Jim Geraghty offers an excellent “where are we now” post on the Eason Jordan affair. I tend to to agree with his assessment, though I think he’s missed the mark on one line.
Let’s be honest about the power of the blogs – it is great and was unimaginable in an earlier era, but it is limited.
Clearly Geraghty has not been paying attention to the public dismemberment of Talon News “reporter” Jeff Gannon. The Markos “I’ve Got Howard’s Back” Moulitas Zuniga’s Daily Kos community has succeeded in ending the career of the journalist who worked for Talon News because he had the temerity to ask softball questions at White House news conferences and write under a pseudonym. Moulitas has proclaimed that Gannon (real name James D. “JD” Guckert) is gay based on three domain registrations (none of which lead to working sites).
Gannon/Guckert, who originally laughed off the swarming net detectives, isn’t laughing anymore.
Well, there is something to what Geraghty says, but it’s only this – without pictures, a story (any story) has a tough time keeping its legs. That’s why it’s really smart for Eason to keep the tape, hopefully for as long as he can – waiting for attention to subside.
What I don’t understand is why doesn’t someone in the U.S. military sue Eason Jordan in civil court for slander? There’s enough people on the record that heard, first hand, exactly what he said and understood what he meant. Can’t we get a lawsuit rolling somewhere and have a judge subpoena the tape? What am I missing here?
http://www.peeniewallie.com
I don’t really want to diverge here but the Jeff Gannon angle was interesting.
Now this is funny in a revealing sort of way. Kos concludes his “revelation” (my quote) from Tue Feb 8th, 2005 at 14:47:46 PST titled Jeff Gannon aka Jim Guckert, and gay smut with
I, along with most liberals, couldn’t care less if one of our colleagues or employees is gay. That’s a problem with right wingers, not our side.
after just displaying his own little passive-aggression to someone he believes or insinuates is gay. He summarizes others’ investigative work into this irrelevant issue about which he “couldn’t care less”, with links naturally and akin to muckraking, in hopes of exposing or embarrassing someone with whom he disagrees politically all the while moaning about Republican hypocrisy. The hypocrite mouthing hypocrisy… so is Kos the pot or the kettle here? Since gay doesn’t matter, why is he going to the trouble of making such a big deal about it while, in the same breath, making a big deal about it not mattering? What is Kos hiding? Inquiring minds want to know…
This doesn’t bode well for blogging if private citizens’ lives can be plastered on a bulletin board for the world to see without any of the typical required checks and balances of “proper reporting”. Responsible review of public figures with appropriate context seems reasonable, but Kos and colleagues’ investgations and the display thereof seem to be leaning to the tawdry side. Investigative “journalism” will be testing new frontiers… will bloggers regulate themselves or will law need to intervene? The world has just gotten more interesting.
What I found to be comedic in a dark sort of way was the fact that leading the, umm, charge at Daily KOS was/is someone identifying only as “SusanG” on a site identifying only as “Daily KOS,” about whom, the latter, the internet had to go to great lengths to identify as to source, only to find that that source was a paid site on behalf of the (long story short here) DNC and/or contributors that make for the DNC.
“They” in their persistent avoidance online personnas devoted a great deal of time about this, umm, story as they call it only to uncover that the guy was a homosexual. The other aspects of the fellow, cast aside, just that he’s a homosexual (they opine, based upon a few of the domains he registered of the dedicated homosexual entitled)…
You could reason his registration of the two, three domains of that risque kind (to my view) various ways, but to the KOS commenting crowd and the site itself, it’s the fellows assumed homosexuality as (also) a “Christian” that gets them going.
So, again and again to my view — I read the finer points about the fellow, his Q&A work in the White House Press Corps. crowd, his other sites, the comments by a few high profile columnists in relationship with the CIA agent uncovering issue…and what the KOS crowd results in is a glowering about conservatives, Christians and a few who surface as “homosexuals.”
Is it me or is this just the thing that motivates liberals? I mean, is this all that they have to be concerned about and with? It’s becoming tiresome as theme, if it is.
About online behavior, yes, it’s risky and even worse if you write about anything other than cats. Our human environment can be brutal and often is…retaliations for whatever opinions anyone expresses are nearly to be expected and what I still think would just make it all work better for everyone is that everyone was required to sign their name to whatever they write. Takes the wind out of the hide&goseek game, to a great degree.
For those who may want to read more of the various stories here (I don’t vouch for any as source and/or opinion, just offering the information), other than what KOS offers, there are these links…I was planning to write about this myself but have since decided to just walk away from this thing. It’s too creepy.
