The White House's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Press Room: Jeff Gannon's Seduction of the

[SunDevil]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000319.html

[Flasch186]

is this for real?

[terpkristin]

Based on reporting at Salon.com and numerous blogs, yes.

Granted, they're quite liberal so it may pay to take with a grain of salt, but it appears that bloggers are digging up all sorts of dirt on "Jeff Gannon" (because let's face it, that's not his name).

/tk

[terpkristin]

Dola, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/15/guckert/index.html

If you click on the links through the text, you'll also see previous Salon.com releases on the fiasco as well as some other fairly reputable blogs.

/tk

[Flasch186]

so the admin brought in a shill to lob questions at scott mclellan? I barely caught a bit of this on the news....

[terpkristin]

At Bush, actually.
This guy had tried to get special press passes before, but always been denied because of his questionable journalism background.
The paper he was representing is sponsored by www.GOPNow.org or something like that, and he was somehow able to get a "day" press pass that made a lot of the more experienced vets in the press corps wonder what the heck happened.
Not only was he using a pseudonym (which is a no-no when in the White House Press Corps), he was never given a background check of any sort. Many reputable journalists questioned his right to even be there.

I heard a bit of this on Al Franken's radio show last week, then there was a Salon feature on it on Feb 10 and then one today (15 Feb).

I'm really not sure what to make of all of this. Bush rarely if ever gives press conferences where he actually speaks. And this bs reporter is let in without any sort of check of who he is. Damn, I'm glad the security of the nation is in these guys' hands.

/tk

[Flasch186]

more importantly i dont like how the admin uses journalists to its advantage...like a spin force running around under the label of "news". Scary.....im sure some journalists still get their checks in the mail each month until they get caught then the admin. will apologize again...

[terpkristin]

more importantly i dont like how the admin uses journalists to its advantage...like a spin force running around under the label of "news". Scary.....im sure some journalists still get their checks in the mail each month until they get caught then the admin. will apologize again...
That's done by every administration, though, I believe, at least to some extent. I mean, I have no way to verify it, and I've only been old enough to vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, so I've only RECENTLY started following this kind of thing.

Of course if the GOP had done its job they'd see that the "shill" they allowed in also owns a few gay escort service websites. I'm pretty sure that's not what they're promoting.

/tk

[BrianD]

more importantly i dont like how the admin uses journalists to its advantage...like a spin force running around under the label of "news". Scary.....im sure some journalists still get their checks in the mail each month until they get caught then the admin. will apologize again...

Yes, Dan Rather annoys me as well. Wait, which shill are we talking about this time?

[Flasch186]

Yes, Dan Rather annoys me as well. Wait, which shill are we talking about this time?

puhlease.....show me the site Rather runs.

[QuikSand]

That's done by every administration, though, I believe, at least to some extent.

I think this attitude is harmful -- it lessens the seriousness of what has been proven in the immediate case.

We have "journalists" running around with cash in their pockets, fawning over Administration proposals because they have ben paid to do so... we have government-produced fake news items puffing up Administration proposals being spread around, and run in the place of news... and now we have some oddball story about some clear shill being hired/planted in the President's press conferences and perhaps beiong leaked sensitive documents. This is serious stuff. In the aggregate, it's a pretty big deal.

However, to suggest "well, everyone probably did this, so it's just more of the same" is (while understandable) a pretty defeatist attitude. If it's a big deal, there out to be commensurate outrage.

Of course, if someone rails against this kind of horseshit, they get decried as "liberal media" and promptly ignored. Quite a corner we've painted ourselves into.

[Flasch186]

id like to know if any of the right-ies on here are upset... JIMG? Glen? Arles?

[terpkristin]

I think this attitude is harmful -- it lessens the seriousness of what has been proven in the immediate case.

We have "journalists" running around with cash in their pockets, fawning over Administration proposals because they have ben paid to do so... we have government-produced fake news items puffing up Administration proposals being spread around, and run in the place of news... and now we have some oddball story about some clear shill being hired/planted in the President's press conferences and perhaps beiong leaked sensitive documents. This is serious stuff. In the aggregate, it's a pretty big deal.

However, to suggest "well, everyone probably did this, so it's just more of the same" is (while understandable) a pretty defeatist attitude. If it's a big deal, there out to be commensurate outrage.

