White House Reporter "plant"

Timmythemoonpig · February 2005

Not major news, still how unstatesmanly can Bush get?

<a href='http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/02/white_house_friendly_reporter_under_scrutiny/' target='_blank'>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...under_scrutiny/</a>

Probably wasn't even mentioned in the US, but many media people here were shocked that it took 10 questions before one reporter actually plucked up enough courage to question Bush about the huge US marine death toll a few days ago...

Ive never seen a political figure need so much help.

And yes this is a biased post, I think Bush can't even smile or walk right <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Spooge · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
OMG! Didn't this guy get the memo? Clinton is no longer in office. No more soft ball questions please.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
A Conservative <u>AND</u> a journalist? Please. Clearly this can't be right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
He attacked the Democratic Senate leaders? Like with an axe? Arrest that man!
Oh wait. What was his question?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>GANNON: Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse yet on the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. You've said you're going to reach out to these people. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves are reality?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Vicious. Federal death penalty for sure.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>During the presidential campaign, when called on by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Clearly he didn't get the memo that required him to repeatedly ask about Bush's missing documents regarding his missed physical. Somebody call CBS.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>McClellan said Gannon has not been issued -- nor requested -- a regular "hard pass" to the White House, and instead has come in for the past two years on daily passes. Daily passes, he said, may be issued to anyone who writes for an organization that publishes regularly and who is cleared to enter the building.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Wait a minute. This guy doesn't work for the New York Times or the LA Times or the Chicago Libune-er Tribune and somebody let him into the White House? We need a new law ASAP! Actually, skip the law and go straight to the Judges! These infiltrators must be hung!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nonetheless, transcripts of White House briefings indicate that McClellan often calls on Gannon and that the press secretary -- and the president -- have found relief in a question from Gannon after critical lines of questioning from mainstream news organizations.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
WHHAAAT!!!111oneoneone Clearly unacceptable. Does this guy even KNOW who stole the election?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As it turned out, Reid had never talked about soup lines. That was a phrase attributed to him in satire by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ahhh, there it is. We now know that the Super Evil Religeous Right Wing Conspiracy is real and the puppet strings reach all the way to some nobody who asked a question at the White House!

Oh boy, it's a good thing that the Boston Globe, who happens to be run by the New York Times, made sure to have 2 investigative reporters pouring over miles of research to break the super code of 1 guy who spends his own time getting daily passes to ask questions of the President and discovered the super secret plot of allowing someone who might actually agree with the Presidents policies to enter the building.

Wow. Good thing this is all over the news. It's clearly important.

BathroomMonkey · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Clearly he didn't get the memo that required him to repeatedly ask about Bush's missing documents regarding his missed physical. Somebody call CBS.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You bring up CBS-- <i>how many</i> people lost their jobs over that one? Did that little bit slip your mind? There <i>was</i> an outcry, and there <i>were</i> repercussions.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Since there have been so many questions about what the president was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This doesn't even remotely resemble a question-- it's an editorial with some rhetorical questions thrown in, I'm guessing, to at least get some question related punctuation in there.

*shrug*. If you feel the need to defend this guy, go for it. Look at how much Rathergate was in the news-- but then you lose your mind because the Globe ran <i>one</i> story on this?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wow. Good thing this is all over the news. It's clearly important. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And boy, you're right-- <a href='http://search.cnn.com/pages/search.jsp?query=jeff%20gannon' target='_blank'>this</a> is just <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=jeff+gannon&id=3053419&action=fulltext' target='_blank'>ALL</a> over the <a href='http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=talon+reporter+jeff+gannon&rs=0' target='_blank'>news.</a> Man, it is just <a href='http://app.abcnews.go.com/search?sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=abcnews&proxystylesheet=abcnews&q=jeff%20gannon' target='_blank'>ubiquitous.</a>

Yahoo (who consolidates different sources) is the big winner, with a whoppin' four links-- one of which is an Op/Ed piece in support of this guy, and two of which are press releases from Media Matters, the liberal watchdog agency.

Gosh, I can't turn around without hearing about this guy. Damn liberal conspiracies.

Edit: Hopefully the Globe can lend the NYT their story, because they've also <a href='http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?srcht=s&srchst=nyt&vendor=&query=%22jeff+gannon%22&date_select=site1week' target='_blank'>failed to report on this.</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ahhh, there it is. We now know that the Super Evil Religeous Right Wing Conspiracy is real and the puppet strings reach all the way to some nobody who asked a question at the White House!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

First, he's hardly a 'nobody', if he's getting access to the president, and having his questions selected (and if he's <i>half</i> the media frenzy you apparently think he is).