The Conservative Voice
Sisyphus Shrugged…”Howard Kurtz explains the Jeff Gannon situation to you”
“‘Jeff Gannon’ EXPOSED!”
Rob,
There is more than enough for a story, let alone a public record. We already have a US congressman and a former White House staffer (who goes both ways) publicly supporting what Jordan said in Davos. Also, the as yet unreleased tape.
No lawsuit needed.
The “legs” are only now gaining strength. This is going to be very fun to watch.
If I take too much joy watching the slow and well planned take down of a complete idiot who has wandered the limits of “elite” journalism not putting our interests first because “we are a global network, we do not put the US first” — I apologize.
It may just be that the last twenty years of my life spent in a certain part of the military might leave me a little jaded.
Nothing like being “first in” every time and then being ordered back so the brass could could put their guys on the ground every time until after ODS.
We have to protect and “care” for some “weasel” (one of the many nicer terms we had for imbeds), many of whom shouldn’t have been allowed in the field due their total lack of preparedness, who tend to get in the way at every moment and make our job much harder. Night missions were a lot of fun with a guy who couldn’t figure out how to keep one eye closed for short periods with old night vision (networks problem, not ours). “Do any of you guys have an advil?
Just so everyone knows, I’m talking about the early days of OEF, I have no idea what goes on now. I used to be Force Recon but I came back to a MEU because I’m older and an officer and wanted to put my feet on the ground. I completed my time, did not get stop lossed and am now home with my family, as promised. We never imagined killing anyone (that means CNN guys especially, even though they spent a lot of time walking around trying to “make up” a story), we just bitched about all of the extra water and food that we had to give to the IJB (imbedded journalist bastard) because they whined so much.
We had too many young guys who were worried about talking to the imbed because he would try to get them to say something that could be used as a story.
I thought it was a great idea at first.
I thought that showing the truth could be the best thing for our military.
Only, several of the imbeds that I met did not care about the truth, they were opportunists, trying to get their name out there. Trying to impress people like Eason Jordan so they could further their career.
I apologize to those who reported the truth.
To the rest of you; there is a special place in hell reserved for you.
We would die to protect your right to report the truth. We also die to protect your lies, because we had no choice, WE followed orders and believe in something.
The Jordan story cannot be allowed to just die. America needs to know about the kind of people who decide what they should see as “news”.
Rathergate proved the very limited power of blogs. Dan is still working 6 months after his clumsy smear of America. Eason is not worried nor should he be. Blogs are big but have little power.
Yeah, well, Rod Stanton, what I’ve decided it is is that Big Media is STILL ruling the roost as to what blogger and what blog site is mentioned, promoted, featured, used as source, etc.
Which means that Big Media is still running amok because to my view, most of those that Big Media has focused on to feature as to bloggers are not the most reputable. Even writing that seems funny in bursting-out-in-tears sorta way, bloggers featured as being reputable, implying that they’re exempliary. But, it’s who makes that decision that I find most problematic and it is still Big Media doing so.
I’m a conservative and a Republican but there are an odd group of “conservative bloggers” being touted recently that seems too ingrown to be accidental. As with the left, it does seem that a pattern emerges that is entirely Big Media oriented, whether a singular author or a commercially created source as site, then hyped and promoted by whatever other source is farther up a Media stream of one perspective or another. I don’t like it, makes me feel very uncomfortable, like someone’s choosing my clothes for me.
Those 4 sites are hosted with a portal consulting service. I can find no evidence that Gannon is associated with bedrock.com (the hosting provider) so it’s most likely just a random hosting company which is also hosting porn (not uncommon.)
The fact that the kosheads take that and try to smear a man they disagree with politically is disgusting.
It may come back to bite them in the ass. If they do successfully smear him and the allegations are false, I hope he sues Kos and shuts his crappy website down.
… succeeded in ending the career of the journalist…
You misspelled “RNC flack and ‘cut-n-paste’ artist”. A two day seminar at some RW “How To Spin Like A Top” course doesn’t make someone a journalist. Just FYI….
Cheers,
“Softball questions”? Umm, like:
“Yes, Scottie, can you confirm that the Democratic Senators have reduced their daily ration of dead baby sandwiches and only beat their wives on even numbered days?”
Cheers,
This doesn’t bode well for blogging if private citizens’ lives can be plastered on a bulletin board for the world to see without any of the typical required checks and balances of “proper reporting”.
Clue for you: private citizens’ lives can be plastered on a bulletin board for the world to see. That has nothing to do with blogging, does it?
