Jeff Gannon: White House press room scandal?

[Bishop Hedd]

This story surprisingly hasn't gotten much play. I haven't been on here that long so I don't know whether this has been brought up before. Does anyone find it odd that a faux reporter from a faux news organization (actually a Conservative front group) could gain daily access to Presidential press conferences wheras many more credible figures can't? Does anyone wonder if Bush, Rove, McClellan et al were just duped or given their past history of paying for favorable press from favorite sons, were complicit.

 

 

Myself? I just find the whole thing pretty humorous, that is if it was meant as a joke. Doonesbury has just started their take on it while the Daily Show spoofed it last week. Neither of them could possibly be as funny as Mr. Gannon's (not his real name) website though.

[gmac17]

i was surprised it didn't gain more steam - if it was a dem the repubs would have gone nuts. Is it that hard to get into the white house press room? (are there really good reporters who can't get access?) I don't know the answers here....

[RkFast]

It didnt gain steam because its a bull sh-- story.

 

When there is as much dirty laundry behind the reporting of a story as there is behind the story itself, then its typically ignored.

[SilverNRed]

are there really good reporters who can't get access?

275254[/snapback]

No, not really. As I understand it, Gannon was getting press 'day passes', which are pretty easy to get. Maureen Dowd, whiny fluff artist from the NYT, wrote that she was denied a press pass while Gannon got one - though she didn't mention that she was denied a different type of pass than the one Gannon got. Oops.

 

There were a lot of liberals in a frenzy, though, because Gannon had a background that involved gay prostitution which affects his current life, um, somehow. How it affects his ability to be a journalist or excludes him from being a "real journalist" (whatever that means) I don't quite know. Is it crazy to think that there are reporters from conservative news outlets at Presidential news conferences?

 

Again, IMO, all you have to do to be a journalist is act like one. It doesn't seem like the people who go to college for such a practice really learn anything useful there as the people running blogs often do a better job presenting stories than they do.

[SilverNRed]

Here is a good summary:

 

WizBang

[RkFast]

There were a lot of liberals in a frenzy, though, because Gannon had a background that involved gay prostitution which affects his current life, um, somehow. How it affects his ability to be a journalist or excludes him from being a "real journalist" (whatever that means) I don't quite know. Is it crazy to think that there are reporters from conservative news outlets at Presidential news outlets?

 

Welcome to the modern age...where what type of person you like to bang defines your character completely.

 

My fave is bisexuals and how they are lumped in with other "minority" groups. As if they deserve special treatment with education and jobs becuase they like to !@#$ men and women.

[nobody]

Again, IMO, all you have to do to be a journalist is act like one. 

 

 

Of course that used to mean reporting the facts in a unbiased way. Not something you see much of in today's media.

 

(And no - I am not saying that all media in the past was unbiased.)

[Terry Tate]

There were a lot of liberals in a frenzy, though, because Gannon had a background that involved gay prostitution which affects his current life, um, somehow.

Which furthers my belief that much of current journalism is a natural progression of prostitution.

[Bishop Hedd]

It didnt gain steam because its a bull sh-- story.

 

When there is as much dirty laundry behind the reporting of a story as there is behind the story itself, then its typically ignored.

275265[/snapback]

 

 

Very enlightening reply indeed.

 

Now you wouldn't happen to have any basis for your words outside of knee-jerk reactionism would you?

[Bishop Hedd]

No, not really.  As I understand it, Gannon was getting press 'day passes', which are pretty easy to get.  Maureen Dowd, whiny fluff artist from the NYT, wrote that she was denied a press pass while Gannon got one - though she didn't mention that she was denied a different type of pass than the one Gannon got.  Oops.

 

There were a lot of liberals in a frenzy, though, because Gannon had a background that involved gay prostitution which affects his current life, um, somehow.  How it affects his ability to be a journalist or excludes him from being a "real journalist" (whatever that means) I don't quite know.  Is it crazy to think that there are reporters from conservative news outlets at Presidential news conferences?

 

Again, IMO, all you have to do to be a journalist is act like one.  It doesn't seem like the people who go to college for such a practice really learn anything useful there as the people running blogs often do a better job presenting stories than they do.

