He’s baaaack

He’s baaaack

: Jeff Gannon/Guckert has a blog that announces:

I’m baaaaaaack! If you thought I was going to slink away – then you don’t know much about me. Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I’ve emerged from the crucible, I’m stronger than before.

Surely all sides can agree on one thing: The guy is a twit.

: LATER: ChiCon, a conservative Rutgers blogger, says: “Jeff Jarvis may say he’s a twit, but he’s our twit. So good luck, Jeff Gannon.”

  • JEH

    Yes Gannon-Guckert is a TWIT
    That’s What I Thought
    TWIT :) acronym

  • daudder

    for someone who calls for transparency in media, you should be a bit more outraged than just calling him a “twit”. Gannon/Guckert represents all that is wrong with media and the role of media plays today…a partisan shill with access to the highest levels of government and public discourse…yippee!!!
    Newt Gingrich became famous and powerful understanding that it doesn’t matter if anyone is listening to you so long as the camera is on. Gannon/Guckert closes the loop so now the questions are at best partisan; at worst scripted and no one cares beacuse the camera is still rolling.
    The fourth estate is a graveyard. RIP.

  • Privacy Watch

    Yes, he really is a Twit. But he is more than that. He is a part of the Bush Administration’s the-ends-justify-the-means media practices. Just as the Administration locks out average citizens from its ersatz “Town Hall Meetings” and excludes any and all journalists who “filter” what the Administration says (read “fact check”), the sycophantic shill called Guckert got the red carpet treatment.
    It’s not like finding out his total lack of legitimate news credentials took any special tools. Just Google, Whois and the Wayback Machine were enough. One wonders what the real background check on him, with access to all those databases the general public never gets to see, came up with.
    While I think it is dangerous to make over the top analogies, I really don’t think that it is too much to compare the Bush Administration’s iron grip on information to the propaganda machines of various authoritarian regimes.

  • kl

    “While I think it is dangerous to make over the top analogies, I really don’t think that it is too much to compare the Bush Administration’s iron grip on information to the propaganda machines of various authoritarian regimes.”
    You really don’t, do you?

  • J. Peden

    What’s the Left’s excuse for, then, Privacy Watch, for its thought chaos and wild propagandizing – both of which you just manifested?
    Does it just feel so good you can’t stop? Or is it in fact what you literally are?

  • daudder

    why not deal with what you think are the issues (or not) of gannon/guckert, not with straw dog attacks and snide comments about other postings

  • Skate

    kl wrote:
    “You really don’t, do you?”
    Well, lets see. The Administration has secretly paid pundits to flog its views in the media, it required an audience to a re-election speech to sign “loyalty oaths.”; it told the press during John Ashcroft’s Patriot act promotion tour that it wasn’t going to talk to print media because it “filtered” what the administration said, so they were only going to talk with “unfiltered” local TV; it holds phony “Town Hall Meetings” with prearranged questions staged to look like they are from a random sampling of folks; it uses the Social Security Administrations on-hold system to flog questionable claims that Social Security is going to go bankrupt if something isn’t done (privatization does nothing about this aspect of Social Security); it grants exclusive interviews to non-critical “journalists” at Fox “News” or the Rush Limbaugh show; it subpoenas the New York Times over the outing of a CIA operative, but has done nothing we know of about the actual person who released the information, Robert Novak; it makes soldiers take media relations instruction to make sure the war is spoken of in the “correct” light; it defends its handling of prisoners with secret evidence and says that even the legal reasoning is secret and can’t be revealed to the defense.
    So, yes, I think that there are some troubling aspects of this administration that can be compared to the information practices of authoritarian regimes. My position is, I’m sorry to say, one that is easily defended.
    Well, kl? You really can’t say that the Administration’s hate for freedom of information is anything but unprecedented in the United States of America. Are you going to claim it is a good thing?