Of course, if someone rails against this kind of horseshit, they get decried as "liberal media" and promptly ignored. Quite a corner we've painted ourselves into.
I don't think it's any less reprehensible,and certainly it's getting worse...but I'm just saying that I'd find it hard to believe that it hasn't happened before. I wasn't trying to imply it should be allowed to continue or that it's "one of those things." As a matter of fact, I hope that this Jeff Gannon embarrassment will spur some reform in reporting from the White House.

I'm with you on every point you made, QuikSand

/tk

[BrianD]

puhlease.....show me the site Rather runs.

I didn't realize a website was required. I thought a TV program was sufficient. I guess Rathergate would have had a bigger impact if he'd had a website.

Face it, both parties are full of lying cheating bastards, and they both use media outlets as a tool.

[CraigSca]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm conservative and I think the whole concept is retarded and embarassing.

[BrianD]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm conservative and I think the whole concept is retarded and embarassing.

I agree. The whole concept is retarded and embarrassing. I'm just pushing for equal opportunity outrage.

[Flasch186]

I didn't realize a website was required. I thought a TV program was sufficient. I guess Rathergate would have had a bigger impact if he'd had a website.

Face it, both parties are full of lying cheating bastards, and they both use media outlets as a tool.


I call BS...these are completely different scopes. On CBS they were complicit in allowing a duping. With this guy, it sounds like, the admin. allowed this con in and used him to their advantage. Neither right but this is much worse when the pres. not only allows it but invites it. you disagree?

[BrianD]

I call BS...these are completely different scopes. On CBS they were complicit in allowing a duping. With this guy, it sounds like, the admin. allowed this con in and used him to their advantage. Neither right but this is much worse when the pres. not only allows it but invites it. you disagree?

I do only because I believe CBS was involved with more than just being complicit in allowing a duping. They chose to ignore document forensic people (probably a better title for them) who claimed the documents were false. Also, once the story hit the news, it was almost instantly debunked by blogers everywhere. Either CBS knowingly ran a false story, or they failed to do proper fact checking so they could have plausible deniability.

I have trouble deciding which is worse since I find both quite despicable.

[Flasch186]

I do only because I believe CBS was involved with more than just being complicit in allowing a duping. They chose to ignore document forensic people (probably a better title for them) who claimed the documents were false. Also, once the story hit the news, it was almost instantly debunked by blogers everywhere. Either CBS knowingly ran a false story, or they failed to do proper fact checking so they could have plausible deniability.

I have trouble deciding which is worse since I find both quite despicable.


my jaw dropped at your last line....the admin being involved in any scandal is exponentially worse IMO. Our admin. should avoid these controversies at all costs but this admin continues to surprise me with their involvement in them....I think we found the guy who outed the CIA agent, no?

[CamEdwards]

first of all, if you want to believe al franken and the left, then this guy got into the white house press conferences without a background check and using his fake name, and was apparently blowing every male staffer in the White House.

If you want to believe the WH press secretary, he went through the standard background check and was NOT using his pseudonym while he was at the press conferences. I've yet to see it proven otherwise.

The website in question has a readership of about 300,000 and posts daily news stories written from a conservative viewpoint (and it's parent company is run by a conservative consultant).

Was this guy a "real" journalist? Depends on who you ask, I guess. I've gone through some White House Press Conference transcripts and come up with some pretty ridiculous questions asked by reporters on the other side of the aisle.

Does it bother me that a conservative journalist is gay and advertising his services on the internet? It doesn't bother me as much as it probably bothers his wife. It's embarrassing to him, but not to me.

I think the more amusing (yet troubling) aspect to this is the gay witch hunt that some bloggers on the left seem to be undertaking. In the past 24 hours I've seen written speculation that everyone from the governor of Texas to the WH press secretary to the President himself is, in fact, leading a secret gay life.

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing to the respective parties; Jeff Gannon being a conservative or democrats.com, Oliver Willis, and others being a liberal.

[CamEdwards]

my jaw dropped at your last line....the admin being involved in any scandal is exponentially worse IMO. Our admin. should avoid these controversies at all costs but this admin continues to surprise me with their involvement in them....I think we found the guy who outed the CIA agent, no?

Novak?

[Flasch186]

I dont care that hes gay....that silly.

[Flasch186]

Novak?


no one will admit that....no one. and this guy seems to have great access

[BrianD]

my jaw dropped at your last line....the admin being involved in any scandal is exponentially worse IMO. Our admin. should avoid these controversies at all costs but this admin continues to surprise me with their involvement in them....I think we found the guy who outed the CIA agent, no?