275300[/snapback]

 

 

 

Wow! Didn't realize the extent of the lack of general knowledge here in regard to the Guckert (Gannon's real name) story. While yes, it is true that there are Daily Presidential Press briefing passes available it should send up red flags that Gannon/Guckert was recieving these passes nearly everday for nearly two years, even months

before he "wrote" (I use the term loosely because all he basically did was crib GOP talking points and right wing marching orders) for a so called "news" organization called "Talon News" (actually a front for the right wing conservative group GOPAC).

The fact that he did all this under an obviously phoney monicker should either scare the hell out of the White House if they didn't know Guckert before, or scare the hell out of the American public if they did.

 

 

You are totally misinformed concerning the "homosexual" angle of Guckert/Gannon's life. What many are saying is that why is he writing things for Talon News calling John Kerry our first likely "gay president" (assuming Kerry had won) and decrying homosexuality as the downfall of the country while you are leading a double life as a homosexual military escort posing for beefcake photos. Don't ask don't tell indeed.

 

 

Some would call that hypocritical, others would say business as usual in the white house press room.

[RkFast]

Very enlightening reply indeed.

 

Now you wouldn't happen to have any basis for your words outside of knee-jerk reactionism would you?

275593[/snapback]

 

LOL....very cute.

 

How about the fact that all the "heat" for this is coming from "liberal" bloggers? How about the whole sordid connection to the gay websites? As if THAT has anything to do with the issue here. How about that most of the "official" statements from govt. officials is coming from...tada!.....Democrats?

[SilverNRed]

Wow! Didn't realize the extent of the lack of general knowledge here in regard to the Guckert (Gannon's real name) story. While yes, it is true that there are Daily Presidential Press briefing passes available it should send up red flags that Gannon/Guckert was recieving these passes nearly everday for nearly two years, even months

before he "wrote" (I use the term loosely because all he basically did was crib GOP talking points and right wing marching orders) for a so called "news" organization called "Talon News" (actually a front for the right wing conservative group GOPAC).

275628[/snapback]

I don't care what he wrote. It's that pesky First Amendment that let's him write whatever he wants whether he's gay or not. When 60 Minutes is essentially a mouthpiece for the DNC, I'm not going to lose any sleep over "Talon News", an organization that no one had ever heard of before the non-story about Gannon.

 

The fact that he did all this under an obviously phoney monicker should either scare the hell out of the White House if they didn't know Guckert before, or scare the hell out of the American public if they did.

If Gucker wanted to apply for the passes every day (under his real name) and write under a pen name, then what's the big deal? Should they go out of their way to ban journalists who are friendly to the administration? Is the definition of "real journalist" someone who hates Bush?

 

You are totally misinformed concerning the "homosexual" angle of Guckert/Gannon's life. What many are saying is that  why is he writing things for Talon News calling John Kerry our first likely "gay president" (assuming Kerry had won)  and decrying homosexuality as the downfall of the country while you are leading a double life as a homosexual military escort posing for beefcake photos. Don't ask don't tell indeed.

Some would call that hypocritical, others would say business as usual in the white house press room.

Yeah, we get it - Bush BAD!

 

Like I said, I don't care what he wrote, I don't care that he used a pen name, I don't care who he worked for, and I don't care that they let him ask questions in press conferences. You're talking about someone that basically no one had ever heard of until he was 'outed'.

[KRC]

he "wrote" (I use the term loosely because all he basically did was crib GOP talking points and right wing marching orders) for a so called "news" organization called "Talon News" (actually a front for the right wing conservative group GOPAC).

275628[/snapback]

 

Replace GOP with DNC and right wing with left wing and you are describing several media outlets who have a substantially larger audience than Talon.

 

At least you are consistent

 

Bush=Bad

Halliburton=bad

Anything not left wing=RJ

[RkFast]

Replace GOP with DNC and right wing with left wing and you are describing several media outlets who have a substantially larger audience than Talon.

 

At least you are consistent

 

Bush=Bad

Halliburton=bad

Anything not left wing=RJ

275679[/snapback]

 

Exactly.

 

Little weird what went on?

 

Definitely.

 

Is this whole issue a complete partisan, biased, half-true, exaggerated hack job non-story that ranks right up there with the Swifties and the Bush Nat Guard thingy?

 

Ab-so-!@#$ing-lutely.

 

THATS why it hant gotten more attention. Because most with even half a brain can see this for what it is.

[KRC]

Exactly.

 

Little weird what went on?

 

Definitely.

 

Is this whole issue a complete partisan, biased, half-true, exaggerated hack job non-story that ranks right up there with the Swifties and the Bush Nat Guard thingy?