  • Skate

    kl wrote:
    “You really don’t, do you?”
    Well, lets see. The Administration has secretly paid pundits to flog its views in the media, it required an audience to a re-election speech to sign “loyalty oaths.”; it told the press during John Ashcroft’s Patriot act promotion tour that it wasn’t going to talk to print media because it “filtered” what the administration said, so they were only going to talk with “unfiltered” local TV; it holds phony “Town Hall Meetings” with prearranged questions staged to look like they are from a random sampling of folks; it uses the Social Security Administrations on-hold system to flog questionable claims that Social Security is going to go bankrupt if something isn’t done (privatization does nothing about this aspect of Social Security); it grants exclusive interviews to non-critical “journalists” at Fox “News” or the Rush Limbaugh show; it subpoenas the New York Times over the outing of a CIA operative, but has done nothing we know of about the actual person who released the information, Robert Novak; it makes soldiers take media relations instruction to make sure the war is spoken of in the “correct” light; it defends its handling of prisoners with secret evidence and says that even the legal reasoning is secret and can’t be revealed to the defense.
    So, yes, I think that there are some troubling aspects of this administration that can be compared to the information practices of authoritarian regimes. My position is, I’m sorry to say, one that is easily defended.
    Well, kl? You really can’t say that the Administration’s hate for freedom of information is anything but unprecedented in the United States of America. Are you going to claim it is a good thing?
    —————
    J. Peden wrote “What’s the Left’s excuse for, then, Privacy Watch, for its thought chaos and wild propagandizing – both of which you just manifested?”
    Well, J., you need to be more concrete with your argument. Since you didn’t give even a single example of “thought chaos” or “wild propagandizing”, it is you who are doing the things you are complaining about.
    Second, when a powerful administration uses its resources to restrict the public’s access to factual information we loose a fundamental part of democracy. Without the information we need to judge our government objectively, there can be no freedom to choose which candidates or political parties are better.

  • Skate

    First off, my apologies for the earlier double post.
    Next:
    daudder wrote:
    “why not deal with what you think are the issues (or not) of gannon/guckert, not with straw dog attacks and snide comments about other postings”
    Why hold me to different standards than you hold yourself to? You are making snide comments about other postings rather than talk about Gannon/Guckert.
    You may say you felt you need to address my post, but that, too, is how I felt about the post I made.

  • kl

    “Well, kl? You really can’t say that the Administration’s hate for freedom of information is anything but unprecedented in the United States of America. Are you going to claim it is a good thing?”
    When did you stop kicking puppies?

  • Skate

    kl wrote:
    “When did you stop kicking puppies?”
    Are you a puppy, kl? Why not try to respond to the substance of my post? I did, in fact, put some substance in it. The fact that you haven’t responded to the substance suggests that you can’t refute my premise that the Bush Administration is using an unprecedented combination of propaganda techniques to control the public’s views of the Adminsitration’s practices, nor can you refute my examples.

  • http://www.mythusmage.com/mythusmageopines Alan Kellogg

    What bothers me is not that Gannon is a twit, it’s that he’s such a self-important twit. The man has smarm.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Shame Gannon never showed a boobie or cussed on TV, or else we’d be defending to the hilt his right to free speech.
    But since he’s just somebody we disagree with politically, let’s just go ahead and destroy him with the gay stuff then call him names as he tries to hold his life together. We all know that the First Amendment was never intended to protect *political* speech.
    When journalists are polled, they poll overwhelmingly liberal. We must maintain that ideological purity at all costs! The First Amendment cannot be defended until every conservative Republican voice is silenced!

  • Skate

    carsonfire wrote:
    “When journalists are polled, they poll overwhelmingly liberal. We must maintain that ideological purity at all costs! The First Amendment cannot be defended until every conservative Republican voice is silenced!”
    –And when media outlet owners are polled, they overwhelming are conservative. Who has more power?
    Gannon/Guckert isn’t just about ideology, it is about an unaccredited partisan shill allowed into the White House press core for the purpose surreptitiously slanting the questions in the favor of the party in power.
    As for the “gay stuff,” one should point out that when you offer your services as a $1200 a weekend male escort and post naked pictures of your self on the internet to advertise the same, that takes your sex life from the realm of your private life and transforms itself into your deliberately chosen professional life. It is funny to see so many “Clinton’s private sex life should get him impeached” and “anti-gay marriage” conservatives have to jump to the defense of Gannon/Guckert’s chosen profession and of his right as a totally unqualified journalist with no experience and no ties to any legitimate journalistic enterprise get a perennial day-pass to the White House. (Note to those who would try to state that Talon is a legitimate enterprise: Gannon/Guckert received White House access before Talon existed!)
    carsonfire, just try to tell me that if Guckert was a liberal who asked questions of the Clinton White House that you would be jumping to his defense. I know you couldn’t even pretend to say that if a male prostitute with no journalism experience was let in ahead of veteran journalists so that he could ask Clinton softball questions that you would approve.