It would not surprise me if the current administration outed the CIA agent. I would love to see that person or those people caught and charged with treason.

Having the admin involved in a scandal is very bad. I just don't see how collaboration between the DNC and particular major news outlets is less serious because they failed to get Kerry elected. Would a Kerry win have made the sins of CBS worse?

Bad politics is bad politics. For quite a while we have been involved in some *really* bad politics...on both sides. I keep hoping that one of these years we'll get a reasonable independent candidate so we can make both major parties squirm.

[Klinglerware]

I think the more amusing (yet troubling) aspect to this is the gay witch hunt that some bloggers on the left seem to be undertaking. In the past 24 hours I've seen written speculation that everyone from the governor of Texas to the WH press secretary to the President himself is, in fact, leading a secret gay life.


If the situation was reversed, and the scandal broke under a Democratic administration there is no doubt in my mind that the Republican punditocracy would be engaged in the same distasteful line of attack. What goes around comes around.

Anyway, I agree with you in that who cares if the guy was gay, and who cares if he did porn or hooked himself or whatever he did? It is surprising, however, that the administration allowed itself to be embarrassed with this. You would think that a thouroughly image-conscious administration that demands discipline among the rank-and-file like the one we have now would never allow an incident like this to happen...

[Flasch186]

Having the admin involved in a scandal is very bad. I just don't see how collaboration between the DNC and particular major news outlets is less serious because they failed to get Kerry elected. Would a Kerry win have made the sins of CBS worse?

.


yes, both on the black end of the spectrum, but the frame it is painted in looks worse and looks worse to the world.

[BrianD]

yes, both on the black end of the spectrum, but the frame it is painted in looks worse and looks worse to the world.

I can agree with this. Having the scandal come from the party in power, and the presidential party makes it seem like those scandalous acts are really this country's policy. I expect the scandals to be fairly similar no matter which party is in power, but I guess seeing it come from the sitting power is worse.

[JPhillips]

The website in question has a readership of about 300,000 and posts daily news stories written from a conservative viewpoint (and it's parent company is run by a conservative consultant).

Ah Cam. First, according to Alexa it gets no where near 300,000 hits a day, or week, or month, or three months. Alexa for Talon News (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&y=t&q=&url=http://www.talonnews.com/)

But even more than hits, it is a site paid for by a GOP political group. Its not a real media organization because its just an arm of a political action group. Would you consider MoveOn a real media site and its staff real reporters?

If you want to believe the WH press secretary, he went through the standard background check

Who knows if this is true. I will say that if this is a standard background check they should look at their procedures. A few people with google searches were able to find out Gannon/Guckert was a male prostitute. Does it matter that he was gay, no. Does it metter that he is conducting illegal activites while apparently being given classified documents by the White House, yes.

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing to the respective parties; Jeff Gannon being a conservative or democrats.com, Oliver Willis, and others being a liberal.

Yes lets go back to this one. If there are any crazies on the left that excuses any and all behavior by the President. In case you don't know:

White House/President> Crazy posting on the internet

This really was summed up well by Quicksand. Too many on the right are willing to accept the common corruption and abuses of power that the current Republican leadership practices on a daily basis.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Let's just throw out an example Cam...

If some guy with alleged ties to male prostitution were given unprecendented access to the White House, and given a White House press pass that didn't even have his real name on it, in order to throw fake softball questions at the press briefings to help make the president look good.

Now imagine that president were named Bill Clinton.

Now imagine what would happen next?

* Congressional hearings in the House and Senate.
* Demands for a Justice Dept. investigation - how did this man get past security, who let him in, what were his ties to these male prostitute URLs, and who else on the White House staff may have done something?
* Demands for a slew of firings of White House staff.
* Never-ending questions about Hooker-gate directed to the White House staff and the president from the Washington media.
* And non-stop 24-hour coverage on CNN and FOX.

[BrianD]

This really was summed up well by Quicksand. Too many on the right are willing to accept the common corruption and abuses of power that the current Republican leadership practices on a daily basis.

The question is, are people on the right accepting of the corruption because they don't believe it is corruption, or because they are so desensitized from years of corruption.

During the Clinton days I was very annoyed at all of Clinton's flaws (Monica, Watergate, etc), but I was even more annoyed that the Republicans spent so much time badgering him on all of these issues that they had a negative effect on his productivity.

These days it is just the opposite. Bush's corruption is bad, but the Democrats are badgering him so much that they are limiting his productivity.

