NationStates Jolt Archive

The following article is derived from the Boston Globe. It is the result of research following a report on MSNBC regarding a "reporter" in the White House Press Corps.

This is only an excerpt. The entire article can be found at:
http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2005/02/02/white_house_friendly_reporter_under_scrutiny/


========================================================
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website.

Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."

Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality." During the presidential campaign, when called on by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service.

Now, the question of how Gannon gets into White House press conferences is coming under intense scrutiny from critics who contend that Gannon is not a journalist but rather a White House tool to soften media coverage of Bush. The issue was raised by a media watchdog group and picked up by Internet bloggers, who linked Gannon's presence in White House briefings to recent controversies over whether the administration manipulates the flow of information to the public.
========================================================

The MSNBC report went into further detail. Gannon is not a reporter. Indeed, "Jeff Gannon" is apparently not even his real name. What IS clear at this point is that Mr. Gannon, if you can call him that, has links to a Republican organization called GOP USA. MSNBC was kind enough to run many, many video clips (more than a dozen) of Mr. Gannon being called on by both the White House Press Secy. and the President himself during news conferences (On a first name basis, I might add). Mr. Gannon reliably hyped Administration policies and attacked notable Democratic leaders every time he was called on in the clips.

There are now allegations that the Administration DELIBERATELY allowed this man into the press conferences in order to spin a positive outlook on Bush policies in the media. The very fact that "Gannon" managed to get into the press conferences implies a certain degree of Administration involvement....no average joe can walk into a White House press conference. Credentials are granted to certain journalists who are allowed to attend the events. Gannon would have had to offered his name among other information in order to apply for such credentials. His false name should have been discovered right then and there.

This incident, combined with recent revelations that the Bush Administration payed (with GOVERNMENT money) conservative columnists/journalists such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to put a positive spin on Administration policies, paints a disturbing picture. The White House is clearly trying to put a gloss on its' VERY poor policy stands by taking the critical edge out of media questions, and it is not above bribes and plants to get the results it wants.

ALL Americans should be rightly afraid of this concerted effort by Bush Inc. to feed the American public a steady stream of propaganda, and its' efforts to subvert the media. I URGE MY FELLOW AMERICANS TO WRITE THEIR CONGRESSMEN IN PROTEST!

Desperation bump

there is certainly nothing wrong with the whitehouse inventing a reporter to break up tough sessions with the press and generally serve their interests. nor is there anything wrong with them paying a bunch of other reporters to push their line. nor is there anything wrong with a major news network centering its coverage on government talking points and comparing notes before broadcasts.
nothing to see here, move along.

See, this is where I could really blast you on the quality of the journalists being employed in Iraq by people like the AP, AFP, and Reuters. But I won't, because it takes too much time and I'm in too good a mood. Have a nice day :)

You expect any less than rigging of press conferences from teh Bush white house?

And the law banning this is where?

If this is giving his version of what the White House is saying, how is it any different from what Fox News says as compared to CNN?

You want real propaganda, read the crap AL Jazeera spreads as truth. Cause its a hella of a spin to turn terrorists into freedom fighters.

You expect any less than rigging of press conferences from teh Bush white house?

Well considering your sig. contains a response to a fake character, you should be more understanding of bush, :)

there is certainly nothing wrong with the whitehouse inventing a reporter to break up tough sessions with the press and generally serve their interests. nor is there anything wrong with them paying a bunch of other reporters to push their line. nor is there anything wrong with a major news network centering its coverage on government talking points and comparing notes before broadcasts.
nothing to see here, move along.

Indeed. It does not denote high level-corruption in any way, shape or form. Nor could it be confused with serious ethical violations and lead to the loss of public trust. After all, what self-respecting presidency doesn't use taxpayer money to illegally create false identities for party members and have them pose deceptive questions to the entire American public?

I see nothing wrong with this.

And the law banning this is where?

If this is giving his version of what the White House is saying, how is it any different from what Fox News says as compared to CNN?

You want real propaganda, read the crap AL Jazeera spreads as truth. Cause its a hella of a spin to turn terrorists into freedom fighters.
1) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
2) I would expect the governemnt to not so blatantly spread propaganda. Really, if they are going to be such lying jackasses they should be better at hiding it. Its so obvious when they go around rigging press conferences and making people sign pro-Republican papers to get into public speeches

Hardly suprising. Jon Stewart is more accurate than most Whitehouse press releases.

Indeed. It does not denote high level-corruption in any way, shape or form. Nor could it be confused with serious ethical violations and lead to the loss of public trust. After all, what self-respecting presidency doesn't use taxpayer money to illegally create false identities for party members and have them pose deceptive questions to the entire American public?

I see nothing wrong with this.

To be fair, the Dems have had Helen Thomas for like 50 yrs.

Hardly suprising. Jon Stewart is more accurate than most Whitehouse press releases.

Yes, but he's short, and it's a proven fact that only tall people are trustworthy.

Indeed, if you back far enough you discover that

a) Mr. Gannon was involved in the Valerie Plame affair.
and
b) he appears to have a sideline business in gay escort websites.

The blogosphere has been all over this guy... (http://www.americablog.org/)

To be fair, the Dems have had Helen Thomas for like 50 yrs.

True, even though I'm fairly sure she's about 900 years old and that she died sometime during the Carter administration, she's still there.

A good question might be, why? Is she actually any good?

Remember way back when .... two weeks ago.... when Bush stated: (http://www.heraldextra.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=46716&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," Bush said at his news conference Wednesday. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."



Ahhh, the good old days...

True, even though I'm fairly sure she's about 900 years old and that she died sometime during the Carter administration, she's still there.

A good question might be, why? Is she actually any good?

Well, I wondered that too. But face it, it's not like Presidential press conferences mean anything anyway. Even under Ike, whenever there was a tough question he would just babble for five minutes, and the press would agree, and leave it at that. (And whatever you may think of Ike, he certainly wasn't that dumb, the kindly, slightly confused, old gent bit he would do was all an act. Apparently he has a mouth like a sailor).

I can really recall a "bomb" being dropped at one - much as the media likes to act is if there can be - because they have always been highly controlled.

It's one thing I admire about the british system, PM question time and Parliamentary debate. We are just not geared for it unfortunately. :(

1) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

I have no problem with those that wish to fight a guerilla war against a military force. They are freedom fighters. They are fighting for what they believe is right.

What I have a serious problem is with those that use car bombs and suicide vests on the civilian population in an attempt to terrorize the civilians. These are also the people who with no hesitation or regret or any think approaching a sense of right or wrong, behead in a most grusome manner people they have captured. These are the poeple that are being called freedom fighters. Its wrong.

But no matter what they are called, if they attack US forces with the intent to reestablish a dictatorship or an ultra-fundamentalist Islamic state, they'll be killed or captured and turned over to Iraqi authorities.

Well, I wondered that too. But face it, it's not like Presidential press conferences mean anything anyway. Even under Ike, whenever there was a tough question he would just babble for five minutes, and the press would agree, and leave it at that. (And whatever you may think of Ike, he certainly wasn't that dumb, the kindly, slightly confused, old gent bit he would do was all an act. Apparently he has a mouth like a sailor).

