This Gannon/Guckert issue really is huge

Press Impostor (From The Detroit Free Press)

At the White House, don’t duck the real questions

February 23, 2005

How is it that an administration that screened thousands of people for attendance at Bush campaign rallies repeatedly let a fake reporter into the sanctorum of the White House pressroom under a false name? Who was running that background check? How could a president who declares that national security is his prime concern be so ill served for nearly two years by his own security detail?

What is the public to make of the fact that legitimate protesters are kept far away from President George W. Bush while an illegitimate “journalist” who’s really working for a Republican propaganda mill is repeatedly allowed into the White House pressroom and regularly called upon by the president and the president’s press secretary to ask questions?

Is it possible that the administration’s formidable public relations machine was well aware that reporter “Jeff Gannon” of the Talon News Web site was really James Guckert, and that Talon and the Web site GOPUSA have the same owner and often the same pro-Republican content?

Is it possible that an administration that is so careful about scripting events and managing information approved of Guckert being planted in the pressroom to ask softball questions and even to keep an eye on the real reporters working there? Isn’t that fair to ask, considering this is the same administration that used its taxpayer-funded, $250-million public relations apparatus to pay columnists to say nice things about its programs?

Once Guckert was exposed, shouldn’t the administration, for the sake of security and integrity, have run identity checks on the other members of the White House press corps? Are there any pseudo-reporters planted there from Democratic organizations to ask hard questions?

Based on the Guckert case, can any self-styled journalist from an obscure Web site or blog expect to obtain a daily pass to attend White House press briefings? Given the proliferation of same, is the White House prepared for a stampede of applications? Will all identities be verified? Will reporters from GOP-friendly media receive preferred seating?

Is anyone in the Bush administration asking these questions? Or interested in answering them?

Answered: :wink:

Ann Coulter (An admittedly frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger, but it’s the best I could do on short notice :wink:

REPUBLICANS, BLOGGERS AND GAYS, OH MY!

In response to the public disgrace and ruin of New York Times editor Howell Raines, CBS anchor Dan Rather and CNN news director Eason Jordan, liberals are directing their fury at the blogs. Once derided as people sitting around their living rooms in pajamas, now obscure writers for unknown Web sites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA agents.

The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown “Talon News” service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a Web site where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?

Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon’s only offense is that he may be gay.

First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions – a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while “real” journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a Web site that no one has ever heard of – but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)

On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: “I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the ‘Barberini Faun’ is credentialed?”

Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from “Talon News” got one, even if he is a better reporter.

But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as “Dowdification”). Gannon didn’t have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd’s column was a lie. (And I’m sure the Times’ public editor will get right on Dowd’s deception.)

Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon’s real name is “James Guckert.” On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: “Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing Web site get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?”

Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on “the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist” – as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like “phony alias.”) With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning “HotMilitaryStuds.com” and laughing.

Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner – aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews’ former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze’ev Blitzer and Ze’ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is “TRB” of The New Republic.

Air America radio host and “Nanny” impersonator “Randi Rhodes” goes by a fake name, and she won’t even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for “privacy reasons.” That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses “to withhold anything from her listeners” and says conservatives “are less likely to share such things.” How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious “Talon News” service; they were merely Democrats running for president.

Liberals keep telling us the media isn’t liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like The New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can’t even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on TV and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)

Gannon didn’t write about gays. No “hypocrisy” is being exposed. Liberals’ hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

But Gannon did write all sorts of demeaning things about gays and the gay community, much of it is still available on-line. But this is not a “gay issue” as many right-wingers would have us imagine. It’s a security issue through and through. Somebody did this Gannon/Guckert guy a boatload of “favors” to get him through all the security checks one must go through simply to step foot in the white house. He also bragged of getting access to a lot of classified information that he had no right to have access to. Put aside the fact that he was also a a gay “escort” with nude photographs all over the internet (that he posted), and think about this: The Bush administration screened every person that went to his rallies during his campaign, they were very zealous about making sure no one had access to the prez who could either do him harm or have a differeing opinion. Now Gannon/Guckert gains access (with all that sordid baggage under an assumed name, no less). It’s beyond strange. The analogy has been made before, but if this had happened in the Clinton WH there would have been angry mobs outside screaming for his resignation.

It’s important not to write this story off. There are many revelations yet to come, mark my words.

Train safely and rock!

Tripoet

c’mon now bk. i’ve read this piece already and it really doesn’t address the issues. there is a huge difference between someone that works for an independent news agency that has built in bias and someone that acts like a reporter while working for a republican activist site.

other than raising questiosn as to how he got clearance, the gay thing isn’t the issue.

it’s not really an issue of press pass policy…

Ann Coulter (An admittedly frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger, but it’s the best I could do on short notice :wink:

Next time, take your time, BK. We’ll wait.

Did she have a point in there somewhere? Does she ever?

Coulter’s popularity among conservatives mystifies me. On those occassions when she agrees with me, it’s mildly embarassing.

Coulter is a freak show whack job.

If the latest metaphysical rules of the forum are in force, that must mean jhc loves her.