It just seems like we always get a president that has to spend so much time defending himself that nothing good ever really gets done. Just once I would love to see the out-of-power party work with the administration rather than against it. I realize that the parties have different goals, but doing all you can to block the current president doesn't help the country.

[BrianD]

Let's just throw out an example Cam...

If some guy with alleged ties to male prostitution were given unprecendented access to the White House, and given a White House press pass that didn't even have his real name on it, in order to throw fake softball questions at the press briefings to help make the president look good.

Now imagine that president were named Bill Clinton.

Now imagine what would happen next?

* Congressional hearings in the House and Senate.
* Demands for a Justice Dept. investigation - how did this man get past security, who let him in, what were his ties to these male prostitute URLs, and who else on the White House staff may have done something?
* Demands for a slew of firings of White House staff.
* Never-ending questions about Hooker-gate directed to the White House staff and the president from the Washington media.
* And non-stop 24-hour coverage on CNN and FOX.

Didn't this just happen recently with one of Clinton's guys removing classified documents? I don't remember the guy's name, but I remember hearing demands for a Justice Department investigation. Did that ever get resolved, or identified as a non-story?

[Shkspr]

But even more than hits, it is a site paid for by a GOP political group. Its not a real media organization because its just an arm of a political action group. Would you consider MoveOn a real media site and its staff real reporters?



...he asked the host of Cam and Company, on the NRA News Network. :)

[JPhillips]

BrianD: But the Dems have generally been far more willing to work with Bush than the Repubs did in Clinton's second term. Many crossed over to vote for No Child Left Behind, some did for the Tax cuts, Homeland Security was originally a Dem proposal, over 90% of judicial nominees have been passed, many voted for the Iraq war, almost everyone was in favor of Afghanistan.

There is also a very substantive difference based on Legislative control. The Dems really can't do much except filibuster. The President has been entirely unwilling to work with Dems, (see Judicial nominees and Homeland Security and now the renewal of the Patriot Act).

But an opposition party should oppose. The country is better off when the minority party presents contrasting views forcfully. Even after Bush's "mandate" over 45% of voters disagree with his policies. The minority view should always be represented. Personally I believe that only when both parties are represented strongly is the country safe. When one party silences the minority all of us are worse off.

[Flasch186]

Didn't this just happen recently with one of Clinton's guys removing classified documents? I don't remember the guy's name, but I remember hearing demands for a Justice Department investigation. Did that ever get resolved, or identified as a non-story?

he took them, but after the investigation it turned out to be a nonstory...he was reprim anded i believe.

[Tekneek]

I remember the scandal about people working in the Clinton White House who had not yet completed their FBI background checks. I can remember Hannity and Rush being outraged about it. They were always outraged about some new awful thing each week back in the mid-90s. For them, it was scandal after scandal, although there proved to be little that was actually there.

By my recollection, the worst 'scandal' of that administration was never properly dealt with. It involved the release of technology to China. A close second would be the illegal fundraising by Gore. There just wasn't as much noise made about those, IMO, and that was where the real time should have been spent. Those were far more egregious than lying in a deposition about sexual encounters with an intern.

[SunDevil]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000321.html

here is an excerpt from the this link at the bottom of the column.

"Kurtz is wrong, by the way, that Gannon's nude pictures are what is keeping this story going. What is important is the revelation that the "leaker" in the White House pushed the Valerie Plame story on Gannon.

As an example, David Brock used to work for the more thuggish wing of the Republican right, and came around of his own accord. He now runs "Media Matters" and seems to be doing a great job.

Perhaps those who want to get to the bottom of the Plame scandal should try and turn Gannon. If he said what he knew, he'd become a star -- on every talk show and reality sitcom -- and probably make a fortune. That may be incentive enough.

Maybe rather than villifying this guy, we who want to know who undermined American national security and divulged the CIA identity of Joe Wilson's wife should help him repent and reform and help him get on a better path."

[miked]

If Novak doesn't have to say who his source is, why does Gannon?

Edit: And Novak is the true dog here. He is a "respected" established journalist and took part in an act of treason and is hiding behind his credentials. Maybe people expect this from a White House-planted fake reporter, but from Novak?

[Mr. Wednesday]

I think the suggestion is not that he be forced to, but that he be convinced to. He wouldn't have to reveal it, he would choose to reveal it.

