Beyond one-from-column-A/one-from-column-B TV

Beyond one-from-column-A/one-from-column-B TV

: Kudlow & Company on CNBC right now has on Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, and John Hinderaker at his “blogging heroes” on the Eason Jordan story. Interesting that they didn’t feel compelled to get people from each “side” but instead tell the story. Refreshingly different.

Hewitt will be appearing on Scarborough Country next; he bumped me…. But he makes up for it with a plug…

Also, when Kudlow asked about liberal bloggers hating Bush, Hewitt came to the defense of the medium, saying that there are bloggers with whom he disagrees — Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias — who are still skilled political writers and he reads them.

It’s not a column-A/column-B world. It’s not a black-and-white, right-and-wrong world. It’s more diverse, more complicated, more intelligent than that.

  • J. Peden

    I wouldn’t even call something a blog of the kind we are talking about as transparent, with immmediate and way later feedback, if there is no real time comment possibility. [Not to disparage the others.]
    I noticed Kurtz mentioned Hewitt, too, who obviously doesn’t have enough time to even write his own opinion without numerous typo’s.
    I just think it’s odd.

  • http://badhairblog.blogspot.com Fausta

    i was just watching Kudlow, too. Even when I’ve been hoping they’d have Jeff as a guest, the report was very good. Kudlow’s a classy guy.
    I do wish they’d have Jeff in the panel, though!

  • http://oliverwillis.com Oliver

    No its not, Jeff. It’s a right-wing pile on. Imagine the wailing if it was “James Carville and Howard Dean discuss the Bush budget”. Jeez, has being on tv completely sapped your insight?

  • kl

    “Jeez, has being on tv completely sapped your insight?”
    Bare those claws, honey! Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll be on TV again someday.

  • gcw

    I watched, too. I don’t know how you can call it a pile-on when they explicitly said they’d have been happier with the transcript and an apology than with the resignation.

  • Wilson Kolb

    Funny how Jeff is o.k. with some blogging, but he doesn’t think it’s kosher for bloggers to prove that the White House allowed a gay hooker to pose as a reporter by means of special access granted through the press office. Apparently that’s out of bounds. Hmm.

  • Mork

    It’s not a column-A/column-B world. It’s not a black-and-white, right-and-wrong world. It’s more diverse, more complicated, more intelligent than that.
    Bullshit. With fewer and fewer exceptions (this no longer being one of them), it’s two McCarthyite lynch mobs that have no higher purpose than kick goals for their team.
    Where is an example of a first-tier blogger that has changed his or her mind on an issue when new facts came to light? Off the top of my head, I can think of one.
    What does that tell you about the way bloggers think (and it ain’t that they are all right the first time)?
    I’d guess that if you weighted it by audience, 80-85 percent of the politics related material that people see on blogs falls into the category of people propagandizing in favor of their preferred political party or their “side” on the war. And that number is only getting larger.
    If this is the future of journalism, then god help us all.

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    “he doesn’t think it’s kosher for bloggers to prove that the White House allowed a gay hooker to pose as a reporter by means of special access granted through the press office.”
    Can you show where he doesn’t think that? I think you are setting up a straw man here and putting words in Jeff’s mouth.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    And on the PBS Newshour it was Gergen, Jay Rosen and Gelleghre(?) and explored the subject of headhunting to its credit, finding on the whole that the after-statement treatment by CNN and Jordan was the major problem. That the tape not being released was a problem, and that Jordan had been invited to appear and declined.

  • Chris Josephson

    I can see if the liberal bloggers were getting trashed, and nobody was there to speak for them, that people would be upset. But it sounds like the liberal bloggers were not trashed at all. On the contrary Hewitt spoke favorably of them.
    I wonder if the situation had been reversed and liberal bloggers were asked about Hewitt what the response would have been? I can think of some that would have been as gracious as Hewitt. Others would have taken the opportunity to trash Hewitt.
    I wonder how Oliver would have replied?
    Sometimes I’m reminded of the cliques we had back in high school the way some bloggers carry on.
    Because I’m neither left or right I enjoy reading all kinds of blogs. I think it’s very limiting to read only those blogs that parrot your worldview.
    It’s also very bad to assume that ‘your side’ has all the answers.

