The Washington Post and CNN's media man, Howard Kurtz, spoke with everyone's favorite pseudonymous conservative gay-escort White House journalist (please see Silas Kain's story here, and Margaret Romao Toigo's story here for excellent background on the story):"I've made mistakes in my past," he said yesterday. "Does my past mean I can't have a future? Does it disqualify me from being a journalist?"…
Article comments
26 - Margaret Romao Toigo
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.
27 - Temple Stark
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.
28 - RJ
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.
29 - Dave Nalle
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
30 - Steve S
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.
31 - Dave Nalle
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
32 - Nick Jones
"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.)
33 - Eric Olsen
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.
34 - Harry Forbes
"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.
35 - Eric Olsen
but isn't "paid shill" a different and more culpable status than a "self-appointed shill"?