I can really recall a "bomb" being dropped at one - much as the media likes to act is if there can be - because they have always been highly controlled.

It's one thing I admire about the british system, PM question time and Parliamentary debate. We are just not geared for it unfortunately. :(

Well, Watergate proved that despite its nearly all-consuming leathargy, the press can still get moving on occasion. Of course, that was a different generation of reporters, in a faily permissive enviornment for rebellious journalism...

Yeah, Ike was quite the fireball. I mean, you'd have to be in order to survive as Supreme Allied Commander. I mean, this guy had to know when to tell 4 start generals to stuff it, he had to reign in Patton for heaven's sakes! You knew there was steel in that glove, so when he created that soft persona, it probably was a carefully chosen one.

I believe Canada shares the British "hazing the PM" system, and is quite fun to listen to. However, I don't really know if its any more effective in sniffing out corruption. You're right, the US is certainly not ready for such a system, but I can help but wonder if we should be.

What is most interesting to me is that, if he was NOT a plant and was in fact a real reporter performing his duties ethically, then why did Talon News remove pretty much every single one of his stories from their website?



Frankly, I do not ever remember a reputable news service completely purging a reporter's contributions from their inventory before at the same time as they are defending him on their front page.

And how did a guy ever get press office credentials to be in the same room as GW under an assumed name? Especially one with absolutely no press credentials whatsoever? Or become such an insider that he was given access to secret CIA documents that no other reporters did within a couple of short months of starting his career in news?


Frankly, this stinks.

This is GW Bush democracy, what do you expect?
A contrary opinion to his conservative hawk friends?

there is certainly nothing wrong with the whitehouse inventing a reporter to break up tough sessions with the press and generally serve their interests. nor is there anything wrong with them paying a bunch of other reporters to push their line. nor is there anything wrong with a major news network centering its coverage on government talking points and comparing notes before broadcasts.
nothing to see here, move along.
Are you being sarcastic? There is everything wrong with this kind of Orwellian manipulation of the news.

The following article is derived from the Boston Globe. It is the result of research following a report on MSNBC regarding a "reporter" in the White House Press Corps.

( shrug ) If people don't want to read what he posts, they don't have to ( which, I might point out, is exactly the same argument used in support of the Blimpulous Michael Moore! ). :D

Are you being sarcastic? There is everything wrong with this kind of Orwellian manipulation of the news.

Wll, not only that but if this person was paid for in any way from public funds then this is blatantly illegal too - just as the GAO allready decreed regarding the cases where the Department of Education was paying columnists to promote their programs.

To be fair, the Dems have had Helen Thomas for like 50 yrs.
Do you people honestly not see the difference between independent reporters of all and every political stripe versus paid political plants whose job it is to pretent to report the news while spreading administration propaganda?

Liberty depends on a free and independent press. This is one step removed from Pravda. And you know that and would be screaming bloody murder if it had been done by Bill Clinton.

Get over this Bush Cult of Personality. It is unamerican.

You expect any less than rigging of press conferences from teh Bush white house?

And you think that this has never been done before... why?

Beyond that, *anyone* can be the member of the press. I don't see this as an issue unless at the same time the White House *revoked* some report's credentials that they didn't like.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/279556p-239417c.html

Bush press pal quits over gay prostie link

BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Jim Guckert - http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/183-blog.JPG

WASHINGTON - A conservative ringer who was given a press pass to the White House and lobbed softball questions at President Bush quit yesterday after left-leaning Internet bloggers discovered possible ties to gay prostitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday, however, he abruptly quit, and all of the stories he wrote were erased from the Web site. A great many were on gay issues, including one detailing John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" that was headlined mockingly, "Kerry Could Become First Gay President."

( shrug ) If people don't want to read what he posts, they don't have to ( which, I might point out, is exactly the same argument used in support of the Blimpulous Michael Moore! ). :D
Except that Moore wasn't illegally funded with our tax dollars, didn't hide behind an alias, wasn't in posession of classified CIA materials, and doesn't (AFAIK) operate gay porn sites while posting anti-gay diatribes to the web.

And you think that this has never been done before... why?

Beyond that, *anyone* can be the member of the press. I don't see this as an issue unless at the same time the White House *revoked* some report's credentials that they didn't like.

No. And if it has it should be exposed for the evil it is. This strikes at the very core of our democratic system. Democracy is not based upon good people doing good things. It is based upon the idea that power corrupts and must always be held in check and counter balanced with other power. A free press helps to hold government in check. When the government is funding its own news and pretending it is independent you destroy a major foundation upon which democracy rests.

No. And if it has it should be exposed for the evil it is. This strikes at the very core of our democratic system. Democracy is not based upon good people doing good things. It is based upon the idea that power corrupts and must always be held in check and counter balanced with other power. A free press helps to hold government in check. When the government is funding its own news and pretending it is independent you destroy a major foundation upon which democracy rests.


Interesting point of view, but I disagree on your free press statement. The government is NOT disrupting the press. They did not boot out a reporter they don't like. The press is not being censored. Thus, no foul.

Except that Moore wasn't illegally funded with our tax dollars, didn't hide behind an alias, wasn't in posession of classified CIA materials, and doesn't (AFAIK) operate gay porn sites while posting anti-gay diatribes to the web.
Shh, your blatant logic and obvious facts might fry Eutrusca's warped pro-Republicon nazi brain circuits

Interesting point of view, but I disagree on your free press statement. The government is NOT disrupting the press. They did not boot out a reporter they don't like. The press is not being censored. Thus, no foul.
But it was being manipulated, the president had his guy in the crowd and repeatedly called on him: he was manipulating the press conference so he wouldnt have to answer real questions

But it was being manipulated, the president had his guy in the crowd and repeatedly called on him: he was manipulating the press conference so he wouldnt have to answer real questions

The media is always being manipulated.

Further, this story is not from a major media outlet. It may well be a non-starter. I'd think if it were true CNN or NPR would've reported it.
Yet on the NPR site, they have a link for the US mint looking into a flaw on the Wisconsin quarter. Nada on CNN either.

Beyond that, the President doesn't even HAVE to give Press conferences, nor does he have to answer questions he doesn't want to. (Reagan and Clinton were famous for this.)

The whole thing sounds like hoopla to me.

The media is always being manipulated.

Further, this story is not from a major media outlet. It may well be a non-starter. I'd think if it were true CNN or NPR would've reported it.
Yet on the NPR site, they have a link for the US mint looking into a flaw on the Wisconsin quarter. Nada on CNN either.

Beyond that, the President doesn't even HAVE to give Press conferences, nor does he have to answer questions he doesn't want to. (Reagan and Clinton were famous for this.)

The whole thing sounds like hoopla to me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396514

Why wait for the major media outlets to report on it - get it right from the horse's mouth, Rep. Slaughter's own website.

This ain't hoopla, it's hooring.

Interesting point of view, but I disagree on your free press statement. The government is NOT disrupting the press. They did not boot out a reporter they don't like. The press is not being censored. Thus, no foul.
If we ever lose our democratic form government it will because of attitudes like this.