[flere-imsaho]

Maureen Dowd, an established columnist for the New York Times has this to say: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17dowd.html?hp&oref=login)

I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

LOL. :)

[SunDevil]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000326.html

[Glengoyne]

I somehow missed this post, but have been following the story as it is on NPR, and listened to a local talk show hosted by a self-proclaimed independent. So I'm fairly acquainted with the story.



This guy got the occasional day-pass to the white house Press-Room.
He underwent the requisite background check required for the day pass.
He used a pseudonym in the Press Room, which may be a no-no among journalists, but is not apparenlty against White House Regulations.
He is not the only individual to receive these passes who is a journalist for a website.
He asked biased, often rhetorical, one sided questions, but he is hardly the first to do this in the press room.
The other/actual journalists didn't appreciate his presence in "their room", and I can appreciate that. He was a clown.
He participated in seat jumping, in that when journalists with permanent passes, like the one Maureen Dowd was denied, were no-shows for press conferences, he would sit in their seats. Often near or in the front row. The people, whoever they are, sitting in these seats get asked questions. Other actual journalists do this, but it is frowned up by the "big boys".
He has been doing this for some time, and had been pretty much ignored, until one of his "questions" triggered the investigation that "outted" him.
He was apparently questioned in the Plame investigation, and some in the thread above seem to believe he has some real information there.
I don't see this as the White House or the Administration planting ringers or shills into their press conferences. This guy was a clown, he had no credibility. He was ignored right along with his questions. Because of these very facts, he was of no use to the Administration. But again he isn't the only "journalist" from the "Bloggoshpere" to get day passes to the press room. If anything it shows me that it is easier to get a day pass into the White House Press room than it should be. If you can reasonably claim to be a journalist, and are found to be essentially "harmless", then you seem to have a good shot.

So I fall into the this is no big deal because there is no corruption here.

As for the assertions in QS's post that this is Big Stuff. The only thing that approaches that level is this clown's possible involvement in the Plame affair.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Whatever else this story is, it's funny. Get a load of some of this stuff people have dug up (hxxp://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html) on Guckert/Gannon. Wow. :eek:

[flere-imsaho]

The Minneapolis Hammer and Sickle (OK, Star-Tribune) makes some good points: (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5247250.html)

So the question becomes, just how did this character get White House press credentials, despite supposed post-Sept. 11 security requirements? Bruce Bartlett, a conservative columnist who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, says that "if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." In other words, the White House wanted him at those briefings and wanted him to ask his softball questions, most likely to divert attention when legitimate reporters were getting too pushy.

In somewhat related news, here's a snafu I had forgotten about but, in light of recent developments, is a bit off:

To promote Bush's Medicare prescription bill, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paid for phony "newscasts" that were distributed to television stations nationwide.

So, which is it (Gannon/Guckert):

1. Honest (but pretty bad) mistake by Admin Press Office?

2. Willful negligence by Admin Press Office (i.e. "we know who we is, but we're going to ignore it")

3. Planned by White House.

[Glengoyne]

The Minneapolis Hammer and Sickle (OK, Star-Tribune) makes some good points: (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5247250.html)



In somewhat related news, here's a snafu I had forgotten about but, in light of recent developments, is a bit off:



So, which is it (Gannon/Guckert):

1. Honest (but pretty bad) mistake by Admin Press Office?

2. Willful negligence by Admin Press Office (i.e. "we know who we is, but we're going to ignore it")

3. Planned by White House.
The Whitehouse has NOTHING to gain from playing a role in this. Gannon/Guckert was a clown. His presense in the pressroom was a source of discontent for many/most of the "real" journalists there, but they never held the Press Office responsible/accountable for his occasional presense. They know that there are a number of other "journalists" with less than stellar credentials that are some days granted day passes. He was one of that crowd, and only stood out by asking nearly rhetorical questions that NEVER made it on the air for the Country to see. Some of the other journalists chided him, and essentially told him he needed to knock off the ridiculous questions. As far as I know none of them asked the Press Office to revoke his occasional privileges.

The guy was a joke. A clown, and of no use/benefit to the Administration whatsoever. This should be obvious even to the most biased individual. He had been hanging around for months, maybe years, and his questions were NEVER carried in the mainstream media. We only heard of him, because he finally pissed someone off enough to look into him. As for it being a mistake for the press office to allow him. As I understand it, their response is that he cleared his background check, and that they don't make any judgements as the "worthiness" of a journalist's outlet. Since again he wasn't the only "journalist" of his caliber to make it into the press room, it doesn't look like there was any favoritism involved here.

