish. And I wonder which it is: political influence of some areas of the press by the administration? Strategic placement of shills in the corps? Or whorish sell-out journos willing to carry water for their own purposes? The thing I can't quite wrap my self around is how this Gannon is involved in the Plame affair. To me, that's the big news here. If any of the bushies or the press thinks they're getting away with anything, they're not. I just don't know what it is yet...
• rocket, you may be interested in this project from CCJ, i think it's what you're getting at.
• SideDish, I see your point, but, even if it's true that the NY Daily News is hardly a beacon of political journalism, you can't deny that apart from the headline, the article isn't all that different from what the supposedly more "serious" media are carrying. Everybody, from the WP to CNN, is exploiting the "gay porn" angle for all what is worth. Which makes their fingerpointing at the "naughty bloggers" all the more hypocritical. But, of course, this are the same media that spent months discussing semen stains and the shape of a former president's penis...
• Oh, big surprise here. Republican's have infiltrated the free press with shills! Soon, we'll be made aware that gravity exists as a force.... As for the outing of this jerk: if he weren't working for bigots with a homophobic agenda, no-one would care that he's gay. However, he's been revealed as an asshole on this and other counts, and deserves to be called out for it.
• I have no idea how Glenn Reynolds has time even to read the headlines on all the stories he links to. I've seen Glenn link to the wrong stuff. For instance: he copied and pasted the whole excerpt from a front page of a news service and not the actual article. It's obvious he often doesn't know what he's linking to. Example.

  MEDIA ENRON UPDATE:

  The links goes to Poynter Online and not the actual article. I guarantee that Reynolds never read the whole article. Glenn is so stupid that MaxSpeak caught him linking to this Counterpunch that Instapundit thought was dissing Kerry. Go down the webpage.

  While Bush, two years behind Kerry, was seeking commercial opportunity at Yale by selling ounce bags of cocaine, (so one contemporary has recalled) Kerry was keeping a vigilant eye on the political temperature and duly noted a contradiction between his personal commitment to go to war and the growing antiwar sentiment among the masses, some of whom he hoped would vote for him at a not too distant time. It was a season for important decisions and Kerry pondered his options amid the delights of a Skull and Bones retreat on an island in the St Lawrence river. He duly decided to junk his speech on the theme of "life after graduation" and opted for a fiery denunciation of the war and of an LBJ. The speech was well received by the students and some professors. Most parents were aghast, though not Kerry's own mother and father. Unlike Bill Clinton and George Bush, Kerry duly presented himself for military service. After a year's training he was assigned to the USS Gridley, deployed to the Pacific, probably carrying nuclear missiles. Beset by boredom, Kerry received the news that once of his best friends, Dickie Pershing, grandson of "Black Jack" Pershing had been killed in Vietnam. Kerry seethed with rage and yearned, as he put it years later to his biographer Douglas Brinkley, for vengeance. (Brinkley's recently published and highly admiring bio, A Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, offers many telling vignettes to an assiduous reader. It's based almost entirely on Kerry's diaries and letters of the time.)

  Raise your hands if your think Reynolds actually read the two articles he linked. I'm sure Reynolds intended to let his readership know about rumors of Bush's drug dealing at Yale.
• CNN had the story on their homepage for about 30 minutes today before shuffling it to the bowels of the political section. To Skeptic's point, I expect that papers that don't want to treat the story for what it is (White House authorized plant to a) save chimp-minded Prez from hard questions and b) steer sheepish press corpse away from nixon-era hassling). The gay angle will be used to bury the importance of it. If something comes of the Plame angle, we'll go for a few more cycles as they work diligently to bury it.
• wh00t
• The story's getting a little play in England.
• jeffgannon.com I'm baaaaaaack!  If you thought I was going to slink away - then you don't know much about me.  Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I've emerged from the crucible, I'm stronger than before. Bwahaha!
• Despite all the pleas from the Left to go over to the 'dark side' and expose the 'corrupt Bush administration' simply isn't going to happen. I see his writing style is certainly appropriate for someone who went to a two-day journalism course. Unfortunately (in this case), the Internet gives anyone a voice who wants it.
• Huh, he's trying to frame this as a conspiracy of the left...because they know how dangerous he is! Shocking revelation, that.
• The National Press Club welcomes Jeff Gannon.
• Hello again, Jeff! Gannon believes God bestowed a White House assignment on him so that he could atone for past transgressions, Vanity Fair says.
• Thanks for the link Wolly - here's the relevant part: The Gannon File Jeff Gannon's seamy past leaked out months before he asked President Bush a loaded question during a news conference. As a correspondent for the now-defunct Web site Talon News, says the forthcoming issue of Vanity Fair, Gannon was hammering Tom Daschle during the South Dakotan's campaign to hold onto his Senate seat. Daschle aides traced an e-mail -- ostensibly from a constituent who wanted reaction to one of Gannon's stories -- to an Internet profile of Gannon, wearing only dog tags and boxer shorts. "The Daschle campaign spread the word, but no reporters bit," the magazine says. Gannon doesn't deny advertising online as a $200-an-hour gay escort, but describes himself as the victim of "a full-scale jihad" by liberals. Vanity Fair says he falsely told friends he had been a Marine -- Gannon says he displayed military paraphernalia and "didn't disabuse anyone of that notion" -- and owes nearly $21,000 in back taxes. Gannon believes God bestowed a White House assignment on him so that he could atone for past transgressions, Vanity Fair says. In defending his name change, the man born as James Guckert says Jeff Gannon has a "nice ring to it -- like Wolf Blitzer, which isn't his real name either." Actually, Mr. Guckert, it is his real name. Heh. 'hammering Tom Daschle'.