The media is always being manipulated.

Further, this story is not from a major media outlet. It may well be a non-starter. I'd think if it were true CNN or NPR would've reported it.
Yet on the NPR site, they have a link for the US mint looking into a flaw on the Wisconsin quarter. Nada on CNN either.

Beyond that, the President doesn't even HAVE to give Press conferences, nor does he have to answer questions he doesn't want to. (Reagan and Clinton were famous for this.)

The whole thing sounds like hoopla to me.

Too bad it HAS been reported in major outlets:
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.reporter/index.html
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/10/reporter_tied_to_gop_quits_over_scrutiny/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News

oh look - and a quick search on NPR shows it there too!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4492778

and, as mentioned, is being questioned in Congress:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050209/en_bpiep/congresswomanasksforprobeaftergannonquitswhreportingpost


So - does that now make it legitimate enough for you?

(oh yes, and if you look carefully on sites like NPR and CNN you will find an obscure little feature called "search". It helps find stories that you are looking to see if they exist or not)

If we ever lose our democratic form government it will because of attitudes like this.

I humbly apologise for not agreeing with your point of view.

I must be doubleplusungood.

Too bad it HAS been reported in major outlets:
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.reporter/index.html
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/10/reporter_tied_to_gop_quits_over_scrutiny/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News

oh look - and a quick search on NPR shows it there too!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4492778

and, as mentioned, is being questioned in Congress:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050209/en_bpiep/congresswomanasksforprobeaftergannonquitswhreportingpost


So - does that now make it legitimate enough for you?

(oh yes, and if you look carefully on sites like NPR and CNN you will find an obscure little feature called "search". It helps find stories that you are looking to see if they exist or not)

Did you read these links, or just do a search n' post?

* The CNN link at least discusses the issue.

* Boston Globe: "abruptly quit yesterday after bloggers connected him to websites apparently devoted to gay sex." Ah, so it's a witchhunt. Lovely.

* The NPR link says the man resigned. It is pretty much useless.

Funny how it's today's news, yet not on the front of even one of those pages. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but IMHO, it still looks to me like the left-leaning media is looking for something to feed on. Hoopla.

Did you read these links, or just do a search n' post?

* The CNN link at least discusses the issue.

* Boston Globe: "abruptly quit yesterday after bloggers connected him to websites apparently devoted to gay sex." Ah, so it's a witchhunt. Lovely.

* The NPR link says the man resigned. It is pretty much useless.

Funny how it's today's news, yet not on the front of even one of those pages. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but IMHO, it still looks to me like the left-leaning media is looking for something to feed on. Hoopla.

Didn't bother to look at Rep. Slaughter's website, or her letter to the Prez? Or to the open letter written to Rep. Slaughter? You'll do well to keep your blinders on for the next four years, pally.

Here it is again, lazybones.

http://www.louise.house.gov/HoR/Lou...oom+Scandal.htm

Funny how it's today's news, yet not on the front of even one of those pages. :rolleyes:


Yeah...real funny, funnyman. Kinda underscores just to what extent your media is being manipulated, don't it?

Sorry, but IMHO, it still looks to me like the left-leaning media is looking for something to feed on. Hoopla.

Oh of course. THAT must explain the lack of coverage that you allude to. It's the fact that the media is looking to feed on it.


Guess they're all on the South Beach Diet this week, because that level of "feeding" would starve a gnat....

I humbly apologise for not agreeing with your point of view.

I must be doubleplusungood.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's point of view. I'm surprised you understand a reference to Orwell's 1984 (doubleplusungood), but fail to see the danger of a government surreptitiously manufacturing news, news outlets, and reporters.

Actually, Salon has the most in-depth article on this issue that I could find.

It includes the note that this (supposed) reporter was one of the ones involved in leaking the Valerie Plame affair, and that he indicated that he had access to unclassified CIA documents.

It's long, but Salon is a pain to get into so I'll post it all and spare people watching a dumb visa ad.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon_affair/index_np.html


Fake news, fake reporter
Why was a partisan hack, using an alias and with no journalism background, given repeated access to daily White House press briefings?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert



Feb. 10, 2005 | When President Bush bypassed dozens of eager reporters from nationally and internationally recognized news outlets and selected Jeff Gannon to pose a question at his Jan. 26 news conference, Bush's recognition bestowed instant credibility on the apparently novice reporter, as well as the little-known conservative organization he worked for at the time, called Talon News. That attention only intensified when Gannon used his nationally televised press conference time to ask Bush a loaded, partisan question -- featuring a manufactured quote that mocked Democrats for being "divorced from reality."

Gannon's star turn quickly piqued the interest of many online commentators, who wondered how an obvious Republican operative had been granted access to daily White House press briefings normally reserved for accredited journalists. Two weeks later, a swarming investigation inside the blogosphere into Gannon and Talon News had produced all sorts of damning revelations about how Talon is connected at the hip to a right-wing activist organization called GOPUSA, how its "news" staff consists largely of volunteer Republican activists with no journalism experience, how Gannon often simply rewrote GOP press releases when filing his Talon dispatches. It also uncovered embarrassing information about Gannon's past as well as his fake identity. When Gannon himself this week confirmed to the Washington Post that his name was a pseudonym, it only added to the sense of a bizarre hoax waiting to be exposed.


On Tuesday night, the reporter who apparently saw himself as a trailblazing conservative "embedded with the liberal Washington press corps" abruptly quit his post as Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News, that after earlier taunting those digging into his past that he was "hiding in plain sight." Contacted by e-mail for a comment, Gannon referred Salon to the message posted on his Web site: "Because of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life. Thank you to all those who supported me."

The Gannon revelations come on the heels of the discovery that Bush administration officials signed lucrative contracts for several conservative pundits who hyped White House initiatives and did not disclose the government's payments. The Talon News fiasco raises serious questions about who the White House is allowing into its daily press briefings: How can a reporter using a fake name and working for a fake news organization get press credentials from the White House, let alone curry enough favor with the notoriously disciplined Bush administration to get picked by the president in order to ask fake questions? The White House did not return Salon's calls seeking answers to those questions.

The situation "begs further investigation," says James Pinkerton, a media critic for Fox News who has worked for two Republican White Houses. "In the six years I worked for Reagan and Bush I, I remember the White House being strict about who got in. It's inconceivable to me that the White House, especially after 9/11, gives credentials to people without doing a background check."

Gannon reportedly did not have what's known as a "hard pass" for the White House press room, which allows journalists to enter daily without getting prior approval each time. Instead Gannon picked up a daily pass by contacting the White House press office each morning and asking for clearance. Mark Smith, vice president of the White House Correspondents Association, says it's up to White House officials to decide whom they want to wave in each day. "They don't consult us." If they had, Smith says, he would have been "very uncomfortable" granting Gannon the same access as professional journalists.

And the association never would have backed a reporter using an alias. Says Pinkerton: "If [Gannon] was walking around the White House with a pass that had a different name on it than his real name, that's pretty remarkable." Smith, who covers the White House for Associated Press radio, says he "could have sworn" that he saw credentials around Gannon's neck with the name "Jeff Gannon" on them.

