Go Eric!

Thank you Eric for a fair stab at the why we should be worried, not for Gannon, but for our media and our country. I hope someone is listening. I hope that someone includes Michael Moore or anyone else with a hundred million bucks that thinks the government belongs to the people.

Good examination of the situation, Eric. I still think it's a trivial issue though.

Dave

The end is beginning! Let's hope... Great coverage.
friedwire.org

Pretty liberal excerpts lifted here from the various paid journalists and news outlets there. Really no need to figure out the rest is there?

Gannon puts another nail in the coffin of those of us who !@#$% do this job for a living. What comes out of the guys mouth should make anyone interested in learning anything, vomit - "I was reporting by taking directly from White House news releases." (Slight paraphrase)

That would be the Pr department, third door down.

Nalle again trivializes anything that damages what his party is tryng to do. This pay for good play is state-sponsored propaganda at its worst. Instead, though, he should say - this is fucked and shouldn't be allowed. Like finding a good record or TV reviewer - I no longer trust Nalle's judgment as helpful.

Congratulations, Eric, on a great piece. If the mainstream broadcast media is too frightened to take on this debacle, thank God there are folks like you who are here to keep the message alive.

One reporter: shame on me. Two reporters: just an oversight. Now we are up to SIX "reporters." Where there's smoke, there's fire. It's time for the "self policing" media to step up to the plate.

Many people don't understand why I held President Reagan in such high esteem. At least Reagan had a respect for the office he was elected to. The man had the courage of his convictions and took repsonsibility when he screwed up. The fact that this President Bush invokes the memory of Ronald Reagan infuriates me. The Bush Presidency is more Nixonian in its distrust of the media and the American people. Are we better off than we were four years ago? Absolutely not.

Silas- this President *tries* to evoke the image of Ronald Reagan. Those astute enough, or with memory enough, know the difference.

The "gay prostitute" angle is trivial -- even if its irony is rather delicious -- and the security angle is trivial.

What is most decidedly not trivial is the mounting evidence of possible White House press manipulation. This is the part of the Jeff Gannon story that must be followed to its conclusion, no matter what may be revealed.

We are talking about the government allegedly using our free press as shills for spreading propaganda. This is a potentially a serious threat to the essential principles that all Americans should hold dear, regardless of partisanship.

Sorry Margaret, White House press manipulation is trivial if all it amounts to is letting a few friendly reporters in with all the rest. If it was intimidating reporters or excluding hostile ones then it would be an issue. If it's just giving a break to a couple of Republican bloggers, who cares?

Dave

Dave Nalle wrote: "White House press manipulation is trivial if all it amounts to is letting a few friendly reporters in with all the rest."

And that may be all there is to it, but we do not know this yet. There is already more to this story than Mr. Gannon's small part. The revelations that some journalists were paid to write favorable commentary about Bush administration policies makes the investigation into the allegations of press manipulation non-trivial.

Dave Nalle wrote: "If it was intimidating reporters or excluding hostile ones then it would be an issue."

That charge has been floating around for quite some time now, but has yet to stick. The whole story behind alleged White House press manipulation hasn't finished unfolding, it is far too early to dismiss it as trivial.

In these days of instant news, it is important for us to realize that some news stories are quite slow. Remember, it took many years for the Watergate story to be completely told and the 4 decades-old story of the JFK assassination still has no real conclusions.

I understand that loyalty to one's political party is important, but loyalty to our founding priciples demands that we set aside partisanship and look into these allegations with an open mind to see where -- if anywhere at all -- they might lead.

Well, you're welcome to keep hoping, Margaret. But righ tnow the entire 'scandal' seems pretty transparent. I just don't see where it's going to go, but by all means hold out for the Karl Rove gay sex tapes revelations.

Dave

Blogging 101:

Thanks for all the kind words, and I am happy to take credit for my interpretation of the situation, which rules, but as Temple mentions, the bulk of this is gathered from other sources.

On the other other hand, this type of story is one of the perfectly legitimate, and I think helpful, things that blogs do: gather together various sources on the same or related subjects from the media (with full attribution and links, of course), quote key elements from them, even at length, and provide intro, interpretation and evaluation of one's own.

It's called a roundup, and it isn't nearly as important, praiseworthy or, obviously, original as an essay/report on the subject such as Silas and Margaret's pieces linked at the top of the page, nor even in the same "realm of being" as the original investigative work of Aravosis, for example, who dug up the dirt on Gannon in the first place, but it is a worthwhile, helpful endeavor for reader and writer alike nonetheless: often as much about the media as it is about the subject being covered, a compendium or digest for the reader, a method of assimilating and coming to terms with a subject for the writer.