Second, Wow: A journalist knowingly attributed a ridiculous statement to a public figure with the intent to belittle that person and harm his reputation, and people are actually getting <i>upset</i> about that?!?!?!?! Talk about touchy!

BathroomMonkey · February 2005

For those of you still keeping tabs on this one, from the hardly liberal <a href='http://www.nydailynews.com/02-10-2005/news/gossip/story/279466p-239417c.html' target='_blank'>New York Daily News</a>:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>WASHINGTON - A conservative ringer who was given a press pass to the White House and lobbed softball questions at President Bush quit yesterday after left-leaning Internet bloggers discovered possible ties to **** prostitution.

"The voice goes silent," Jeff Gannon wrote on his Web site. "In consideration of the welfare of me and my family, I have decided to return to private life."

Gannon began covering the White House two years ago for an obscure Republican Web site (Talon-News.com). He was known for his friendly questions, including asking Bush at last month's news conference how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

<b>Gannon was also given a classified CIA memo that named agent Valerie Plame, leading to his grilling by the grand jury investigating her outing.</b>

He came under lefty scrutiny after revelations that the administration was paying conservative pundits to talk up Bush's proposals. By examining Internet records, online sleuths at DailyKos.com figured out that his real name was Jim Guckert and he owned various Web sites, including HotMilitaryStud.com, MilitaryEscorts.com and MilitaryEscortsM4M.com.

"<b>The issue here is whether someone with connections to male prostitution was given unfettered access to the White House and copies of internal CIA documents. For a family values administration, that's pretty creepy," said John Aravosis, one of the bloggers chasing the story</b>.

The White House didn't return a call asking how someone using an alias was given daily clearance to enter the White House.

On his TalonNews Web site, Gannon had written that liberals were out to get him because he's a white conservative man who owns a gun, drives a sport-utility vehicle and is a born-again Christian.

Yesterday, however, he abruptly quit, and all of the stories he wrote were erased from the Web site. A great many were on **** issues, including one detailing John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" that was headlined mockingly, "Kerry Could Become First **** President."
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

One such liberal blog is <a href='http://www.americablog.org/' target='_blank'>Ameriblog</a>. Condensed from their findings:

So, basically, a man with few actual journalistic credentials gets frequent White House day passes and access to the president (though, some other White House journalists swear they saw him with a more permanent 'hard pass') using an assumed name (which is <i>very</i> bizarre), working for a news 'outlet' that doesn't actually have much of an actual 'circulation', which itself is simply an extension of the activist group <a href='http://www.gopusa.com/' target='_blank'>GOPUSA</a>. His 'articles' are essentially transcribed talking points.

Oh, and he was one of the few people who received a copy of the classified, internal CIA memo which was eventually used to out Valerie Plame. There's a big difference between someone like Robert Novak having the investigative contacts to land such a piece and <i>this</i> schlub coming across the same.

And then there's the whole **** military prostitution angle. Of course, as Mr., er "Gannon" says:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for those Web sites, Gannon said he created them for clients of a software company he used to work for. And Gannon says his Christian faith has enabled him to receive forgiveness for the sins of his past."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I'm sold! I mean, no reason to doubt his word.

Of course, as the author of Ameriblog summarizes.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's not about "**** sex," folks. Geez. Reporters here the word "****" somewhere in the story and they get all squeamish. This isn't a sex story. And it's not a **** story. It's a story about the Bush administration continuing its agenda of using fake media to put out its message. It's the Bush administration not seeming to care, still today, that a guy with apparent ties to male prostitution Web addresses is getting access to the president and CIA documents. The White House is literally laughing this story off. That's the story. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Through a does of hypocrisy in there, and that's about it.

It's also comical because he's now playing the victim card, crying about how people pried into his life. Which is odd, because at the beginning of this, he taunted 'lefties' on his website (since removed), challenging them to keep up the attention, because it was leading to a lot of publicity for him. (He's also playing the 'death threats' card to garner more sympathy--but anyone want to bet me on how many arrests we'll actually see from these ambiguous 'threats'?)

So yeah, as it turns out, <b>no</b> story there. Whatsoever.

Marine0I · February 2005

Not really a story - its merely a twist on my "unscrupulous hacks in the reporting game", but with a "conservative" (Jesus didnt run porn sites!) journalist instead who is rightfully getting a spanking.

I'm happy with Scotties rundown:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Guckert did not have a regular White House press pass but was cleared on a day-by-day basis to attend briefings and used his real name.