:wink:

You don’t need a permanent security clearance for a daily press pass. The one you get is a quick down-and-dirty, and from what I understand, the guy listed his nom de plume and his real name and all the other bio info that they request from you in order to make it into the press center. You do need one for a permanent, though, and those ones are like gold, hence why good old Mo Dowd and quite a few others have so far been unsuccessful in obtaining one. Supply and demand, I’d guess. If you needed a clearance to get in the White House (tours, etc.) there wouldn’t be anybody allowed in on an ad hoc basis.

I don’t deny that the White House probably looked upon this guy as a “friendly” out in the audience who lobbed some softballs, but what’s the beef? Can anybody go back and find out the types and kinds of questions that Helen Thomas (who, admittedly, has a far longer and more qualitative record as a “serious” journalist, whatever that means) asked during the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton presidencies?

And somebody, please, post an anti-gay diatribe by this guy Gannon, or Guckert, or whatever his name is, and I’ll happily join in on further ruining his life. Hey…let’s call this episode “Guckertgate”. That way, we can get as overheated by it as we did with “Whitewatergate” or “Travelgate” or any other “…Gate”, outside of the Big One (“Watergate”).

Tony

It’s not that you should need to be cleared to get into the White House. It’s that you should need to be cleared to get into the White house Press Briefing room every day for 2 years, and standing 10 ft from POTUS. It’s that you ought to have some clearance if you’re going to be privy to classified information. I’m sure plenty of people get frequent daily passes, but what’s the difference between a daily one every day for years, and a permanent pass?

Where did you get the nonsense about screening everyone who went to rallies? I got within 20 feet of Bush at one of his rallies here. I and the rest of the 20,000 people were thoroughly squeeged (sp?) before hand, as Gannon was.

Give me a break on this being a security issue.

There were a lot of stories of various groups and individuals being turned away at Bush rallies, mostly those who were deemed unlikely to bethere to support his views…they were SCREENED.

Ajfranke, this story will not go away. It is a security issue and will be exposed as that, as soon as the person in the white house who let this maniac in is exposed. Why aren’t you concerned about this? Are you that shrouded in self-righteousness that you can’t see the issue at hand here? I know for a fact that had this story happened during a Kerry administration you would have been screaming from this board for a an impeachment or worse. Climb down off your high horse and smell where you’ve been pooping. God bless you!

Train smart, I’m way faster than you–that’s why you’re mad: a liberal can kick yr butt.

Ahahahha. Stay real!

Well, at least you have one fact correct. I am sure you are way faster than me. That is not exactly a private club.

I wouldn’t care less if this had happened on Kerry’s watch either. They let all sorts of loose cannons and wachos in there. Heck, they still let Helen Thomas in there, don’t they?

I only remember a story of people being screened at one Bush rally (in CO perhaps?) where the organizers were trying to prevent a coordinate disruption. Maybe that screening was not a bright thing to do, but here is your quote:


The Bush administration screened every person that went to his rallies during his campaign, they were very zealous about making sure no one had access to the prez who could either do him harm or have a differeing opinion.


This is factually absurd. Such foolish statements reflect poorly on everything else you say. It did, however, pull me back into a subject I had sworn off.

Some of the Bush rallies during the runup to the election were packed with supporters in order to give the impression in the media, and the electorate at large that he had the “Big Mo” (to steal from Bush 41 :-). Those entering had to sign pledges that they were Republican, etc.

And as far as getting near POTUS in the White House briefing room, I’m sure that every one of those press people had to undergo the type of intensive search of their persons and property that you’d see anywhere somebody was getting close to one-on-one access with the Prez. Again, I don’t see the big deal over maybe, MAYBE, having a so-called “friendly” at your daily press briefings there to ask softball questions. From my reading of history dealing with the press and the White House, that’s been more the norm than the exception to the rule up until the last 20 or so years, when reporters began to aggressively court confrontation and whatnot in order to possibly make that one hit that would propel them front and center into the media limelight.

Oh, I forget…the sacred profession of journalism does have its ethics, doesn’t it? At least for the Republican-friendly journalists it should, huh? This story speaks more to the larger issue of just what or who constitutes journalism or journalists. Is it a blogger? Should it only be someone who comes out of Columbia’s J-School? The journalistic paradigm is shifting, and a lot of the “traditional” journalists out there don’t seem to be too comfortable with that.

Tony

i understand the differences between a day pass and permanent credentials. it just seems pretty clear that they continued to give him day passes because he couldn’t qualify for a permanent pass(as i understand, you need to have credentials from congress to get a permanent wh press corps pass and he was unable to latch on to one of those based on his affiliation with a non-independent news agency). they circumvented typical protocol in continuing to give him daily passes.

also, there is the real possibility that they leaked classified info to him. he has been subpoena-ed in the plame case and has strongly hinted at seeing a cia memo with her name on it. further, there is evidence that he was alerted to the initial bombing of iraq prior to anyone else in the press corps.

this whole thing just doesn’t pass the smell test. and the bush admin, with how they have used media sources to promote their agenda in the past, has left themselves wide open for an investigation into this even if nothing comes of it.

If the latest metaphysical rules of the forum are in force, that must mean jhc loves her.

:wink:

Anne Coulter is wretched.

Prepare for thermonuclear meltdown.