 

Ab-so-!@#$ing-lutely.

 

THATS why it hant gotten more attention. Because most with even half a brain can see this for what it is.

275714[/snapback]

 

It is intended to energize the MoveOn.org loonies. Of course, they are still working on how to fight against the implimentation of a draft, so you know that they are a little out of touch.

[SilverNRed]

It is intended to energize the MoveOn.org loonies. Of course, they are still working on how to fight against the implimentation of a draft, so you know that they are a little out of touch.

275724[/snapback]

It was also meant to be a response to the blogs taking out Dan Rather (and company) at CBS as well as Eason Jordan at CNN. You know, the guys at the non-biased, legit news organizations.......

 

Of course, Rather reporting lies about the President and Jordan calling our troops in Iraq essentially murderers just seems to rank higher than some reporter no one had ever heard of turning out to be gay and using a pen name. Funny that.

[KRC]

It was also meant to be a response to the blogs taking out Dan Rather (and company) at CBS as well as Eason Jordan at CNN.  You know, the guys at the non-biased, legit news organizations.......

 

Of course, Rather reporting lies about the President and Jordan calling our troops in Iraq essentially murderers just seems to rank higher than some reporter no one had ever heard of turning out to be gay and using a pen name.  Funny that.

275744[/snapback]

 

It ranks right up there with:

-Reporters being paid by the Bush administration to put out favorable messages is bad.

-Reporters being paid by the Clinton administration to do the same thing is no big deal.

 

One was a big story for a while. The other was hardly mentioned. Guess which is which...

[Bishop Hedd]

Replace GOP with DNC and right wing with left wing and you are describing several media outlets who have a substantially larger audience than Talon.

 

At least you are consistent

 

Bush=Bad

Halliburton=bad

Anything not left wing=RJ

275679[/snapback]

 

 

Once again Wow! I had no idea concerning the lack of knowledge on this board.

Guckert/Gannon/Joe Friday/Armstrong Williams or whoever else is able to sneek in to a White House breifing under an assumed name should draw attention to a White House hung up on "National Security". To allow someone like Guckertt/Gannon/Fridayinto these conferences/briefings either displays a total breakdown of National Security or shows the blatent partisanship of the current administration to allow a "reporter" who is consistantly called on by McLellan and Bush to lob soft ball/rhetorical questions (cribbed from the Rush Limbaugh radio program yet) concerning such important issues as Social Security. As a matter of fact Guckert/Gannon quoted the Limbaugh show in regard to a fictional "joke" that Rush had attributed to Senator Reid of Nevada concerning "soup lines". It turns out Gannon didn't even realize Reid never said the line, Rush was joking and used the "soup line" joke as a question directed towards the President.

 

 

If you can't see the problem with this enroll at your local community college in an ethics/journalism class immediately.

[Bishop Hedd]

It ranks right up there with:

-Reporters being paid by the Bush administration to put out favorable messages is bad.

-Reporters being paid by the Clinton administration to do the same thing is no big deal.

 

One was a big story for a while. The other was hardly mentioned. Guess which is which...

275752[/snapback]

 

 

 

Who was paid off by Clinton?

 

So far there's been four confirmed "reporters" who recieved payola from the Bush White House...and possibly a fifth but who considers Jeff Guckert a reporter?

 

 

So much for a "liberal" bias.

[SilverNRed]

Once again Wow! I had no idea concerning the lack of knowledge on this board.

Guckert/Gannon/Joe Friday/Armstrong Williams or whoever else is able to sneek in to a White House breifing under an assumed name should draw attention to a White House hung up on "National Security".  To allow someone like Guckertt/Gannon/Fridayinto these conferences/briefings either displays a total breakdown of National Security or shows the blatent partisanship of the current administration to allow a "reporter" who is consistantly called on by McLellan and Bush to lob soft ball/rhetorical questions (cribbed from the Rush Limbaugh radio program yet) concerning such important issues as Social Security. As a matter of fact Guckert/Gannon quoted the Limbaugh show in regard to a fictional "joke" that Rush had attributed to Senator Reid of Nevada concerning "soup lines". It turns out Gannon didn't even realize Reid never said the line, Rush was joking and used the "soup line" joke as a question directed towards the President.

If you can't see the problem with this enroll at your local community college in an ethics/journalism class immediately.

276048[/snapback]

He didn't sneak in under an assumed name!! He got daily press passes under his real name and wrote under a pen name. What is so confusing about that?