  • Wilson Kolb

    “Can you show where he doesn’t think that? I think you are setting up a straw man here and putting words in Jeff’s mouth.”
    ————-
    Here is what Jeff wrote:
    “The blog angle: A few issues here. First, it’s hard to insist that ‘Gannon’ as a partisan should not be allowed into a press conference when we opinionated bloggers — including the activist advocate, Kos, who led the charge on ‘Gannon’ — are also demanding access. Second, by going after Gannon’s personal issues — his made-up name, his hinky past, made all the easier because he comes off like an intense jerk — the bloggers lost focus on the real issue (above) and shifted the focus to themselves, getting them portrayed as a lynch mob. That, again, is perilous.”
    First off, Jarvis misrepresents the blog commentary on the special access that Guckert received. The blogs weren’t objecting to Guckert having gotten in, they were sneering at the White House’s transparently dishonest explanation that they don’t control access and therefore gave Guckert no particular assistance.
    Secondly, Jarvis aligned himself with those who might cluck over identifying a fake reporter as a whore. The regular media obviously doesn’t care that a hooker was dressed up as a reporter — maybe they’re quite used to that? — but for Jarvis to worry about exposing this is curious indeed.
    Thirdly, Jarvis has spent substantially all of his words on the insignicant Jordan story while ignoring the highly significant Guckert story. I suspect he has done this because, like many in the regular media, he is squeamish about prostitution and particularly a prostitute who happens to be gay. And, I might add, who happens to use military imagery as the central theme of his prostitution.
    Even if there was no link to the Plame Affair, I think a “militarystud” hooker cavorting with senior government official during wartime, when real marines are fighting, dying and coming home maimed, is a worthy investigation for bloggers.
    Apparently not for Jeff Jarvis. He craves the approval of the New York Times, the Washington Post and all the rest of them. What he really wants is invitations to all the right parties.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    I understand that JFK and Nixon also had favorite reporters to call on in white house news conferences when there were uncomfortable moments, and they wanted sympathetic questioners. Too bad no one back then had the access to public attention that the bloggers now have.
    Gannon retreated with explanation that his family was being hounded. No doubt anyone returning to that subject would be accused of the assault.
    However, ‘those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it’, and what we see of the late Nixon years does seem to be returning. Particularly the attempt to plant sympathetic angles in the press.

  • pfrets

    First off, Jarvis misrepresents the blog commentary on the special access that Guckert received. The blogs weren’t objecting to Guckert having gotten in, they were sneering at the White House’s transparently dishonest explanation that they don’t control access and therefore gave Guckert no particular assistance.
    Bingo. I read Kos and Instapundit daily, and I agree with this interpretation of the Kos reaction. The fact that Gannon was a slut did get raised (quite vocally), but the free-pass access, after being denied press credentials, was the crux of the discussion.
    Yes, the conversation started to snowball after that. Don’t they all?
    The blog angle: The internet gets to the truth quickly.
    Thank you Jeff. No better words could be used to welcome your bretheren to the new journalistic Darwinism. Go wake them up, Jeff. Let us know if the NYT accepts your offer.

  • Mork

    However, ‘those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it’, and what we see of the late Nixon years does seem to be returning. Particularly the attempt to plant sympathetic angles in the press.
    Planting sympathetic “reporters” is hardly the only vestige of the Nixon white house that has sprung back to life under this President: how about the vast expansion of executive power, the use of national security instrumentalities to pursue political objectives, the obsessive secrecy, the demonization of political opponents and willingness to use any means to manipulate public opinion.
    And our heroic amateur putative press corps not only doesn’t even care (or actively supports these efforts), but spends the bulk of its time actively trying to undermine the only institutions that are able (not that they do a very good job of it) to serve as a check on the untrammelled power of the executive.
    The main achievement of the blogmire has not been to uncover truth, but to discredit the very idea of truth. Think about whose interests that serves.