  • Skate

    daudder wrote:
    “why not deal with what you think are the issues (or not) of gannon/guckert, not with straw dog attacks and snide comments about other postings”
    It occurs to me that this might not have been directed at me. My apologies to daudder if this is so. Such is the danger of an unthreaded comment forum and comments that don’t quote who and what they are commenting on.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    “–And when media outlet owners are polled, they overwhelming are conservative. Who has more power?”
    What, SUMNER? Ted Turner? :D Even the hated Rupert Murdoch gives money to liberal politicians. Where is this poll of which you speak?
    And I wouldn’t need to defend or attack a liberal Gannon; he would be just one of manymanymanymanymany liberal reporters, and as such would probably not make me wild and obsessed as Gannon attackers have become. Name a liberal reporter with a gay background now, and I will shrug for you.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    And as loathe as I am to get dragged back into the old Clinton complaints: as much apathy as I felt towards Clinton, he did make the mistake of fooling around a)while in the Oval Office, on the job, and b)with a young intern.
    At the time, the former event would have had my own boss’ can kicked out the door. Before the Clinton episode, we had regular, mandated “sexual harrassment” meetings, where we were all reminded about what we can get fired for doing. Bosses taking advantage of junior employees was one of those taboos. When I was bumped up to supervisor, for instance, a sure route to dismissal would have been to for me to grab one of the female stockers working for me and boinking her in the stock room on my supervisoral desk. This is essentially what Clinton did. And so, as unexcited as I was about the Republican-led drive for impeachment, I wasn’t particularly sympathetic with Clinton and his apologists, either.
    By contrast, the charges lobbed against Gannon seem to be activities that were indeed his own private business. Sorry if that’s a bit nuanced; the whole sorry Lewinsky matter wouldn’t have erupted so badly if Clinton had at least been sneaking off elsewhere to see a mistress, at least one who wasn’t on his staff (er, so to speak).
    The other mistake repeatedly made in this argument is by founding so much of it on an assumed stereotype: right wingers are *homophobes*. As a matter of fact, for a year and a half I worked in a facing cubicles with a gay employee who I found to be very good company. I never thought ill of him, even when his life partner died. It was none of my business to be judgemental; the feelings I had were for him at the time were for someone losing an important person, for the tragedy.
    But since I’m a “right winger”, the argument is confidentally predicated on my just ooh! hating gays. Therefore all the therefores… I would be just as quick to attack a liberal who had a gay background, etc. No. I do not care. I do not friggin’ care.
    I can’t claim to be an angel; maybe I would have said something snide like, “oh, it figures… Clinton has a gay reporter planted to report on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’”… I’m not so sure I’d really say that, but for argument, we’ll assume the worst possible. But even with that, I wouldn’t be calling for every detail of the man’s life to be dragged out in the open, simply to even the political score and ruin the man’s life; this is nasty, contemptible stuff.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Funny you should maintain how liberal you are in your regard for gay people, carsonfire; maybe you should note that you are the one who brought up the gay prostitute aspect. The other comments were on the shill aspects, and the administration’s dishonesty in its use of and references to the press.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Funny you should maintain how liberal you are in your regard for gay people, carsonfire; maybe you should note that you are the one who brought up the gay prostitute aspect. The other comments were on the shill aspects, and the administration’s dishonesty in its use of and references to the press.

  • Skate

    carsonfire wrote:
    “Before the Clinton episode, we had regular, mandated “sexual harrassment” meetings, where we were all reminded about what we can get fired for doing. Bosses taking advantage of junior employees was one of those taboos.”
    Creating a hostile work environment is illegal. However, Clinton was never accused of harassing Lewinsky–he was harangued for his relationship with her. Having such relationship is not illegal.
    “By contrast, the charges lobbed against Gannon seem to be activities that were indeed his own private business. ”
    Two points: 1) Creating a business offering yourself to the public on the internet as a male prostitute is a public activity, not a private matter like Clinton’s affair. 2) Gannon/Guckerts job immediately prior to (and possibly concurrent with) his new found career as a White House Correspondent is directly relevant to his claim to be a qualified journalist and to the reasons why he used a pseudonym.
    The phony indignation conservatives through up about Gannon’s “personal life” is merely the kind of distraction one uses when one is actually loosing the argument on the basis of actual facts. (Why do the Gannon Haters hate America and the troops? Think of the Children!)