The best blogs, I think, are a blend of wholly original, narrative-type or investigative writing, original essays on matters of interest in the news (such as Margaret and Silas wrote on this subject), original reviews (which we do a lot of here), roundups (such as this), and "directing traffic," ie, pointing out items of interest elsewhere on the Internet, which we don't do much of here because everone else and their mother provide this service in the blogosphere and we see ourselves as more of a "destination site" than a recommendation service, but which is also a perfectly legitimate blogging endeavor.

I hope this was helpful as I get a lot of questions on the appropriateness, legitimacy and relative worth of vrious kinds of blog writing.

And thanks again for all the input.

I am not holding out hope for "gay sex tapes," featuring Mr. Rove or anybody else. This isn't even about hope (if anything I sincerely hope that these allegations turn out to be untrue but I am not going to try and reach my own conclusions either way at this juncture). The idea of waiting for the story to unfold completely is that it currently has no conclusion, either way.

I understand how it might be construed in this manner as there are people out there -- partisans of another variety -- who have already reached a certain conclusion and are looking for the facts to confirm it.

Conversely, those people who have already dismissed this story as trivial have done exactly the same thing, they have reached a conclusion before all of the facts have been revealed.

Jounalism is supposed to be about waiting for the facts and events to tell the story to its conclusion, not first reaching the conclusion and then going on a hunt for facts and events that might support it.

BTW, I am non-partisan and therefore have little patience for partisanship of any variety because of the way that it closes minds and turns debate and discourse into nothing more than a silly game of oneupmanship.

excellent points Margaret, and I agree with you

Eric, thanks for reminding all the kudos-tossers that what you've done here is hardly a "piece," but a collection of excerpts from other reports with your (dare I say) limited commentary.

P.S.: Eric does deserve kudos for what he did give us. Commentary is provided (as always) by comments, and for an omnibus piece such as this, it is perfectly appropriate for Eric to place his comments in the stack with ours.

There is plenty of original writing on this site, and Eric has graciously given us in this post leads to several that relate to this topic.

Homosexual reporter OK. Prostitute ? prostitution is illegal in 49 states.
Prostitution & blackmail have always
worked well together.

okay, like I said, it's a roundup, not something more, but neither something less: what a roundup lacks in originality, it, if well done, makes up for as an informational and interpretational service to the reader (and to the writer, but the reader doesn't necessarily care about that)

Margaret. I'm non-partisan too, unless I'm a partisan for the truth. But right now there isn't a scandal that's more than trivial and until some more evidence comes out that's really the only way I can look at it.

Big Guy:Homosexual reporter OK. Prostitute ? prostitution is illegal in 49 states.

True enough, and that's an issue Gannon is going to have to deal with along with his tax debts, but nothing which is scandalous about his personal life really comes into play as a national scandal. We already know the guy is a creepy sleazebag - more sleaze on him is just icing on an already well sweetened cake.

Big Guy: Prostitution & blackmail have always
worked well together.

Yes indeedy, but Gannon had nothing worth blackmailing him for, and until we hear that he was having sex with someone in the White House this angle can't go anywhere.

Dave

On Gannon: anyone who has been here for a bit probably knows that I regard this administration as the most evil and pernicious in history. So, these little leaks are fun... but every President has scandals like this.

What I am more interested in hearing about is after he (President Bush) is out of power so people can really come forward. What frustrates me most about the Gannon story is that it hasn't broken through. I watch CNN incessantly, and have not heard a mention of it.

About Gannon being a gay male prostitute, I think this combined with his lack of serious media credentials might cause many people, particularly in the red states, to wonder about the moral values of Republican journalist-activists.

Someone was set up to disseminate propaganda. This is not an isolated incident, which would make it a non-issue most likely, but is a recurring pattern of improper use of the media. I am one who tends to buy into the theory that Bush has a propaganda machine to push unpopular agenda items, and in terms of policy that don't include basic civil rights, isn't it supposed to be about popular opinion, majority decision? We are now up to instance number 6 of improper usage of the media? Some people might say that is a non-issue, and to them it might be, but to me it is an issue and it is, I'm sure, to millions of others.

As a gay man, I can see...and hope that my allies on the Left can see as well....that putting a promiscuous male prostitute in the position was the perfect strategy.

Q: I have issues about misusing the media.
A: But his sexuality is his own business.

Quite a successful deflection from the real issue if you ask me. See what I'm talking about?

The Left should drop the issue of male prostitution, the Right would love for them to keep harping on about it. It makes it seem like the Left is anti-gay, which will fire up the conservative gay base, it makes it seem like the Left is snooping into private lives, which will fire up the libertarian base, etc.

By putting a gay promiscuous male in the role, then if he's discovered, his 'extra-cirricular' activities become the topic, deflecting what the real issue is. I hope the Left doesn't fall for it. My opinion.

Thank you, Steve, for drawing the distinction between the conservative and libertarian camps.

I think your analysis is right on, if it was as planned as it seems you believe.