  • Kat

    Is this not sort of Gannonish? Except instead of using a pseudonym, Bret Stephens defends himself and Gannon in an anonymous opinion. Wouldn’t you call this blatantly dishonest–writing in WSJ to defend yourself? Sheesh.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006289
    {This extraordinary refusal to focus on the key facts and the continuing cover-up while maligning the real reporting done by the bloggers around the Jordan affair –an attitude of dismay and bitterness made most obvious in the truculent editorial in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, which Bret Stephens confirmed to my producer he in fact wrote– ought to be a concern for every publisher as it is a sign that their employees are simply not adjusting to the new reality of news gathering and consumption.

  • BillDawg

    “Beyond one-from-column-A/one-from-column-B TV”
    Perfect TeeVee for simpletons. Don’t permit any conflicting views.
    Fascism was made for you.

  • http://www.moderatelyangry.blogspot.com Cincinnatus

    Jeff, you are a ‘tard. Hugh Hewitt is the biggest partisan hack this side of Stalin. Admit it, you are the right’s go-to democrat: when they say jump, you say how high.

  • kl

    Is this that “nuance” thing I’ve been hearing so much about?

  • http://www.hellblazer.com Hal

    Tearing down easy. It’s the creatin’ part that’s tough.

  • Chris Josephson

    I’d never heard of Gannon or Talon until some bloggers decided to crucify him.
    I’ve read the arguments and the ‘evidence’ that’s been used to lynch him. I honestly can’t see anything but suspicion and conjecture. I see no evidence to convince me this poor man has done anything worthy of the lynching he’s getting.
    For the bloggers who think they’ve uncovered the next Watergate because of Gannon .. you have a long way to go.
    What a disgraceful thing to do to someone just because you dislike his politics.

  • Mork

    Chris – I agree that some of the treatment of Guckert has been characteristic of a prurient and falsely pious lynch mob, but by the same token, it’s hard to argue that it’s not an interesting story that a gay prostitute, for whatever reason, managed to become a regular attendee of White House press conferences … even if there were nothing more to the story than the fact that he wanted to do it and was able to.

  • Mork

    Chris – I agree that some of the treatment of Guckert has been characteristic of a prurient and falsely pious lynch mob, but by the same token, it’s hard to argue that it’s not an interesting story that a gay prostitute, for whatever reason, managed to become a regular attendee of White House press conferences … even if there were nothing more to the story than the fact that he wanted to do it and was able to.

  • http://www.moderatelyangry.blogspot.com Cincinnatus

    I’d never heard of Gannon or Talon until some bloggers decided to crucify him.

    But Ward Churchill was a household name?!? Oh yeah, he was given a two-year “daily” press-pass to the White House — oh wait, that was Gannon. Ouch!

    Nope, you wingnuts take a loony prof and turn him into a symbol of the left for your own political fodder, and Jeff, Mr. I am a Democrat, but I have nothing good to say about them, but love the Rethuglicans goes along with it.

    What a disgraceful thing to do to someone just because you dislike his politics.

    Monica Lewinsky? Remember her? Just thought it was so necessary to include the little thingy about cigars in her vagina so that you could crucify a president. . . . You wingnuts are really somethin’.