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Oh, that’s breathtaking. Ruth, Gannon was just destroyed in great part thanks to the left’s digging into his private life, and now you’re going to try to make it sound bizarre that I would mention that? It most certainly *was* a major factor in the left’s witch-hunt against the man.
    Skate goes on to *enumerate in detail* all of those gay charges in response to a mere mention. And yet *I* brought it up.
    By the way, which part of my first post does anybody actually disagree with? You *do* disagree with him politically, and so you *did* pry into his past life in order to destroy him. Which part of that is at issue? Which part of that is in error?

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    “1) Creating a hostile work environment is illegal. However, Clinton was never accused of harassing Lewinsky–he was harangued for his relationship with her. Having such relationship is not illegal.”
    Oh, well, there’s the problem. They never told us in the sexual harrassment meetings that there were loopholes to boinking underlings. So I’m OK if she enjoyed it, right?
    You see, contrary to your claim, there were no gray area around boinking subordinates. That creates a hostile work environment *period*: that’s what all the legals and reps told us at the time, because even if the employee is willing, you don’t know if she feels that she has to put out to keep her job or advance. This strict definition only changed the moment the left had to start finding defenses for the practically indefensible.
    “2) Gannon/Guckerts job immediately prior to (and possibly concurrent with) his new found career as a White House Correspondent is directly relevant to his claim to be a qualified journalist and to the reasons why he used a pseudonym.”
    That is at least a reasonable assertion on your part, and I have heard some of the more hard-right Republicans angry that there was a slip-up of this sort.
    Myself, I’ve already mentioned my “shrug” factor. Maybe I have less respect for journalists; I don’t see the former activity as having much bearing one way or another on the next. Gannon was not an elected official making important decisions, but a glorified note-taker.
    Besides, aren’t all of you all the time calling them “media whores”, anyway?

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    So much of these arguments are faulty, it’s hard to address them all at once. But I find I cannot let this one slip by, in particular.
    Ruth: “Funny you should maintain how liberal you are in your regard for gay people, carsonfire”
    I did not maintain any liberalism whatsoever. That is called humanity. It is another misnomer of the left that they have a monopoly on humanity, even as they use a man’s sexuality to destroy him.

  • Skate

    carsonfire wrote:
    “You see, contrary to your claim, there were no gray area around boinking subordinates.”
    The seminar you took, contrary to *your* claim, was not the last word in sexual harassment case law. And, in anycase, is a total aside from the real issue: WTF was a blatantly unqualified partisan shill doing in the White House presspool, and who broke all the rules to let him in on an ongoing basis?
    PS,
    I love watching Gannon/Guckert try and mimic Bush’s successful evasion of Bush’s past life by trying to dodge questions about his 2003 business as a male prostitute as “mistakes in his past.” It isn’t that I don’t think a sex worker with a six-pac can’t be smart enough to be reporter, it is just that as a partisan shill with no journalism experience and working directly for a GOP operative, Gannon/Guckert literally had no business being in the White House press pool.

  • J. Peden

    Don’t try to distract me by making me describe my children. It’s not fair. And stop picking on my daudder! Have you no decency, Skate?

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Jeff, glad you followed up with the “…he’s our twit” line. Fox is their twit, Dowd their twit, the list goes on and on. Nice for the admissions.
    and, carsonfire, humane = liberal, not a big surprise to anyone. Try looking at policies. You may begin to discern a trend. I know this is difficult for you. But you’ve made a beginning.

  • J. Peden

    How about: “being humane” = “being liberal”? Well, if we’ve got that out of the way, then is allowing abortion “being humane”? I rest my case.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    J Peden:
    You can save any number of lives you will, by notifying your local Planned Parenthood office that you will offer a home and full support to the number of children you feel you can save, so that their predominantly poor and incapable mothers will have the ability to provide a good home for them.
    Of course, these will not for the most part be those blue-eyed blonde poster babies pasted on billboards asking those mothers to keep and support them, for the most part without assistance, since you’re busily cutting off child support and health care.
    And remember when you do this, you may be saving those that are kept in squalor from lives of suffering poor living conditions, marginal education, often leading to crime.
    Now, that’s liberal of you.