"Somebody was waving him into the White House every day," notes David Brock, president and CEO of Media Matters for America, an online liberal advocacy group that led the way in raising questions about Gannon and Talon News.

Earlier this week, when asked about Gannon's access, White House press secretary Scott McClellan essentially threw up his hands and said he has no control over who is in the press room and whom the president calls on during his rare press conferences. "I don't think it's the role of the press secretary to get into the business of being a media critic or picking and choosing who gets credentials," he told the Washington Post.

"That's like [McClellan] saying, 'I'm chief of staff at a hospital and when a patient dies in surgery and it turns out the guy operating wasn't a doctor ... [it's] not my business to be a medical critic,'" says Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has written extensively about the inner workings of the Bush administration. "Nobody is asking him to be a media critic. They're asking him to make sure people in the press room -- the ones using up precious time during extremely rare press conferences -- are acting journalists, honest brokers dealing with genuine inquiry to get at the truth."

Suskind questions the White House's explanation that Bush had no idea who Gannon was when he called on him during the press conference. "Frankly, my sense is that almost nothing happens inside the White House episodically. They are so ardent with their message discipline. It all happens for a reason."

And it's not as if finding out the connection between Talon and GOPUSA was difficult. The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press credential distribution on Capitol Hill, did just that last spring when Gannon approached the organization to apply for a press pass. "We didn't recognize the publication, so we asked for information about what Talon was," says Julie Davis, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun who is on the committee. "We did some digging, and it became clear it was owned by the owner of GOPUSA. And we had asked for some proof of Talon's editorial independence from that group ... They didn't provide anything, so we denied their credentials, which is pretty rare," says Davis. She adds, "There's limited space, and particularly after 9/11 there's limited access to the Capitol. Our role is to make sure journalists have as much access as possible, and to ensure that credentials mean something."

Talon's unusual access to the White House has upset journalists at other small outlets who don't enjoy the same privileged connections. "We're a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 22,000 and I'm pretty sure we couldn't get a White House press pass," says Mike Hudson, editor of the Niagara Falls Reporter in Niagara Falls, N.Y. "How does Gannon, which isn't even his real name, get past security?" Hudson wrote to Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., asking her office "to look into how a partisan political organization and an individual with no credentials as a reporter -- and apparently operating under an assumed name -- landed a coveted spot in the White House press corps."

Slaughter, a vocal critic of the administration's pundit payola practices, wrote to the White House on Monday urging Bush "to please explain to the Congress and to the American people how and why the individual known as 'Mr. Gannon' was repeatedly cleared by your staff to join the legitimate White House press corps."

Until this week, what little was known about Gannon was vague. But several Web sites he is connected with provide some possible clues. Introducing himself to readers of his ConservativeGuy.com Web site, Gannon once wrote, "I've been a preppie, a yuppie, blue-collar, green-collar and white collar. I've served in the military, graduated from college, taught in the public school system, was a union truck driver, a management consultant, a fitness instructor and an entrepreneur. I'm a two-holiday Christian and I usually vote Republican."

When the recent controversy erupted, Gannon positioned himself as more of an ardent right-winger, not to mention ardent Christian. On JeffGannon.com he wrote, "I'm everything people on the Left seem to despise. I'm a man who is white, politically conservative, a gun-owner, an SUV driver and I've voted for Republicans. I'm pro-American, pro-military, pro-democracy, pro-capitalism, pro-free speech, anti-tax and anti-big government. Most importantly, I'm a Christian. Not only by birth, but by rebirth through the blood of Jesus Christ." Posting on the right-wing FreeRepublic.com, Gannon, while working as a White House reporter, once urged fellow Freepers to stage a demonstration outside Sen. John Kerry's headquarters and chant Jane Fonda's name and throw DNC medals, a reference to the Vietnam ribbons of honor Kerry threw away during an antiwar demonstration in the early 1970s.

As a would-be reporter, Gannon often copied entire sections from White House press releases and pasted them into his stories, according to an analysis done by Media Matters. This despite the fact he once ridiculed legitimate journalists for "working off the talking points provided by the Democrats."

According to his bio on Talon's Web site (which has now been removed), he's a graduate of the "Pennsylvania State University System," which could mean anything from Penn State to a much smaller state-run school such as West Chester University. He also noted that he's a graduate of Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism -- which is a two-day, $50 seminar run by Morton Blackwell, a longtime Republican activist who co-founded the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and has said that those on "the ultra left harness hate and envy in their quest for unlimited power." Blackwell's journalism seminar aims to "prepare conservatives for success in politics, government and the news media," according to the institute's Web site. The classes are also designed to "bring balance to the media."

It was Blackwell, serving as a Virginia delegate to the GOP convention this summer, who handed out purple bandages in an effort to make fun of Kerry's Vietnam War wounds. They read: "It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it?" Blackwell also served as a mentor to a young field organizer who is now Bush's deputy chief of staff. (Karl Rove called Blackwell just days after winning the 2000 election to thank him for his help.)

What likely forced Gannon to quit Talon News Tuesday were the revelations uncovered by bloggers such as World O' Crap, AmericaBlog, Mediacitizen, Daily Kos and Eschaton, along with their readers, about Gannon's past. For instance, bloggers uncovered evidence suggesting that the person and company that own the Web site JeffGannon.com also registered the gay-themed sites hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescorts.com and militaryescortsm4m.com. And according to this online research, that company, Bedrock Corp., is owned by a man named Jim Guckert, leading to speculation that Guckert and Gannon are one and the same. Bedrock is based in Wilmington, Del., where Gannon apparently is from.

As for Talon, its Web site says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." The site is run by Bobby Eberle, a Texas Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, which touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America." As Media Matters documented, "In addition to Eberle's dual role as the head of both entities, both domain names TalonNews.com and GOPUSA.com are registered to the same address in Pearland, Texas, which appears to be Eberle's personal residence. The TalonNews.com domain name registration lists Eberle's e-mail address as bobby.eberle@gopusa.com ... Talon News apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers, and is virtually indistinguishable from GOPUSA.com ... GOPUSA's officers and directors show a similar lack of journalism experience, but plenty of experience working for Republican causes." After Media Matters highlighted the background of Talon's "news team," Talon quickly yanked their bios from the site.

There is evidence that ownership of both Talon and GOPUSA changed hands Monday, just as the Gannon controversy was growing. More recently, many archived stories, including some dealing with the issue of homosexuality and defending the ban on gay marriage, were scrubbed from the Talon site. Eberle at Talon and GOPUSA did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Last year Gannon and Talon made a blip on the Beltway radar over an interview Gannon did with former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent by conservative columnist Robert Novak. That potentially illegal disclosure prompted an independent counsel investigation. Gannon apparently attracted investigators' attention when, in the interview with Wilson, he referred to an unclassified document that may have been distributed to conservative allies in the press to bolster the administration's case that it was Wilson's wife who suggested he be sent to Niger to investigate the claim that Iraq tried to purchase uranium, or yellowcake, from the African nation.