As for the Medicare Commercials. Yes a number of new infomercials are designed around a news cast or news desk format. Someone handling PR for the Dept of Health and Human Services made commercials/infomercials in that fromat. Then they distributed them in the same manner that the department always released PR material. The Governement Accounting Office cleared the commercials as legal, but did say that the content was approaching/pushing the boundaries of being a political message. The format was not called into question, but the DHHS has said they would reevaluate the format before considering to use it in the future.

[JPhillips]

Glen: Is there nothing that you will hold this administration accountable for? We now know that Gannon was in at least one press briefing before Talon News was created. How did he get in? Under what organization was he credentialed? How did a guy with no connections to any publishing organization who just happens to be a prostitute gain access to the White House?

There also must be something seriously wrong with the vetting process in this White House. After Kerik's shenanigans slipped past and now Guckert/Gannon, we are left with a picture of a White House where seemingly anyone with ideological purity can get into the White House and be offered access to confidential material.

This really is a pattern of abuse concerning the media. This White House has paid at least four journalists, has created commercials for policies that the GAO says were probably illegal, has spent more on "advertising" its policies in four years than Clinton or Reagan did in eight, has scripted press conferences, has run nearly one-hundred million dollars through a politically connected ad firm, has included pro-administration blurbs on treasury and Social Security pamphlets and web sites, has government employees for the Social Security administration shilling for its "reform", and on and on.

As I said before, too many supporters of Bush's policies are far too willing to look the other way when it comes to the daily examples of corruption and abuse of power that the Republican leadership is mired in.

[cartman]

I hear that there is a blue blazer locked away in his closet with a "stain". He's supposed to have lunch with Linda Tripp, so maybe we'll know some more next week... :D

[Glengoyne]

Glen: Is there nothing that you will hold this administration accountable for? We now know that Gannon was in at least one press briefing before Talon News was created. How did he get in? Under what organization was he credentialed? How did a guy with no connections to any publishing organization who just happens to be a prostitute gain access to the White House?
There are plenty of problems I have had with this administration. When will the left start complaining about the real substantive problems, and abandon these reaches that amount to nothing?

As for the Gannon deal. How did he get in? He applied, passed the background test and showed up. We don't know what organization he said he was with when he originally applied, well since apparently it wasn't, or at least may not have been Talon News.

What we absolutely know about Gannon/Guckert was that he was a meaningless clown whose questions never made it onto the air for the mainstream media to see. If he was a shill planted to ask softball questions, wouldn't you expect him to actually ask questions that might seem credible even as questions?

The only bit I have really followed this story was one or two segments on NPR. In one of those, they interviewed a real journalist with a real press pass for the White House, a regular White House Correspondent whose name I cannot remember. His take on the thing was that none of the regulars in the press room had any question about Gannon's presence in the room. He said there were often "reporters" from news organizations with less than glowing reputations (including, in his words, the Blogosphere) in the Press room. He said that Gannon had worn out his welcome in two ways. First he would sit in permanent correspondent's seats when they weren't in attendance, and second he asked bogus questions. Apparently shortly before he was outted a few journalists confronted him about the latter. He brushed them off. I guess some of them were annoyed enough to do the little bit of research required to get rid of him.

I don't care that the Bloggers have humiliated the guy. The way I see it, He took advantage of a relatively open/lenient system, and it came back to bite him. I don't really care that this jerk was screwing around in the White House Press Room. I mean we don't want the White House to limit the journalistic organizations with access to the Press Room to those that meet some subbjective set of criteria, or do we? The most annoying thing about this process, well maybe second to the feeble nature of Guckert's questions, is the Left's assertion that this somehow ever benefited the President.

Edit to add that I have only heard of two "journalists" involved with the administration. The only one of them paid to promote an agenda, Armstrong Williams, has arguably less reason to call himself a journalist than the mythical Jeff Gannon.

[Tekneek]

Someone has apparently dug up a quote from Hannity about Gannon. Sean Hannity thought he was "terrific" :

HANNITY: Now, Jeff Gannon, who is a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News, actually shot me an e-mail today, and he's about to break a story in an exclusive about these CBS documents. [The Sean Hannity Show, 9/10/04]

I find it interesting that not only did Sean go on the air effectively vouching for this guy's credentials on a national radio program, but has apparently made other references to "Talon News" and "Jeff Gannon" as if they were reputable/credible news entities.

[Flasch186]

i think Sean has alterior motives, its ok that he says this as it fits in with the modis operandi.