  • http://michaelzimmer.blogspot.com/ Michael Zimmer

    The poor production values of the site leads me to question its authenticity. On the internet, no one knows if you’re really Jeff Gannon…

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    “The seminar you took, contrary to *your* claim, was not the last word in sexual harassment case law. And, in anycase, is a total aside from the real issue: WTF was a blatantly unqualified partisan shill doing in the White House presspool, and who broke all the rules to let him in on an ongoing basis?”
    This was not a “seminar” but regular, monitored sessions mandated because it was a very large, high-profile company that was in hot water because of just this kind of backroom whoopee. And so we got the super-perfect letter-of-the-law version… we didn’t get the wiggle room afforded to popular Democratic presidents.
    And why was a partisan shill in the White House press corps? We keep asking: what about the other 90% who are *liberal* shills? Why is only a conservative viewpoint off limits? Gannon might be a twit and a hack, but are we to believe that every single liberal reporter is *not* a twit and a hack?
    Was it necessary, for instance, to dredge up Jason Blayr’s fetishes to discredit him as a journalist? No, he was making up stories wholecloth. I know of other incidents (Molly Ivins, for instance) where particularly popular liberal reporters and columnists have been caught in ethical lapses like plagiarism, with little real conseqence to their careers.
    No matter how much you dwell on Gannon’s tawdry background, this was still an ugly witch hunt. The left used a man’s private life as a homosexual in order to destroy him. What part of that statement is in contention?

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    I just read David Corn’s examination of “GannonGate”. He has it exactly right.

  • kl

    Hey, if you can’t answer the question, Skate, just admit it.

  • J. Peden

    Is abortion “humane”?

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    J Peden:
    Try again, should you want to save lives:
    “And remember when you do this, you may be saving those that are kept in squalor from lives of suffering poor living conditions, marginal education, often leading to crime. ”
    Be humane. Go offer to support all the children you can, and you will save lives. Otherwise, you are condemning them to a life you wouldn’t want for yourself, or anyone you love.
    If you want to dwell on the medical procedure itself, ask any doctor. But if you are talking about life, think about your own, and the conditions you want to live in and provide. Go ahead, take a step to save lives.

  • J.R.

    Abortion as a means to keep kids out of poor living conditions, that’s rich Ruth. Why not gather all the kids who live below the poverty line now and just kill them mercifully? I mean, why should they live like that where they have a good chance to just become criminals. No one has ever risen above their humble beginnings to do something productive, so let’s just get rid of them. What a dumb argument to try and support abortion.
    Back on topic, Gannon is a nobody, this story amounts to nothing. But hopefully the lunatics who keep pushing this investigation keep doing so, it only pushes them further into oblivion.

  • J. Peden

    The “humane” = liberal, Ruth: “in order to save them we must kill them”. Very nice, “Humane” Ruth.

  • Pete

    So “MilitaryStud.com” has a blog. Talk about your one-man circle jerk

  • http://www.lafn.org/~zeppenwolf zeppenwolf

    “Surely all sides can agree on one thing: The guy is a twit.”
    No, I’m sorry but I don’t quite get it. He’s a “twit” why, exactly? Because he’s gay? Because he’s on the right? Or because he won’t go away nicely after having his sordid past aired nationally? Or perhaps because he wants to be a journalist?
    I guess I don’t have the sophistication you presume, Mr Jarvis– could you please explain?

  • Franky

    “The left used a man’s private life as a homosexual in order to destroy him.”
    That’s just not true and is reflective of the other sleight of hands that we’ve noted before, such as the conversion of critics of Israel’s policies in to anti-semitism. I can’t remember any on the left going for this guy because he’s gay (and if I did, I’m sure I would have skipped the post), but because he’s a prostitute. Your confusion suggests you see prostitute and homosexual as synonymous.