"He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes just like many others are," McClellan said. "In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist. It gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

However, journalistic credibility is about to become BIG news again, with Mr Eason Jason, head news guy from CNN, about to face the music.

Sizer · February 2005

Evidently Gannon was, or still is, a freeper.

And you should read some of the freeper responses to this story. All along the lines of "who cares" "non-story", etc.

BathroomMonkey · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Feb 10 2005, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Not really a story - its merely a twist on my "unscrupulous hacks in the reporting game", but with a "conservative" (Jesus didnt run porn sites!) journalist instead who is rightfully getting a spanking.

I'm happy with Scotties rundown:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Guckert did not have a regular White House press pass but was cleared on a day-by-day basis to attend briefings and used his real name.

"He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes just like many others are," McClellan said. "In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist. It gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

However, journalistic credibility is about to become BIG news again, with Mr Eason Jason, head news guy from CNN, about to face the music. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Even using the loosest sense of the word, he's <i>not</i> a journalist.

I might as well be able to get a day pass to the White House for 'publishing' a family newsletter.

Plus, he got the pass using an <i>assumed</i> identity. That . . . is . . . news.

<a href='http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005210903.html' target='_blank'>From Sen. Lautenberg</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"<b>As you may know, Mr. Guckert/Gannon was denied a Congressional press pass because he could not show that he wrote for a valid news organization. </b>Given the fact that he was denied Congressional credentials, I seek your explanation of how Mr. Guckert/Gannon passed muster for White House press credentials," Lautenberg wrote.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It goes deeper than 'unscrupulous hack'. An 'unscrupulous hack' would have never gotten through the door with his credentials <i>and</i> an assumed name. Somebody who was connected made a <i>lot</i> of accomodations for this guy. On, and he got his hands on a classified CIA memo. Again, for a 'hack', he certainly has benefactors in high places.

And personally, I'd like to see Scotty's "Number of people". I <i>sincerely</i> doubt it includes anyone with credentials remotely as tenuous as Mr. Gannon's. Usually you're a bit reluctant to take things like this simply on faith, aren't you? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Ah, and Eason Jason, the sacrificial lamb to the press so they can frame any story about Gannon with their typical 'on-the-other-handedness' (Kind of like the non-story about liberal bloggers 'unethically' working for the Dean campaign [even though they plainly disclosed that relationship <b>on</b> their blogs] that hit the news <i>right</i> when the whole Armstrong Williams story broke).

From <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/' target='_blank'>Instapundit</a>:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The story of CNN news executive Eason Jordan's unsubstantiated charges that U.S. troops were deliberately killing journalists got more play today. Howard Kurtz had a piece in the Washington Post that advanced the story somewhat, though Mickey Kaus thinks that Kurtz, consciously or unconsciously, is letting his connection to CNN shape his reporting.

This story from the New York Sun is less kind to Jordan, and includes an interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who was present when Jordan spoke, that spells out more details on Jordan's accusations:

Mr. Jordan, speaking in a panel discussion titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?" said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat of Massachusetts who was on the panel with Mr. Jordan.

In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Frank said Mr. Jordan discussed in detail the plight of an Al-Jazeera reporter who had been detained by American forces, was made to eat his shoes while incarcerated in the Abu Ghraib prison, and was repeatedly mocked by his interrogators as "Al-Jazeera boy."

A man who said he was a producer with Al-Jazeera at the network's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, said he was unaware of any such incident, "although we have had problems with American troops in and out of Iraq." The Al-Jazeera producer refused to give his name.

Mr. Jordan's comments - prompted by a broader discussion of the dangers of covering the war in Iraq, in which some 63 journalists have been killed - left Mr. Frank, usually an outspoken war opponent, speechless.

"I was agog," he said. "I took a few seconds and asked him to basically clarify the remarks. Did he have proof and if so, why hadn't CNN run with the story?"

Why, indeed? And why would Jordan make claims, with no evidence, that reflect badly on his own country's military? There may be an answer later in the story:

Mr. Jordan's remarks might have shocked the American attendees, but they certainly played well among some in the audience. The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged "bravery and candor" in discussing the matter.

<b>Worst case: Jordan said things he knew were probably false, in order to curry favor with influential people from countries that -- as CNN's American audience falls -- represent an important part of its market.

Best case: Jordan repeated rumors he had heard without knowing whether they were true or not.
</b>
Which is it? It's hard to say. And perhaps Frank -- along with several other attendees who have told essentially the same story of Jordan's remarks -- simply misremembered or misunderstood. There's a videotape of the presentation, but the folks who run the World Economic Forum at Davos are now backing away from earlier promises to make the tape available. In the absence of such evidence, people are likely to draw their own conclusions.