It's likely Talon and Gannon would have remained obscure had the swaggering reporter not popped his now famous question to Bush. The details surrounding the Jan. 26 press room incident are telling, as they highlight the elasticity Gannon and other partisan advocates often use in their "reporting." Gannon asked Bush, "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy." He continued, "[Minority Leader] Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Reid never made any such comment about soup lines.

That afternoon conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh crowed that Gannon's question was "a repeat, a rehash, of a precise point I made on this program yesterday." However, Limbaugh conceded that Reid had "never actually said 'soup lines.'" That was simply Limbaugh's exaggerated characterization of Reid's concerns. Gannon either heard that phrase on Limbaugh's show or read it in Limbaugh's online column and then inserted it into his loaded question to Bush. On Feb. 2, with Gannon under fire for his lack of journalistic ethics, Limbaugh suddenly flip-flopped and told listeners that Gannon's question about Reid and soup lines "was an accurate recitation of what the Senate Democrat leaders had said." Then, in a Feb. 7 article in the Washington Post, Gannon finally conceded the quote was made up, but suggested he had nothing to apologize for.

All of which begs the question, "Who are they issuing credentials to?" asks Hudson at the Niagara Falls Reporter. "Could a guy from [Comedy Central's] 'The Daily Show' get press credentials from this White House?"


Actually, I would LOVE to see the Daily Show get access... at least they will tell you if they make up quotes. lol.

If Helen Thomas was an "independent" and "unbiased" reporter, then I am the Queen of England.

If Helen Thomas was an "independent" and "unbiased" reporter, then I am the Queen of England.

Is that the best you've got, Legs?

I'm disappointed.

Really. No, wait - no, not really. If that's the best you've got, then you got jack.

There, now I feel better.

there is certainly nothing wrong with the whitehouse inventing a reporter to break up tough sessions with the press and generally serve their interests. nor is there anything wrong with them paying a bunch of other reporters to push their line. nor is there anything wrong with a major news network centering its coverage on government talking points and comparing notes before broadcasts.
nothing to see here, move along.
It is wrong because it is wasting government money for purely partisan purposes.

If Helen Thomas was an "independent" and "unbiased" reporter, then I am the Queen of England.

No, she wasn't. Ergo you are NOT Elton John.... :p


However given that I had rude things to say about her at the time I'm not feeling hypocritical when I have rude things to say about this instance either.

If Helen Thomas was an "independent" and "unbiased" reporter, then I am the Queen of England.
You - just - don't - GET - IT!!!

It is not about bias. They can have all the conservative, right wing biased reporters they want.

It is about the government creating a false news organization, with false reporters, to manipulate the news. That is no different than Pravda.

George W. Bush can do interviews with FOX, Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review or any other conservative news outlet he wants and nobody will care. But, when the president of the United States starts paying journalists to shill for his policies or planting fake reporters at press conferences then everyone who believes in liberty and democracy should damn well care.

Didn't bother to look at Rep. Slaughter's website, or her letter to the Prez? Or to the open letter written to Rep. Slaughter? You'll do well to keep your blinders on for the next four years, pally.

Here it is again, lazybones.

http://www.louise.house.gov/HoR/Lou...oom+Scandal.htm

Here is why I didn't reply to you. BTW, you might try being less snarky. You're not impressing me.

_________________________________________________

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Open the www.louise.house.gov home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.



HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer

Yeah...real funny, funnyman. Kinda underscores just to what extent your media is being manipulated, don't it?

Yep. Because NPR and CNN are secretly controlled by the GOP, right?

Man, but you take this seriously!

I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion (at this point in time!) is that it looks like hoopla to me. Just like the Kenneth Starr BS.

Now, you can continue being snarky, but it is hardly helping you make a case.

You - just - don't - GET - IT!!!

It is not about bias. They can have all the conservative, right wing biased reporters they want.

It is about the government creating a false news organization, with false reporters, to manipulate the news. That is no different than Pravda.

George W. Bush can do interviews with FOX, Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review or any other conservative news outlet he wants and nobody will care. But, when the president of the United States starts paying journalists to shill for his policies or planting fake reporters at press coferences then everyone who believes in liberty and democracy should damn well care.


I've always thought that the BBC and National Public Radio, as they were created by the government, and are answerable to government, are false news organizations with false reporters who manipulate the news.

The BBC even took it as their job during WW II to be the propaganda arm of the United Kingdom.

National Public Radio could theoretically be ordered by Bush to clean out the desks of people who don't like Bush (probably everyone would leave except a handful of people) and replace them with Bush-happy people. It would be perfectly legal. We could do that every time the President changes.

And I keep hearing from people that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Bush administration - fully under the control of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Am I hearing that you think that Fox is an independent news organization, and not a sham outfit? That Bush has to resort to creating a fake reporter - wow, why would he have to do that when he has Fox?

Fox - the most watched news in America. Hmm.

Here is why I didn't reply to you. BTW, you might try being less snarky. You're not impressing me.

_________________________________________________

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Open the www.louise.house.gov home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.



HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer

Well, the link was provided to me this morning - it worked well enough for me. If you'd've bothered following my link to the Slaughter thread, you'd've seen it posted as text on the thread as well as having the link.

If the site is temporarily unavailable, might I suggest that is probably due to a large number of people accessing it at this time? This is, after all, a major news story...

Here is the SAME info from my other thread.

And I wasn't aware that I had to impress you, btw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Slaughter Calls on President Bush to Explain Emerging White House Briefing Room Scandal

Washington, DC - Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (NY-28), long time champion of media reform and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Rules, sent a letter to President George W. Bush today asking him to explain how discredited "reporter" Jeff Gannon was credentialed as a member of the legitimate media by the White House.



The letter follows:

Wednesday, February 9, 2005




The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. President:



In light of the mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies, I feel compelled to ask you to address a matter brought to my attention by the Niagara Falls Reporter (article attached), a local newspaper in my district, regarding James "JD" Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) of Talon News.

According to several credible reports, "Mr. Gannon" has been repeatedly credentialed as a member of the White House press corps by your office and has been regularly called upon in White House press briefings by your Press Secretary Scott McClellan, despite the fact evidence shows that "Mr. Gannon" is a Republican political operative, uses a false name, has phony or questionable journalistic credentials, is known for plagiarizing much of the "news" he reports, and according to several web reports, may have ties to the promotion of the prostitution of military personnel.

Several weeks ago when it was revealed that radio/TV host Armstrong Williams had received payment from your Administration in exchange for his vocal support of the 'No Child Left Behind' initiative, I was stunned. For years now I have been leading the fight in Congress for fairness and accountability in the media; the Williams revelation only underscored the need for a media that has integrity, is balanced and expresses the local interests and concerns of its consumers.

Since that time, two more members of the media have been found to have received money from your Administration in exchange for their vocal, yet undisclosed support of Administration policies.

And just this morning we have learned that "Mr. Gannon" has resigned his post at the, so called, Talon News amid growing concerns over his controversial background and falsified qualifications. In fact, it appears that "Mr. Gannon's" presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration.