  • jeff lang

    Zep,
    He’s a twit because like so many other scandal embroiled twits before him, he’s milking his notoriety. The female version used do No Excuses jeans ads or pose in the buff. These days they start fashion companies, score reality tv shows or market their own line of gourmet steak sauce. JG’s already done the nude thing, so times being what they are he started a blog.
    He’s got a right to do that, but I agree with our host J.J., the dude’s a twit.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Peden:
    This post is not a prolife playground, but before I go I will mention that you are perfectly free to save all the lives you want to. Any time you want to. Offer support for their families to pregnant mothers with no other options.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    “That’s just not true and is reflective of the other sleight of hands that we’ve noted before, such as the conversion of critics of Israel’s policies in to anti-semitism. I can’t remember any on the left going for this guy because he’s gay (and if I did, I’m sure I would have skipped the post), but because he’s a prostitute. Your confusion suggests you see prostitute and homosexual as synonymous.”
    Franky, this is getting old: every time you have difficulty responding to an argument you trot out the “sleight of hand” charge.
    We know what the left has just done; when put baldly, though, it is so disgusting that the left cannot own up to it. Let’s try it once more, and since you insist on being pedantic, we will be pedantic:
    “The left used a man’s private life as a homosexual, who they claim was also a prostitute, in order to destroy him.”
    This is what has happened, and no amount of evasion and charges of “sleight of hand” absolves you. Go read the David Corn piece: politically, there’s not one thing I agree with Corn about, but he very forthrightly describes an overblown case where his comrades are relying on flimsy, inconsequential evidence to achieve a really despicable thing that in the long run will have bad consequences for everybody who believes in a free press, Republicans and Democrats alike.

  • http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/02/25/wht_prss.html Jay Rosen

    The Internet itself is a “hostile work environment.” That’s why so many who are on it–and so many of the toughest talkers–are using fake names or go anonymous.

  • J. Peden

    Well, Humane Ruth, if you can’t admit that it is “inhumane” to interrupt the process which would have produced a human being just like the rest of us we see wandering around, maybe I’m going to have to start favoring retroactive abortion – upon people like you.
    Fair is fair, after all. I don’t like your inconvenience upon me, your burden, and your obvious suffering, to say nothing about your affront to meaning, both linguistic and real, and your threat to my wellbeing and freedom.
    But if you can get adopted by, say, France, Canada, or Iran, that will work out quite well.

  • http://www.lafn.org/~zeppenwolf zeppenwolf

    jeff lang: “He’s a twit because like so many other scandal embroiled twits…”
    But not like so many other scandal embroiled twits, there really wasn’t a scandal here in the first place, other than the fact that this person has been sandbagged because he’s on the right.
    Leave the guy alone already. Sheesh.
    “he’s milking his notoriety [...when...] he started a blog.”
    Granting for a moment that starting a blog is approximately the same as posing for Hustler, etc, (and surely as lucrative), your viewpoint that he’s somehow fallen from grace would be appropriate if he were a priest or politician… but a day-pass “amateur” journalist?
    Does this mean that we of the vast right-wing conspiracy can now get busy researching the past of the other 90 percent of beltway “journalists” who register Democrat? After all, they will almost certainly milk their own notoriety as well, (by starting a blog, eg), proving ex post facto that they were twits all along– all we have to do is find their dirty laundry.

  • http://chicons.blogspot.com S.K.

    I like how Jeff Gannon handles this. After having leftie sites dig up as much personal info on him as possible, he could have just disappeared. But no, he goes public and joins the ranks of bloggers aiming for the left. Obviously, he’s probably enjoying the publicity he’s getting and for that I salute him.

  • Skate

    carsfire wrote:
    “And why was a partisan shill in the White House press corps? We keep asking: what about the other 90% who are *liberal* shills? Why is only a conservative viewpoint off limits? Gannon might be a twit and a hack, but are we to believe that every single liberal reporter is *not* a twit and a hack?”
    Your post is as full of false premises as a Guckert question. Find me a survey that shows 90% of reporters are liberal! You can’t because your premise is false. Now tell me how many of them work for the DNC!!! None!!!!!!!!!!
    Guckert was a stealth operative for the GOP. He is just one more part of the Bush Administrtation’s propaganda machine that tries to make its views *look* as though they are being reported by the media even when the media are paid shills.
    Your defense of Guckert is really touching. And your phony sense of outrage over his “personal life” is especially ironic.
    Let’s go over this again: Starting a *business* with an internet website* offering yourself for sale as a $1200 a weekend male prostitute *is not* your “private life.” It is your ****professional life****. But I’ll give you props for doing your best to put media critics on defensive using the “moral indignation” distraction technique to try and obfuscate the real issue: what was a GOP operative doing pretending to be a reporter at the White House.