  • Wilson Kolb

    1. I’d never heard of Gannon or Talon until some bloggers decided to crucify him.
    2. I’ve read the arguments and the ‘evidence’ that’s been used to lynch him. I honestly can’t see anything but suspicion and conjecture. I see no evidence to convince me this poor man has done anything worthy of the lynching he’s getting.
    3. For the bloggers who think they’ve uncovered the next Watergate because of Gannon .. you have a long way to go.
    4. What a disgraceful thing to do to someone just because you dislike his politics.
    —————–
    1. Telling the truth about someone’s identity, activities and affiliations is not “crucifixion.”
    2. Guckert isn’t being “lynched.” He is being exposed. If you’ve seen the evidence and are not persuaded that Mr. Guckert was a gay prostitute whose stock in trade was using military costumes for erotic effect; had high-level Republican affiliations; received special treatment from the White House, including special access to the president … then you are willfully ignoring the mountain of proof that’s been assembled.
    3. No one has uncovered the next Watergate. The first one didn’t happen all at once, and if this is the second one it won’t happen all at once. But one thing we DO know is that it will happen in spite of, not because of, the major media and those bloggers who seek to cozy up to the powers that be.
    4. Interesting comment. You were upset, then, by the hounding of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky?

  • Chris Josephson

    .. it’s hard to argue that it’s not an interesting story that a gay prostitute, for whatever reason, managed to become a regular attendee of White House press conferences.”
    This is an example of where I part company with the story. I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that he is a gay prostitute.
    I’ve read the reasons that pass for ‘proof’, but there could be other explanations.
    Perhaps he is a gay prostitute. I don’t know. Anything is possible. In order to believe this I need better proof than what’s been provided.
    Not suppositions and conjectures based on registered (or not) web sites and pictures. Also not based on someone who claims they recall seeing one of the Bush people frequent some gay bar in Texas years ago. (How convenient the person could recall the date!)
    Part of the problem is that in trying to throw as much dirt as possible at Gannon, no single item seems to stand out. The accusers are just so enamored of uncovering more ‘dirt’ that it’s become almost a comedy or a parody of how to trash your political enemies.
    It would be funny if there wasn’t a real live person getting lynched.
    The bloggers who covered Eason Jordan went to people who were at the conference and got on the record quotes of what they saw and heard. There was no attempt to uncover all the ‘dirt’ on his private life. There was a concentration on what was said by Jordan.
    This is the type of proof I require before I believe there may be something to an accusation.
    But, if Gannon is as guilty as some bloggers claim, I’m sure they’ll have no problems presenting their proof and getting someone to start some sort of investigation. (If this could be proved .. the Democrats would jump all over it.)
    I’ll keep an eye out to make sure I don’t miss the start of investigations.

  • J. Peden

    So the mighty Cinncinatus still thinks Clinton was impeached and disbared because of good clean sex? And does he Himself still think the ss bonds are real bonds, though they are carried on the debt side with the official national debt?
    Well, mighty Turk, you are mightily and terminally trailing the wave’s crest, moving ever backward as you receed into the darkness of the Liberal pleroma of nothingness, otherwise known as the blank slate which remains so.
    Mission Accomplished. [Until the next one.]

  • Chris Josephson

    “4. Interesting comment. You were upset, then, by the hounding of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky?”
    Have I missed something in the latest dirt to be uncovered about Gannon? Has he been accused of giving Pres. Bush the same thing Monica gave Bill?
    Otherwise, I fail to see the connection between the two.
    I honestly found the Monica&Bill story to be very tiresome after a while. Once I learned the details, I pretty much tuned out the story, until the impeachment proceedings.
    I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I thought the Republican attacks were a bit over the top at times. I also thought the Democrats’ defense of Pres. Clinton, during that period, was also over the top.
    Both sides tried to gain political points, while Osama & Co. were plotting 9/11. I don’t think the public was served in the excess I saw on both sides.