As CNBC host Larry Kudlow writes, "If the story is correct, CNN should have already fired Jordan. If the story is not true, Jordan or CNN must provide the counter-evidence."

We're waiting.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

So, it's all heresay right now. I'll withhold judgement until a record of the statement is available (hmmmm . . . remember how skeptical you were of the NYT source who mentioned that Safire had turned down the ombudsmen position? Granted, this isn't quite the same, but it sounds like you've already convicted Mr. Eason).

Edit: If the allegations about Eason are true (and it looks like that's where a betting man would put his money), and he can't provide evidence supporting his claim (which seems likely), then he <i>should</i> be canned. His comments at this conference would demonstrate him to be an unethical, pandering a-hole.

But that still in no way mitigates the Gannon 'scandal'. They're unrelated incidents. In fact, the Eason story would actually fit much more neatly into the category 'unscrupulous hack'.

Marine0I · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Feb 11 2005, 11:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Even using the loosest sense of the word, he's <i>not</i> a journalist.

I might as well be able to get a day pass to the White House for 'publishing' a family newsletter.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Correct - he is not a journalist.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Plus, he got the pass using an <i>assumed</i> identity. That . . . is . . . news.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That .... Is.... assumed. If its true, then someone needs to face the music, but to quote from your Democrat senator website:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"I am writing to request that you immediately release documents to my office relating to the White House press credentials of James D. Guckert, a.k.a. "Jeff Gannon." Specifically, I am seeking documentation related to the question of which name Mr. Guckert/Gannon used when applying for credentials, and which name was on the official White House press credentials he received," wrote Lautenberg.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He wants the documentation to prove that Gannon either did or did not use his real name on the press credentials, which is a completely fair request given that Scott is claiming he did use his real name. It has not yet been proved either way yet, so I withhold judgement until it is. If it is, then you are definately correct in asserting that something fishy is going on here.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>On, and he got his hands on a classified CIA memo. Again, for a 'hack', he certainly has benefactors in high places.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Gannon was also given a classified CIA memo that named agent Valerie Plame, leading to his grilling by the grand jury investigating her outing.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Given? It was a leaked document. You can claim that this is a conspiracy within the Government and the CIA, and its certainly possible, but the CIA has been leaking classified memo's and documents for decades. It was "given" to him in the same way photo's of Abu Graihb was "given" to 60 minutes. Why is it that when a conservative gets a memo leaked to him, it goes all the way to the top, but when a liberal gets a leaked memo then its just business as usual? Of course, if the other allegations surrounding Gannon are proved, then the memo can be viewed with suspicion (ie likely a deliberate leaking by members of Government rather than runofthemill CIA document leaking) - but this is just another case of NYT presenting information in a way that gives an impression to the reader that would be easy to deny if pressed, but for Joe Average is swallowed unquestioningly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Usually you're a bit reluctant to take things like this simply on faith, aren't you? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'd love to hear more. Politics is a dirty game, and Republican's are not choirboys. I dont think this is an open and shut case, it should, and I believe will, be investigated more thoroughly, especially after the Armstrong debacle.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Ah, and Eason Jason, the sacrificial lamb to the press so they can frame any story about Gannon with their typical 'on-the-other-handedness' (Kind of like the non-story about liberal bloggers 'unethically' working for the Dean campaign [even though they plainly disclosed that relationship <b>on</b> their blogs] that hit the news <i>right</i> when the whole Armstrong Williams story broke).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, uhhh, we didnt make Eason say what he did, and I dont think he synchronosied watches with conservatives to make outlandish allegations right at that time. This is not a story conservative blogs have been sitting on for a while until the time was right coughDanRathercough, it was reported and hunted immediately. Still - strange that you dont like "on-the-other-handedness" but use it all the time in media debates. I dont think thats a bad thing, but its definately done by both sides, you and me included.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, it's all heresay right now. I'll withhold judgement until a record of the statement is available (hmmmm . . . remember how skeptical you were of the NYT source who mentioned that Safire had turned down the ombudsmen position? Granted, this isn't quite the same, but it sounds like you've already convicted Mr. Eason).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I'm quite convinced he did it, given that two liberal American politicians heard him and were shocked, but it is hearsay. In the event that the tape is never released, then I will go to my grave convinced Jason is a lying dirtbag. However, real proof revolves around that tape, so I hope that the pressure continues to mount until the tape is released, and Jason is either cleared or convicted.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Edit: If the allegations about Eason are true, and he can't provide evidence supporting his claim, then he <i>should</i> be canned.