  • Eileen
  • richard mcenros

    “Gannon/Guckert represents all that is wrong with media and the role of media plays today…a partisan shill with access to the highest levels of government and public discourse…yippee!!!” Until I saw Guckert’s name, for a minute there I thought you were talking about David Gergen or George Stephanapolous…
    Skate

  • Skate

    richard mcenros wrote:
    “Skate

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    too funny .. stepped back by.
    we’re talking about some one who first advertized himself as a military persona and now the rightwingers want to say it’s the left, they are accusing, want to destroy the freak of the moment, because he started out that way, but they keep bringing it up …and where is anything this PERSONA has produced anything but the infamous soft question…so stupid but I suppose a necessary diversionary tactic if you have nothing positive to offer and have to pay anyone to cover you saying anything positive.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Skate: “!!!!!!!!!!”
    Hyperventilating punctuation doesn’t help your argument.
    The 90% number I repeated was in reference to the White House press corps alone. I’ll gladly concede that may not be an accurate number, but an educated guess; it’s probably close, though, based on facts we know.
    Facts we do know: recent polls of journalists show that the number of reporters self-identifying as Democrats and liberals is disproportionate. Because these statistics are difficult to argue against, the usual counter is to cite nameless bosses who are all raving right wingers. Most of the national, high-profile bosses, however, are liberal types who give money to liberal causes. Are the numbers of conservative bosses greater at the local level? I don’t know — but they’re getting their primary national newsfeeds from CBS, ABC, NBC, AP, Reuters, CNN, NPR, etc — a right wing boss of a small outlet in the boondocks isn’t going to be able to do much about the leftward skew of the national news, except run alternatives like right wing talk shows — which is the one prime opportunity for conservatives to cut through the liberal bias that we know pervades national media but that liberals deny… even as they betray themselves and their true hypocrisy by getting hopping mad when a conservative *does* manage to infiltrate the exclusive liberal club.
    There’s no way the left can win this one. They have to argue out of both sides of their mouths on almost every corner of this argument. The press isn’t really liberal, but, damn, how’d he get in there? We support people’s right to privacy in their sexual orientation and private behavior, whoops that guys’s a wingnut killkillkill! The way the Rethuglicans hounded Clinton over sex was wrong and evil, now it’s our turn!
    But it occurs to me that the left is making another mistake. They keep trying to make the Republican “defense” of Gannon the issue. This is not about Gannon, anymore. This story has already moved past Gannon. The Gannon story itself is very small and inconsequential, as David Corn concedes… the larger story is once again the left itself, and what the left has done and will do in a relatively immoral drive to do anything and everything to anybody.

  • Skate

    carsonfire wrote:
    “Skate: “!!!!!!!!!!”
    Hyperventilating punctuation doesn’t help your argument.”
    No, my arguments are perfectly valid without the hyperbolic punctuation, but arguing with someone who ignores facts and tries to change the subject to “poor Guckert and his private life” is frustrating.
    “he 90% number I repeated was in reference to the White House press corps alone. I’ll gladly concede that may not be an accurate number, but an educated guess; it’s probably close, though, based on facts we know.”
    Actually, I’d call it an *un-educated* wild ass guess, and a wrong one at that. Here are some actual *facts* for you that a simple Google search will confirm:
    (via Media Matters)” According to a report by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released on May 23…The Pew report found that 34 percent of national journalists identified themselves as liberal; 54 percent identified themselves as moderate; and 7 percent identified themselves as conservative. Twenty-three percent of local journalists identified themselves as liberal; 61 percent identified themselves as moderate; and 12 percent identified themselves as conservative.”
    carsonfire again, making a straw argument for liberals:
    “We support people’s right to privacy in their sexual orientation and private behavior, whoops that guys’s a wingnut killkillkill! The way the Rethuglicans hounded Clinton over sex was wrong and evil, now it’s our turn!”
    Well there you go again, trying to claim that Guckert’s chosen profession as an internet based $1200-a-weekend male prostitute is some sort of off-limits private matter. I’m touched by your sensitivity. Guckert’s day job as a hooker belies his claim to be a professional journalist deserving of White House clearance.
    More carsonfire:
    ” This is not about Gannon, anymore.”
    Quite right, now it turns out that GOPUSA’s Bobby Eberle was also let into White House “press” briefings:
    (via NYT) “Before engaging Mr. Guckert on “a volunteer basis,” Mr. Eberle said he himself got temporary press credentials to attend a White House briefing. “I think I asked a question about a U.N. resolution on Iraq,” Mr. Eberle said.”
    Now it is about the White House’s blatant attempts to manipulate the media through deceptive practices. There is no way that the White House can claim that Eberle was a legitimate reporter. The contempt the White House has for honesty is disgraceful and un-American.
    I’m amused that you would even attempt to justify Guckert’s position in the White House. By every objective measure and historical precedent, he had no qualifications or business being there. You should just give up on this one and move on to some thing you might have some shred of credibility left on, but this ain’t it.

