Forgive me, because I am about to go on a rant. I don't think I would have been so concerned about this Jeff Gannon matter were it not for the fact that Fox News has been mysteriously silent on their website. I learned a long time ago that silence speaks louder than words. After running a search of news wires, blogs and political websites, I see that there are many questions which remain unanswered. It seems to be that in a post-Clinton era the White House would settle for nothing less than full disclosure so as not to have even the appearance of impropriety. Let's face it - if there is anything that Ken Starr, Jerry Falwell and countless other right wingers have taught us it is that even the appearance of impropriety in the White House deserves the closest scrutiny. So, come with me as I surf the Internet seeking in my quest for the facts...
I began my search at Google with the search term "Guckert" in the news section. This brought me a list of 416 sites with various degrees of information. First entry was at "The Jawa Report." I won't even waste your time with the garbage that is being spewed by both sides of the issue. The Nashua Advocate, "A News Outlet for the American "Orange Revolution" has an interesting article concerning a possible connection between Gannon and Karl Rove. With a great deal of skepticism, I read the article posted in an obviously anti-Bush site and realized that there are many verifiable facts which lend credence to something being "rotten in Denmark." Armed with more information, I continued my journey.
I went to "Editor & Publisher - America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry." There I learned that a San Antonio conservative radio station (KTSA) producer could always count on Gannon for "tips." Joe Strupp's article stirred my curiosity until I read another article he wrote for E&P on February 17. In a telephone interview with E&P, Ari Fleischer stated that he was so concerned about Jeff Gannon's ties to Talon News and the Republican Party that he stopped calling on him in news conferences for a short period in 2003. It was only after talking to GOP operative Bobby Eberle, that Fleischer's concerns were alleviated. In an article the following day, Strupp reports that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that Gannon did receive a GOPUSA press pass.
Joe Conason from the New York Observer wrote a piece in workingforchange.com where he charges, "...our supposedly liberal media becomes quite squeamish when reporting anything that might humiliate the Bush White House and the Republican Party." This story has all the ingredients for intrigue: homosexual prostitution; placement of a political operative in the White House Press Corps; and even an interesting connection to the Ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame C.I.A. Operative mess. Mr. Conason is right - where is the "liberal media" on this one? All this led me to the February 17 op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. Her opening salvo and I quote, "How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?" Good question, Ms. Dowd. How did that happen? What's even more infuriating is that now all of a sudden Scott McClellan says that the White House Press Office is working on getting a press pass for you after you were unceremoniously rejected by the Bush White House at the start of his administration.
Article comments
1 - Mike Kole
Silas- You got it right about silence. If a media outlet wants to help kill a story, they don't prop up commentators who will defend a position, they will cease all mentions of the item.
I do have a slipper-slope concern on this issue. While it is appropriate for a White House that has hung its' hat on security to be taken to task on this item, I am fearful of the repercussions.
If pressure mounts, the Bush Administration could well respond with a sweeping clampdown on journalists and their access. It would address the security concerns all right, but it would create another, much more severe problem in terms of the ability of the press to report on the Administration.
2 - Marc
Gee you apparently forgot(?) to include the section of the Kurtz piece that lays waste to any security breach:
"Dismissing speculation that he had a permanent White House press pass, which requires a full-blown FBI background check that usually takes months, Gannon said he could not get one because he was required to first get a pass from the Senate press gallery, which did not consider him to be working for a legitimate news organization. Instead, he said he was admitted on a day-to-day basis after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number. He said he did not use a pseudonym to hide his past but because his real last name is hard to spell and pronounce."
Wonder why the omission of such a relative quote?
And you can bet a dozen Krispy Kreme donnuts that the same "daily pass" procedure has been in place for a very long time.
3 - Dave Nalle
"where is the liberal media on this one"
Perhaps they realize what everyone else with an ounce of sense does, that this is a trivial, pointless story with amusement value but little else.
Dave
4 - Silas Kain
Watching Senators Clinton and McCain on NBC's Meet the Press this morning made me nostalgic for the days of a Congress where healthy debate and bipartisan cooperation actually worked. Say what you will about either Senator, their appearance on the show from Baghdad was refreshing, candid and more about the reality of what America faces in the near future with Iraq. Senator Clinton has divorced herself from the more liberal side of her party. She understands the necessity of being flexible in a timetable for America's withdrawal from Iraq. At the same time, Senator McCain shares her caution and has approached the political situation in a thoughtful, calm manner. President Bush once said that John McCain would “wear thin” with the American people. Quite the opposite is true. The Bush Administration's base is quickly eroding. What does all this have to do with “Gannon-gate?”
On December 3, 2004 Dan Froomkin wrote “Mr. President, will you answer the question?” in a piece for Salon.com. “George W. Bush has held far fewer solo news conferences than any president in the modern era. And when he does meet with the press, he avoids direct answers so brazenly that there is scant little value in it anyway. It's time the White House press corps did something about it,” he wrote. Members of the White House press corps FOX News alumnus David Schuster, now a part of the more respectable MSNBC, reported on Chris Matthews' Hardball that, “Everybody in Washington knows that reporters who ask tough questions of this administration are often punished... And those who tee up the White House talking points are rewarded. The question is, with Jeff Guckert, did the reward go too far?”