So, here's a question: Since Bush has been roundly regarded as a dummy by the left, does this ploy make him seem more intelligent... if in fact it is a ploy?

I don't see it as a "ploy," but it is a symptom

Mike, my own unprofessional opinion would give the credit to Rove. I do not believe Bush is a dummy, I know others say that, but at the very least it would be a mutual agreement between the two as to a strategy, so both get credit.

I was reading about those Bush tapes being talked about in the news today. The things he said about getting the Religious Right vote, not wanting to alienate them, but not wanting to 'kick gays' and stuff, indicates to me that at times he is pushing unpopular policy on people in order to cater to a 'special interest'. He is deceiving people though the manipulation of the media into thinking programs are more popular than they are. If you think about the fundamental question of 'why would someone need to do that in regards to promoting a policy', it becomes clear there must be some 'not-so-good' things about the policy that are being hidden. This should make policies like NCLB, SS privatization, etc. become suspect (even moreso now) to the ideological middle.

What was watergate? It was lying. What is this? Misleading, misrepresentation, manipulating the media, deception, possibly pushing the ideology of a very small minority on the majority, just a few issues to start with. To me, this could at least be as big as watergate, and certainly is far far more important on the moral/integrity spectrum than an intern giving a blowjob and look at the coverage that got.

These unpopular policies affect the lives of millions, it affects their education, their retirement, it affects lives.

Hell yeah, If I were Rove or Bush, I'd be happy everytime someone on the left talked about hot military sex. It means they're not talking about something else.

Dave Nalle wrote: "But right now there isn't a scandal that's more than trivial and until some more evidence comes out that's really the only way I can look at it."

You're right, the Jeff Gannon scandal is currently trivial in and of itself, but that does not mean that it should be dismissed as if that is the end of the story when it could only be the beginning.

I must reiterate that what is not trivial are the allegations of White House press manipulation, for which there is mounting evidence that is not related to Mr. Gannon's misadventures inside and outside of the White House press room.

Remember, several journalists have been found out to have been paid for commentaries that praised Bush administration policies. These revelations as well as those about Mr. Gannon could be parts of the same story that has yet to unfold.

Sorry Eric, I didn't also mention that yes, it was a very useful round-up and, from my point of view, the commentary was correct.

One wonders what a scandal is to some people these days. There are so many apologists in the world today for criminal behavior or job negligence of duties required to perform.

Every word out of Guckert's mouth shows he understands nothing about what he was doing or why anyone is upset. He's a paid shill. He clings to the idea that he is a journalist.

Either he understands nothing or he understands much more than we know about him and he's willing to play dumb bcause he knows there will be no recriminations. Pardon?

That, of course, is speculation on the highest order. but I'd much rather be speculative and wondering than vacuous and spoon-fed.

Worst-Case Scenario -

Bush, realizing that 90% of the media is against him (for free!), funnels money through various executive branch departments to conservative opinion-makers.

The goal is to make news coverage somewhat less-biased against his administration.

While I would deplore such a tactic, because it spends taxpayer dollars for partisan ends, it would be at least understandable, given the prevalent anti-Bush climate in so much of the MSM.

The money funneled to various conservative media folks wasn't even to support or puff up the administration, it was in support of specific legislative initiatives. It was more like spending money on PSAs than bribes to make the administration more popular.

Dave

The money funneled to various conservative media folks wasn't even to support or puff up the administration, it was in support of specific legislative initiatives.

I agree. I didn't say it was to push an unpopular administration but unpopular policies. Apparently the end result of the policies aren't attractive enough to win support on their own merit, we have to pay people to promote something apparently they wouldn't have otherwise.

PSA's are labeled as a PSA, they are not usually promoted as an independent news report/commentary without acknowledging that there is a payment for a favorable review.

I don't much like PSAs either, whether labelled or unlabelled. The odd thing is that the programs they spent money to promote aren't actually unpopular, especially with the audience they were courting. No Child Left Behind had generally good approval ratings as a concept, especially among conservatives.

Dave

"Why would they be looking into a person's sexual history?"

(Imagine me making that snorting sound that comes from trying to prevent yourself from laughing out loud.)

yes, paying for coverage is the essence of the underlying issue, from my point of view. Besides it being a misappropriation of public funds to forward a political agenda, which is dubious usage at best, my greater concern is that the integrity of the press is undermined with "bribes" from the government.

"Paid shill" seems to me like a highly subjective classification. Was CBS acting as a paid shill in the Rathergate episode? No, just a shill. What about the CNN, WaPo and NYT silence on the Swifites during the campaign last August? Shills? Yes. Paid? No, not in dollars anyway, but likely in political IOUs.

Shills come in Red and Blue. Gannon had plenty of "highly respected" journalists as company in his role as a shill.

but isn't "paid shill" a different and more culpable status than a "self-appointed shill"?