  • Franky

    Carsonfire,
    I would provide the usual point by point rebutall of what you’ve said, but that would deprive me of the pleasure of seeing you continue to defend a male hooker working in the white house – please carry on!

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Peden:
    “Well, Humane Ruth, if you can’t admit that it is “inhumane” to interrupt the process which would have produced a human being just like the rest of us we see wandering around, maybe I’m going to have to start favoring retroactive abortion – upon people like you.”
    Nothing like some one who makes a cause of saving unborn lives to show what he/she really wants is to do away with … let’s say it, kill … those who don’t mouth the party line. I have actually saved a few lives, which you won’t do by favoring the ending of existing lives, specifically mine, by violent words at a keyboard.
    I note you got carried away at another post, also ended up favoring death to the opponent. Maybe a little therapy?

  • Skate

    Peden wrote:
    “Well, Humane Ruth, if you can’t admit that it is “inhumane” to interrupt the process which would have produced a human being just like the rest of us we see wandering around, maybe I’m going to have to start favoring retroactive abortion – upon people like you”
    I’m going to have to second that notion. Peden, you really should be careful about how you try to make your point. I’m a big free speech advocate; however, death threats are not a form of free speech and and be considered a terrorist threat and a felony. While you may only be using your apparent death threats as a rhetorical device, there is no way anyone can know for sure how you mean it.
    Please note that I’m not claiming that you made an actual death threat, only that what you wrote can be read that way.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Skate;
    thanks, we are sure this character just got carried away, but these expressions of feelings are not acceptable.

  • wyguy

    Great! Thanks for the link.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Franky: “…deprive me of the pleasure of seeing you continue to defend a male hooker working in the white house – please carry on!”
    For the Nth time, defending Gannon isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that the left worked so hard to *destroy* a male hooker.
    If Gannon was participating in behavior like that, my view would be that he should stop it. Not good for the soul, not good for your life. There has been suggestions that he was changing his life by moving into journalism, and other suggestions that he was doing both consecutively. I have no idea which is the truth, but to save someone from bad behavior, you don’t make him *stop the good behavior*.
    As has been pointed out, Gannon never had a regular pass, only the more lax day pass… when this came to light, perhaps it should have been reported, and Gannon’s privilege to report on this beat suspended, but that’s not what the left did. They blew it up in a way to maximize the attack and the embarrassment to a small potatoes scribbler, because they were more interested in finding a way to “get” the White House than they were to “protect” the White House from “gay hookers”.
    And to compound this, there have been no end to tin foil hat conspiracies, some even suggesting a Bush/Gannon sex connection! Plame, who posed as a spy for a Vanity Fair photo, is somehow at risk because of Gannon. Rove himself was responsible for Gannon! All of *this* nonsense I *would* defend Gannon from even if he were a convicted felon; even a convicted felon deserves to be in hot water over only, you know, *real* things that he actually did, and not wild stories made up by political thugs.
    But I don’t have to defend Gannon at all to say, once again, this has been an especially shameful exercise for the left.

  • Skate

    carsonfire wrote:
    “As has been pointed out, Gannon never had a regular pass, only the more lax day pass..”
    Hi, carsonfire, nice to see you haven’t given up in-spite of the overwhelming evidence against your pathetic defense of the phony reporter who pretended to be named Jeff Gannon.
    Yes, he got the more lax day pas. Yet, those lax day passes are for visiting reporters and are only to be issued on a special basis–not for unqualified reporters who can’t pass a background check. So, the fact that Gannon received special exemption to get continuous access via day-passes for two years is conclusive evidence that the White House deliberately let Guckert in, time and time again, and knew he wasn’t qualified.
    It is funny that the evidence that you thought proves your point in fact proves the opposite. Your arguments are pathetic and transparent–and made in desperation out of blind partizan zeal.
    Just how much more obviously does the White House have to screw up before you can admit they are responsible? From your posts, it would suggest that even if Gannon was Karl Rove in a wig you would still defend him as being in the right.