Clarence Page wrote an interesting op-ed piece for this morning's Chicago Tribune where he invokes the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative. “Revealing a CIA agent's identity is a federal crime. A Time magazine reporter and a New York Times reporter face possible jail sentences for refusing to say who revealed Plame's CIA role to them in an apparent effort to discredit Wilson's criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq war policy. Is the prosecutor putting Guckert's feet to the fire too? If not, why not?” As Mr. Page puts it, “Tell me again: What was that war about? Oh, yeah: freedom and democracy. Great. I'd like to see a little more of that back here at home.”
As this story unfolds I am left wondering why the mainstream media seems to refuse to pick up this story and get to the truth. Is the media overly protective of its own? Gannon was never considered to be a member of the Fourth Estate. Was the media afraid the White House would cut them off? That fear has been expressed by more than one member of the White House press corps. CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been less than effective in reporting this story. Meanwhile at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have given some attention with Olbermann being more vocal. Gannon is not a credible journalist. The mainstream media owes no allegiance to him. The fact that he has a “colorful” background isn't that big of an issue. But Gannon's attacks on the gay community and the “gay angle” against John Kerry leaves him vulnerable. One can only hope that a responsible journalist would not have crossed the line as Gannon did.
I don't see the Bush Administration “responding with a sweeping clampdown on journalists.” That began on January 20, 2001. Those that fall in line with the Bush Doctrines are rewarded while the remainder are left holding empty notepads. I have to wonder how this Administration would have responded to criticisms by John Peter Zenger. Would he receive a fair trial today? Let us not forget that it was a group of bloggers who brought this story to the forefront. Ratings minded news organizations are more concerned with advertising revenue and bottom line profits. That's a problem when capitalism meets journalism. Thanks to the Information Age, journalists are now faced with a new threat. While the majority of mainstream media view bloggers as an inconvenience, the explosion of Gannon-gate cements the role of blogs in keeping Americans informed. As far as I am concerned this Administration can continue “punishing” journalists if they so desire. My fellow bloggers, we have been given an awesome task. Where the media has failed, we have been afforded an opportunity to fill in the blanks. This is a role that should not be taken lightly.
“Perhaps they realize what everyone else with an ounce of sense does, that this is a trivial, pointless story with amusement value but little else.”
Respectfully I have to disagree, Dave. No doubt there is a degree of triviality to this story that contains quite a bit of amusement value. Many, much more qualified than me, have voiced their concerns. So I will return to my bottom line: All the White House Press Office has to do is produce documentation showing that someone, on some level in the screening process, was aware of Mr. Gannon's background. Is that too much to ask?
5 - Dave Nalle
>>All the White House Press Office has to do is produce documentation showing that someone, on some level in the screening process, was aware of Mr. Gannon's background. Is that too much to ask?<<
It's already been established that they did no real background check on the guy, so this sort of documentation probably doesn't exist. If such knowledge did exist it's unlikely to be documented, and if it did exist then there might be an actual scandal here.
There are only a couple of elements in this story which could be truly scandal worthy and so far they haven't panned out. One is the Valerie Palme connection, which has already been extensively debunked. Gannon/Guckert had no information on her that everyone else didn't already have because he didn't get involved until after the story had already broken. Another possible issue is knowledge and approval of Gannon/Guckert's gay prostitution background. Good luck proving this one, but if there's a gay sex ring in the White House then we've got a ncie juicy scandal for the media to explore. But so far there's not a shred of evidence to support this even if some liberal blogs are wildly fantasizing about it. Without those two all you're left with is the 'scandal' of the fact that the administration prefers easy questions to hard ones. Go wild with it. When journalists make this comment it looks like their whining. When bloggers make the comment no one really cares.
Still nothing here.
Dave
6 - Mike Kole
Silas- I do think that the media is protective of its' own, as a first instinct, as I posted on your Part One posting. Also, being too critical of the White House on scrutiny of the press scrutiny could beget intense scruntiy of the press and limited access to the White House, niether of which the press wants to bring on to itself.
7 - Marc
"more respectable MSNBC"
This is satire I hope.
8 - Silas Kain
TOTAL satire, Marc. As far as I am concerned the big three cable news networks are to journalism as what the National Enquirer is to newspapers. It's all about ratings and the almighty dollar. I have to wonder if our forefathers' bodies have risen at Tiananmen Square after they have spun so much in their graves.
9 - Dave Nalle
What few people realize is that horrible though our journalism is today, the journalism of our founding fathers days was as bad or worse. Take a look at some of the newspapers of the late 1700s and early 1800s. The garbage they published was as trashy and as opportunistic as anything on TV today, and as full of lies, distortions and self-serving partisanship as you can possibly imagine. So, the media has ALWAYS sucked and it's a grand tradition.
Dave
10 - Charles Stuart
Thank god for the popularity Jeff/Jim Gannon/Guckert whatever his name is... he might actually get a show on Fox News.