But that still in no way mitigates the Gannon 'scandal'. They're unrelated incidents. In fact, the Eason story would actually fit much more neatly into the category 'unscrupulous hack'.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, it doesnt mitigate Gannon in the slightest. Its going to be an interesting story with a slightly more positive outlook for my side of politics then the dirty doings of Mr Gannon, so I thought I'd chuck it in to make me feel better.

moultano · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Feb 10 2005, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Edit: If the allegations about Eason are true (and it looks like that's where a betting man would put his money), and he can't provide evidence supporting his claim (which seems likely), then he <i>should</i> be canned. His comments at this conference would demonstrate him to be an unethical, pandering a-hole.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
The US did bomb al-jazeera's news headquarters in <b>both</b> Iraq and Afghanistan. If it had only happened once I would be more inclined to believe that it was a completely honest mistake.

BathroomMonkey · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That .... Is.... assumed. If its true, then someone needs to face the music, but to quote from your Democrat senator website:</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, <i>assumed</i>, in the sense that 'several independent sources agree on the basic premise' so it's <i>probably</i> true, much like Eason's comment. 'Assumed' as in, 'more or less awaiting confirmation'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why is it that when a conservative gets a memo leaked to him, it goes all the way to the top, but when a liberal gets a leaked memo then its just business as usual?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, in this <i>specific case</i>, because <i>leaking</i> the memo to a conservative <i>was</i> the crime, and the photos were leaked to CBS <i>documenting</i> a crime. Also, the whole hulabaloo with the Plame case was that it seemed likely that an administration official leaked the CIA information as a means of retaliation, rather than as a means of whistleblowing a perceived institutional wrong.

But I don't think I've ever specifically made such a general distinction based solely on partisanship. I could be wrong, though.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>but this is just another case of NYT presenting information in a way that gives an impression to the reader that would be easy to deny if pressed, but for Joe Average is swallowed unquestioningly.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not NYT, the New York Daily News. <i>Big</i> difference.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Still - strange that you dont like "on-the-other-handedness" but use it all the time in media debates. I dont think thats a bad thing, but its definately done by both sides, you and me included.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh, we're both entirely guilty of it, but then again-- we're a couple of arguing yahoos, not establishment media outlets.

And sometimes in arguing general points, the whole 'on-the-other-handedness' can help to build a case- for example, when we argue about things like media bias. I may not be able to counter the details of specific, solid claims you make, but by offering my own, I can temper the net result of them.

But when we're talking about a very specific story or perspective-- like this-- that's when it serves more as obfuscation than evidence.

Of course, I'd have to blame the bloggosphere in part for it-- since there's now a legitimate presence on both sides which is rabidly partisan, influential, and collaborative-- and seemingly has <i>way</i> too much free time. When a story breaks, they come up with their communal flashbang, so to speak, and give it enough momentum to launch it into the elite media circles.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'd love to hear more. Politics is a dirty game, and Republican's are not choirboys.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'd give them more credit than that-- they're the reigning champs. And not because the Democrats are noble guys, or anything-- they try their hardest to compete, but they're just a Hell of a lot less organized and effective.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, I'm quite convinced he did it, given that two liberal American politicians heard him and were shocked, but it is hearsay. In the event that the tape is never released, then I will go to my grave convinced Jason is a lying dirtbag. However, real proof revolves around that tape, so I hope that the pressure continues to mount until the tape is released, and Jason is either cleared or convicted.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, in both of these situations, I'm working from the stance of 'Where there's smoke, there's fire'. My guess is that things are just beginning to get interesting . . .

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its going to be an interesting story with a slightly more positive outlook for my side of politics then the dirty doings of Mr Gannon, so I thought I'd chuck it in to make me feel better. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, at least you're honest. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

And I certainly can't fault you for it, since . . . .er . . . I do it all the time.

And edit: Before I get <i>completely</i> distracted, my main point in resurrecting this thread was that for better or worse, there certainly <i>did</i> turn out to be a story here.

And here is the most entertaining stat of the year: On CNN, 'Jeff Gannon' proclaimed that talonnews.com had 700,000 users. Aside from that being pure, unadulterated nonsense, if talon's traffic is what a media outlet needs to get access to the White House, <a href='http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=large&compare_sites=natural-selection.org&y=t&url=http://www.talonnews.com/' target='_blank'>we are golden</a>.

Come on, we can be like the 'Crossfire' of the White House press pool!

White House Reporter "plant"

Comments