Mr. President, I am sure we both agree the White House Press Corps is an honored institution in America that should be beyond the scope of partisan meddling, and that a free and independent media is the cornerstone of our success as a democracy. Likewise, I am sure we can both agree the American people have the right to expect that journalists who question their President everyday are experienced, independent, and perhaps most importantly, unbiased in their approach.

I was already concerned about what appears to be an organized campaign to mask partisan propaganda as legitimate news by your Administration. That we have now learned this same type of deception is occurring inside the White House briefing room itself is even more disturbing.

That is why I am asking you to please explain to the Congress and to the American people how and why the individual known as "Mr. Gannon" was repeatedly cleared by your staff to join the legitimate White House press corps?

Mr. President, your Administration has driven the so-called "values" debate in this country. But the most important value for those of us in public service should always be honesty and integrity, particularly when considering the manner in which we conduct our affairs of state.

I would appreciate your prompt response on this matter.



Respectfully,


/LMS



Louise M. Slaughter

Ranking Member, House Committee on Rules

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Niagara Falls Reporter on Monday, February 7, 2005

AN OPEN LETTER TO LOUISE SLAUGHTER
Dear Rep. Slaughter,

As a small newspaper located in your district, we are asking for your help. It has come to our attention that an individual who calls himself "Jeff Gannon" has been credentialed by the White House to attend press briefings and presidential news conferences.

He is affiliated with an organization called Talon News, and is frequently called on by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and President Bush. This individual has no background in journalism whatsoever, and his "syndicated column" appears solely on his personal Web site, www.jeffgannon.com. According to the Philadelphia Daily News, "Jeff Gannon" isn't even his real name.

In his biography at the Talon News site, where he holds the title of "Washington Bureau Chief," he claims to be a graduate of the "Pennsylvania State University System" and the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism.

While the 23 schools in the Penn State system award diplomas, the system itself does not, and the Daily News investigation has thus far failed to turn up a "Jeff Gannon" who holds a degree in education from Penn State, as this person claims he does. Furthermore, the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism is a right-wing diploma mill where anyone with $50 and two days to waste can receive a degree.

As for Talon News itself, it seems to consist solely of a Web site that links directly to a Republican site called www.gopusa.com. Both Talon and GOPUSA have the same mailing address, a private residence in Texas. It isn't clear whether anyone at Talon News is paid, as one portion of its site asks, "Want to join the Talon News team? Click here to find out more about being a volunteer reporter for Talon News."

Looking at the staff biography section of the site, none of the 10 individuals listed appear to have any training or previous experience in journalism, although all list credentials as Republican activists.

We respectfully ask your office to look into how a partisan political organization and an individual with no credentials as a reporter -- and apparently operating under an assumed name -- landed a coveted spot in the White House press corps.

Sincerely,

Bruce Battaglia, publisher, Mike Hudson, editor in chief, Rebecca Day, senior editor, David Staba, sports editor, Bill Gallagher, national correspondent, John Hanchette, senior correspondent, Frank Thomas Croisdale, contributing editor, Bill Bradberry, contributing editor, Niagara Falls Reporter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've always thought that the BBC and National Public Radio, as they were created by the government, and are answerable to government, are false news organizations with false reporters who manipulate the news.

The BBC even took it as their job during WW II to be the propaganda arm of the United Kingdom.

National Public Radio could theoretically be ordered by Bush to clean out the desks of people who don't like Bush (probably everyone would leave except a handful of people) and replace them with Bush-happy people. It would be perfectly legal. We could do that every time the President changes.

And I keep hearing from people that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Bush administration - fully under the control of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Am I hearing that you think that Fox is an independent news organization, and not a sham outfit? That Bush has to resort to creating a fake reporter - wow, why would he have to do that when he has Fox?

Fox - the most watched news in America. Hmm.
You would think that, except the NPR and BBC release real news and criticise and report on both sides of the line.

but i dont really expect any sort of logical thought processes from you to realise the difference between stations receiving government aide and fake news organizations created by the government to report on what they want to report on and spread propaganda


and i bet if you compare the ratings for the NEWS SHOWS on fox v cnn they are the same, its when you get the ratings for the conservative talknig heads which have nothing to do with news the ratings change

If you think that these are the only reporters who are fake, or the only reporters who are getting paid on the side, then you're pretty naive.

It is apparently common for even major news organizations to temporarily hire people for a single story or interview. Most of these temps are not reporters. Some are paid shills.

It is apparently common (but not very public) for real reporters who work for real news organizations to be paid shills for just about anyone with a checkbook. Not just Bush.

Think some reporters are ardent admirers of certain politicians just because of their ideals?

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's point of view. I'm surprised you understand a reference to Orwell's 1984 (doubleplusungood), but fail to see the danger of a government surreptitiously manufacturing news, news outlets, and reporters.

I think it does. You and I don't agree on this. Not the end of the world, but I certainly am not bound to the idea that your POV is the truth. BTW, that is most emphatically not a slam.

I fail to see what the difference is between what this man was doing and any NUMBER of other reporters have done. Most spectacularly of recent times were Rivera of Fox *drawing a map* of where they were in combat, and the soldier who was planted the question on armored humvees at Rumsfeld's press conference in Iraq.

IMHO, this sort of chicanery is nothing new. And, had this guy not had the gay porn thing come up, I doubt he would have been detected.

I've always thought that the BBC and National Public Radio, as they were created by the government, and are answerable to government, are false news organizations with false reporters who manipulate the news.

The BBC even took it as their job during WW II to be the propaganda arm of the United Kingdom.

National Public Radio could theoretically be ordered by Bush to clean out the desks of people who don't like Bush (probably everyone would leave except a handful of people) and replace them with Bush-happy people. It would be perfectly legal. We could do that every time the President changes.

And I keep hearing from people that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Bush administration - fully under the control of Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. Am I hearing that you think that Fox is an independent news organization, and not a sham outfit? That Bush has to resort to creating a fake reporter - wow, why would he have to do that when he has Fox?

Fox - the most watched news in America. Hmm.
You make absolutely no sense.

You seem to oppose government control of media (BBC, NPR), but...? Then you go on a rant about FOX. Who gives a shit about FOX or their policies? They can tilt anyway they want.

This is about deception; about lying to the American people. When you listen to BBC, NPR, or the VOA, you know you are getting news from a source funded by the government. This guy was a sneaky plant, put in the White House press room to foster disinformation and propaganda. And I have a feeling that if this happened during the Clinton administration you would understand that.

The difference between us is I would be blasting Clinton if he did it too, whereas you seem to be part of the Bush Cult of Personality - "the leader before the country."

I think it does. You and I don't agree on this. Not the end of the world, but I certainly am not bound to the idea that your POV is the truth. BTW, that is most emphatically not a slam.

I fail to see what the difference is between what this man was doing and any NUMBER of other reporters have done. Most spectacularly of recent times were Rivera of Fox *drawing a map* of where they were in combat, and the soldier who was planted the question on armored humvees at Rumsfeld's press conference in Iraq.