  • Wilson Kolb

    “Perhaps he is a gay prostitute. I don’t know. Anything is possible. In order to believe this I need better proof than what’s been provided. Not suppositions and conjectures based on registered (or not) web sites and pictures.”
    ————
    The Americablog site has provided extensive and verifiable evidence that Guckert/Gannon was a male prostitute. Guckert’s advertisements were on several websites, including one currently operating. Americablog interviewed the web developer who created the USMCPT male hooker site for Guckert, and verified the invoices.
    Those invoices came from a company that is publicly registered at the address that was Guckert’s at the time the USMCPT site was operating. The pictures on that and other sites match pictures of Guckert obtained elsewhere — right down to the watch on Guckert’s arm.
    No, there isn’t any doubt that Guckert was a prostitute. And there’s no doubt about his high-level Republican connections, or about the special treatment he received at the White House. Chris Josephson, you either don’t want to consider it or you’re deliberately spreading misinformation.
    Jeff Jarvis, the operator of this website, wants the establish his “respectable” credentials by ignoring the news, just as the mainstream media ignore the news. I think he’s hoping to land a slot on CNN as the “responsible” voice of the blogosphere, i.e., the one who can lend credibility to the major media’s intention of ignoring anything of real value that comes from independent websites.
    The last thing the mainstream media wants is competition, and Mr. Jarvis appears all to willing to help them achieve that goal.

  • Chris Josephson

    “The Americablog site has provided extensive and verifiable evidence that Guckert/Gannon was a male prostitute.”
    If you have such evidence why continue to whine on the blogs? Show all of us ‘non believers’ how good you are.
    Use your evidence and have the guy arrested. Prostitution (male or female) is a crime. You have the evidence, the police will be interested.
    While you have him jailed for that crime, amass all your other evidence as well and see what else you can charge him with.
    Unless you act on this ‘evidence’ you claim is so great, I’ll still believe it’s all just an attempt to smear this man.

  • Wilson Kolb

    use your evidence and have the guy arrested. Prostitution (male or female) is a crime. You have the evidence, the police will be interested.
    While you have him jailed for that crime, amass all your other evidence as well and see what else you can charge him with.
    Unless you act on this ‘evidence’ you claim is so great, I’ll still believe it’s all just an attempt to smear this man.
    —————
    Chris, you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Have him arrested? That’s the best you can do? If you look on the Americablog site, it has published the detailed evidence that Jim Guckert/Jeff Gannon was a prostitute while he was a fake reporter with special White House access.
    Americablog interviewed the developer of Guckert’s USMCPT hooker site. It obtained the invoices listing Bedrock Corp as the payor of the bills. Bedrock’s address was the same as Guckert’s address of record at the time. Guckert and the White House have both admitted that Jim Guckert used the stage name of Jeff Gannon while “reporting” at the White House.
    The Americablog site published photos from the USMCPT site, and several other sites where Guckert ran ads, plus more pictures given to them by the developer of the USMCPT site. Those pictures are dead ringers for photos Guckert in his day job as fake reporter. Go there and see for yourself.
    And now all you (and presumably your Freeper buddies) can say is that this is all false because the Washington, D.C. police haven’t arrested James D. Guckert for prostitution? Wow! Hey, I bet Jeff Jarvis will think your logic is “responsible,” too.

  • richard mcenroe

    So if you’ve got all this hard evidence, when will we see you on CBS?

  • kl

    “And now all you (and presumably your Freeper buddies) can say is that this is all false because the Washington, D.C. police haven’t arrested James D. Guckert for prostitution?”
    Well, maybe they don’t read blogs. Give ‘em the evidence already!

  • Kurt

    Given the speed with which this thread turned to Jeff Gannon, it’s not hard to understand why Kudlow decided not to have someone from the “other side” on to talk about Eason Jordan.

  • Ed Roman

    > I don’t know how you can call it a pile-on when they explicitly said they’d have been happier with the transcript and an apology than with the resignation.

  • Steel Magnolia

    It’s all too easy to divide blogs up between left and right. I think it’s more useful, however, to divide them up between responsible blogs and inflammatory blogs — both of which garner considerable audiences. It’s way past high time that the MSM learned to tell the difference.