IMHO, this sort of chicanery is nothing new. And, had this guy not had the gay porn thing come up, I doubt he would have been detected.

Nothing 'humble' about your opinions, Mark, IMHO.

So it means nothing at all to you that the White House has been mucking about with the journalistic integrity of the media in your country?

You expect any less than rigging of press conferences from teh Bush white house?

clinton didn't have to... they loved his politics. they hate bush (except for the few non-liberal outlets) so if he wants to get his message out, maybe he has to do it in a non-conventional manner.

Well, the link was provided to me this morning - it worked well enough for me. If you'd've bothered following my link to the Slaughter thread, you'd've seen it posted as text on the thread as well as having the link.

If the site is temporarily unavailable, might I suggest that is probably due to a large number of people accessing it at this time? This is, after all, a major news story...

Here is the SAME info from my other thread.

And I wasn't aware that I had to impress you, btw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the post. I will read it presently.

That is certainly possible.

Ok.

Of course you have to. If you can't be civil and feel the need for unwarrented snarkiness, then you are unworthy of replies and you would not impress me.

I fail to see what the difference is between what this man was doing and any NUMBER of other reporters have done.
The difference is THIS MAN WAS NOT A REPORTER.

He was a stooge, a plant, a mouthpiece whose job was to fool us - the American people - into believing he was there to do the job of a reporter when in actuality his job was to spread misinformation and propaganda.

If you can't see that then you need to buy a vowel or something.

Nothing 'humble' about your opinions, Mark, IMHO.

So it means nothing at all to you that the White House has been mucking about with the journalistic integrity of the media in your country?

That was not a post to you, but I will reply anyway: Why are they not humble?

I didn't say that. I'm saying that it may (or may not!) yet be proven to be a witchhunt.

clinton didn't have to... they loved his politics. they hate bush (except for the few non-liberal outlets) so if he wants to get his message out, maybe he has to do it in a non-conventional manner.
so you are supporting state run manipulation of the media to spread bush lies and propaganda? as far as i can tell the real news agencies were reporting his propaganda just fine

say good bye to freedom of the press folks.

You make absolutely no sense.

You seem to oppose government control of media (BBC, NPR), but...? Then you go on a rant about FOX. Who gives a shit about FOX or their policies? They can tilt anyway they want.

This is about deception; about lying to the American people. When you listen to BBC, NPR, or the VOA, you know you are getting news from a source funded by the government. This guy was a sneaky plant, put in the White House press room to foster disinformation and propaganda. And I have a feeling that if this happened during the Clinton administration you would understand that.

The difference between us is I would be blasting Clinton if he did it too, whereas you seem to be part of the Bush Cult of Personality - "the leader before the country."

Oooh. Then you're perhaps unaware of why Brit Hume (who was a White House correspondent for ABC when Clinton took office) became so right wing?

He took offense at certain "perks" being taken away from certain White House correspondents. Certain perks that the Clinton White House was unaware of, and forgot about.

Want to see how quickly a story changes? It took a whole year for the Clinton White House to see what a mistake it had made - and some of the "perks" were reinstated. Too late for Brit Hume - who openly and indignantly made his displeasure known at the White House.

You would have thought he was President, the way he carried on.

And no, I'm not part of the Bush Cult of Personality. I think you like to throw that label on anyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do.

clinton didn't have to... they loved his politics. they hate bush (except for the few non-liberal outlets) so if he wants to get his message out, maybe he has to do it in a non-conventional manner.
Oh my god!

The leader can do no wrong. We must all trust the leader. We must not criticize the leader. The leader is beyond reproach. Shame on those who question the leader.

True conservatives have sold their souls for a Cult of Personality.

The difference is THIS MAN WAS NOT A REPORTER.

He was a stooge, a plant, a mouthpiece whose job was to fool us - the American people - into believing he was there to do the job of a reporter when in actuality his job was to spread misinformation and propaganda.

If you can't see that then you need to buy a vowel or something.

Please define what makes one a reporter? Time in the industry? Some sort of license?

The simple fact is, the White House can and does issue passes to whomever they want. Further, there is no defintion of what a reporter is. It's not like being a locksmith, or an engineer or a doctor where you've got a sheet of paper saying you're one by some authority.

He may well be that.
But so far, I see a guy who's quit his job, a 10 term Democratic Congresswoman leading a charge, and not much else. Until an investigation is made, he's still innocent until proven guilty. These are still accusations, and may be no more truthful than the CBS report on Bush in the Guard. Or, for that matter, Hilary Clinton not knowing about the Monica affair.

And no, I'm not part of the Bush Cult of Personality. I think you like to throw that label on anyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do.

I throw that label on anyone who excuses things they know to be wrong if committed by Bush, but who would blast Bill Clinton if he did the same thing.

This is flat out wrong, whether done by a Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal. Government manipulation of the media to the extent of creating false news outlets, false news stories, and false news reports undermines our very democracy. It goes beyond party or politics.

The question is to what you owe your allegiance? A man? A party? Or our democratic principles? If you can't bring yourself to criticize this president for something so fundamentally wrong then yes, you are part of the Bush Cult of Personality.

Oh my god!

The leader can do no wrong. We must all trust the leader. We must not criticize the leader. The leader is beyond reproach. Shame on those who question the leader.

True conservatives have sold their souls for a Cult of Personality.

Hey, if I'm supposed to forgive a President for lying to me about whether or not he got some from an intern on her knees, and I do forgive him for that, then I can forgive a President just about anything.

It's not the cult of personality. It's the cult of office. Sort of like the Pope. You know, if the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he can't be wrong. So, I'm taking my cue from the Democrats who loved Clinton:

- The President Can't Be Wrong
- The President Can't Lie To You

Same thing as the Pope. Doesn't matter who the Pope is - he's always right.

I throw that label on anyone who excuses things they know to be wrong if committed by Bush, but who would blast Bill Clinton if he did the same thing.

This is flat out wrong, whether done by a Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal. Government manipulation of the media to the extent of creating false news outlets, false news stories, and false news reports undermines our very democracy. It goes beyond party or politics.

The question is to what you owe your allegiance? A man? A party? Or our democratic principles? If you can't bring yourself to criticize this president for something so fundamentally wrong then yes, you are part of the Bush Cult of Personality.

Having been in situations far more crude and real than esoteric political discussions of events that have no direct effect on my life that I can measure, I tend to believe in myself. I owe my allegiance to myself.

Your last sentence is a logical fallacy. Perhaps not enough education money was allocated in your voting district during your youth.

Please define what makes one a reporter? Time in the industry? Some sort of license?


How about a degree in Journalism?

How about a degree in Journalism?

Not necessary. Walter Cronkite never went to college, nor did Peter Jennings. For that matter, it's not entirely clear if Jennings even finished high school!

I assume you agree that they are indeed journalists? :)

And the law banning this is where?

If this is giving his version of what the White House is saying, how is it any different from what Fox News says as compared to CNN?

You want real propaganda, read the crap AL Jazeera spreads as truth. Cause its a hella of a spin to turn terrorists into freedom fighters.
Just because someone elst uses propoganda doesn't mean that it's ok for us to.
But then again, that's been the conservative stance all along hasn't it.
"the GOP, hey, we're not as bad as Hitler" :)

BTW can you please provide a definition of terrorist and freedom fighter so that we can tell who's being spun where? Note, a definition should include everything that fits the term and exclude everything that does not.

Please define what makes one a reporter? Time in the industry? Some sort of license?

The simple fact is, the White House can and does issue passes to whomever they want. Further, there is no defintion of what a reporter is. It's not like being a locksmith, or an engineer or a doctor where you've got a sheet of paper saying you're one by some authority.

He may well be that.
But so far, I see a guy who's quit his job, a 10 term Democratic Congresswoman leading a charge, and not much else. Until an investigation is made, he's still innocent until proven guilty. These are still accusations, and may be no more truthful than the CBS report on Bush in the Guard. Or, for that matter, Hilary Clinton not knowing about the Monica affair.

What about Brit Hume pretending that FDR supported privatizing social security?

What about the reporters that the administration paid to push its marriage initiative and the no child left behind act in their syndicated columns?

This administration indulges in more blatant transperent propoganda than any other president in American history. At least the yellow journalism that led to the Spanish American war was against the presidents wishes.

including asking Bush at last month's news conference how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."
Hey, in this case at least, he was just saying what the rest of us are thinking.

Brit Hume is my classic American journalist.

Liked Bill Clinton, until Clinton cut off "perks" for White House correspondents.

Oooh. Seething Brit Hume!

Goes from Democrat to Republican (from ABC to Fox) in a single bound!

Want to piss off a reporter? Tell him he can't ride on Air Force One anymore, take away his free breakfast of French pastries, get rid of his phone line and private office, and tell him that if he wants to follow the President, to get his own car instead of having White House staff drive him in a government car.

I think that if I were Bush, and Helen Thomas was giving me crap, I would call her up front and deliberately taunt her just to see the look on her face.

If I were lucky, she would burst a blood vessel in her head.

This administration indulges in more blatant transperent propoganda than any other president in American history.

not to mention blatant and transparent lies. what's sad is just how effective it is.

americans, demand better liars and propagandists!

I think that if I were Bush, and Helen Thomas was giving me crap, I would call her up front and deliberately taunt her just to see the look on her face.

If I were lucky, she would burst a blood vessel in her head.
Yeah, because any reporter who dared to confront "the leader" should die, right? "The leader" must never be questioned.

Yeah, because any reporter who dared to confront "the leader" should die, right? "The leader" must never be questioned.

No, not because of that. Plenty of people do that.

But most people don't slobber and become apoplectic and have their eyes bulge out of their head.

No, not because of that. Plenty of people do that.

But most people don't slobber and become apoplectic and have their eyes bulge out of their head.

That reminds me. Helen Thomas has said on many occasions that no one should have ever questioned Bill Clinton. That people were wrong to do so.

I hear and I obey. No American President is to be questioned!

That reminds me. Helen Thomas has said on many occasions that no one should have ever questioned Bill Clinton. That people were wrong to do so.

I hear and I obey. No American President is to be questioned!
I challenge you to find that Helen Thomas quote.

He is thinking of Brittany Spears, who said that about little Bush. "I think we should just trust in our president and never question him", or something like that.

Getting Helen and Brittany confused is a common occurence I understand.

Not necessary. Walter Cronkite never went to college, nor did Peter Jennings. For that matter, it's not entirely clear if Jennings even finished high school!

I assume you agree that they are indeed journalists? :)
No, at least not in the case of Cronkite. He was just the nightly talking head. I'd consider O' Reilly in his younger years a real journalist, although now he's just a giant blubbering assface.

Why on earth would ANY adminstration feel the need to stick a plant in the media and feed propoganda?
Is there something in thier agenda that might rile the majority of the people they are supposed to represent? If that's what thier trying to hide, maybe they should rethink what they are doing.
I am not surprised at this news. Another step of moronic actions by an adminstration afraid to tell the public what its up to.

A well-timed softball question from an in-house journalist can make the difference between a press conference being a bomb or successful. It makes sense to me. I bet Slick Willy is kicking himself for not trying this first.

Yes, but he's short, and it's a proven fact that only tall people are trustworthy.
I'm 6'4 and a pinko lefty communist pig. Therefore, Communism is right.

Thus refuted.

What about Brit Hume pretending that FDR supported privatizing social security?

What about the reporters that the administration paid to push its marriage initiative and the no child left behind act in their syndicated columns?

This administration indulges in more blatant transperent propoganda than any other president in American history. At least the yellow journalism that led to the Spanish American war was against the presidents wishes.

What about it? I don't recall Brit being involved in this guy quitting his job. Further, that's *journalistic* malefesance. Can you prove that the Bush administration put him up to it?

That is a big problem, and darn well should be investigated.

Er, not quite. How about Reagan? FDR himself? Lincoln. Grant. And, oh lordy Polk! And Johnson!!

Er, not quite. How about Reagan? FDR himself? Lincoln. Grant. And, oh lordy Polk! And Johnson!!

Except for Reagan, there was not real White House press corp during those administrations, at least not in the modern sense. FDR had reporters gather around his desk (no briefing room). The others? No formal communication with the press at all. In fact up until the 20th century you could walk right up to the White House and knock on the door and see if the president was home. McKinley had one security guard who knocked off work at night.

You can't compare the press from the last century with this.

Except for Reagan, there was not real White House press corp during those administrations, at least not in the modern sense. FDR had reporters gather around his desk (no briefing room). The others? No formal communication with the press at all. In fact up until the 20th century you could walk right up to the White House and knock on the door and see if the president was home. McKinley had one security guard who knocked off work at night.

You can't compare the press from the last century with this.

The man said propoganda. And *all* of those men used propoganda like pros.

Yes, you most certainly can. E-mail is the new penny post, less the penny. The early (non-regulated) newspapers are today's blogs. It's all the same, only the mode has changed. And there was most certainly a press corp (by your definition) during the 1960s (Johnson).

The man said propoganda. And *all* of those men used propoganda like pros.

Yes, you most certainly can. E-mail is the new penny post, less the penny. The early (non-regulated) newspapers are today's blogs. It's all the same, only the mode has changed. And there was most certainly a press corp (by your definition) during the 1960s (Johnson).
Well, okay, if you are going to be so broad as to be pointless then I guess smoke signals were the old internet and Greek theatre was the old talk show.

Since you placed Johnson after other 19th century presidents I assumed you were referring to Andrew Johnson.

Well, okay, if you are going to be so broad as to be pointless then I guess smoke signals were the old internet and Greek theatre was the old talk show.

Since you placed Johnson after other 19th century presidents I assumed you were referring to Andrew Johnson.

Not quite. Have you ever seen the James Burke show, "Connections"?
In it, Mr. Burke shows how most everything is interrelated. Now, I wouldn't call smoke signals the Internet, but I would call the other things I mentioned prior versions. Or, for that matter, the matchlock a gun or Babbage's machines crude computers.

Sorry, my bad. I should have written LBJ.