But Mr. “Gannon” a/k/a Guckert is hardly a “private citizen”. And what makes you think that there are no “required checks and balances of ‘proper reporting’ going on here”? Do you mean that the MS snooze media will report on this with the same laissez faire attitude and “evenhandedness” that they reported the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans Against The Truth?
Cheers,
. . . on a site identifying only as “Daily KOS,” about whom, the latter, the internet had to go to great lengths to identify as to source, only to find that that source was a paid site on behalf of the (long story short here) DNC and/or contributors that make for the DNC.
Lies. Markos was harldy anonymous. Maybe you’re confusing Atrios and Markos. As for Markos being a “paid site on behalf of the DNC”, that’s just flat-out wrong. But see, you have the freedom to make anonymous and scurrilous allegations here, all unsubstantiated (and some clearly simply wrong). You’re hardly in a position to complain.
Cheers,
julie,
I was thinking the same thing… the biting in the arse bit. Well, actually your whole statement. It seems to me that Kos may be setting himself up to a published defamation (libel) charge by his apparently malicious endorsement of commentator investigations and outright witch hunt. He, a political activist with political intentions (in my mind), knows he may be harming the character of said victim yet continues his attack.
We’ve got Reid’s back; “Gannon” story spreads
Thanks to all for your help compiling this, thanks to Ambassador Wilson for filling in some holes and special thanks to Kiw for all her help tracking down leads.
And of course, SusanG, who started the ball rolling and continues to dig for the larger story. (‘Jeff Gannon’ and L’Affaire Plame: Summary of CIA leak)
Why should we care about Jeff Gannon?
A potential male prostitute gets White House credentials… (The bottom line)
Rep. Slaughter demands Gannon investigation
The charge of propaganda from a journalist is a fair opinion and is not defamatory… the personal assault, the personally invasive investigation, the continued request for more such information, the hosting of said commentary, and the publishing of that acquired data without proper scrutiny may not allow him the legal protections he may think he has.
Further shedding light on intent, he states
So we take a bite out of small part of the Right Wing Noise Machine, expose yet another pillar of the White House propaganda operation, and — as a bonus — we take down a man who used the White House press room to repeat outright lies about the Minority Leader. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/10/3624/16968)
Clearly he is differentiating between exposing a “propagandist” (a biased, yet fair critique) and trying to ruin a man personally “as a bonus” (an attempt to defame).
We may see this litigated some day. Such behavior deserves scorn and, if determined to be defamatory, considerable punitive damages. Losing the web site would be the least of his worries.
Regarding Gannon: I don’t have much respect for anybody who plagiarizes talking points from either party in their reporting. Naturally this means that in addition to Gannon, I don’t have much respect for many reporters working out of the New York Times, the Boston Globe, or other members of the propaganda wing of the DNC.
Regarding Kos: I have lost entirely any respect with him over his “I’m an activist” comment regarding his behavior on his blog. Somehow because he has political inclinations that excuses himself personally from the ethics which should apply to all bloggers. I don’t buy this. Blogging may not be identical to journalism but there are fairness standards which apply across the board, regardless of the reason you choose to blog.
Regarding the scurrilous slander of Gannon repeated by Kos, I sincerely hope that this does get tested in court. The bloggers over at Kos need to recognize that at somepoint there will be personally accounting for statements they make in a public forum.
RE: Arne Langsetmo’ post (February 10, 2005 11:27 AM)
…private citizens’ lives can be plastered on a bulletin board for the world to see. That has nothing to do with blogging, does it?
I’d say it has everything to do with blogging. Blogs are a public bulletin board, right? It is an expression of one’s opinion for a, hopefully, receptive audience, right? Blogging may provide for an individual the publicly accessible forum to display whatever one wants about oneself, but one does not have carte blanche to display anything at all. Defamatory content, among other content, is vulnerable to prosecution though it’s an arena that has not been thoroughly tested. But since you are such an advocate of public display, you won’t mind if an army of partisan and potentially unstable independent investigators around the globe starts hounding you, tracking your email, finding your ISP or IP, scanning records and logs for your home and business address, publishing that information on blogs around the world, and presenting all manner of discovery however public or private to the unwashed masses, right?
But Mr. “Gannon” a/k/a Guckert is hardly a “private citizen”.
He is a private citizen with a public duty. You have a right to review his work but I’m not so sure you have a right to review his play. You certainly don’t have the right to defame which is really the issue here. It may turn out that legal liabilties ensue and anonymous blogging, or publicly identifiable blogging, will not protect you… as well it shouldn’t.
And what makes you think that there are no “required checks and balances of ‘proper reporting’ going on here”?
Some “reports”, accusations, and possible smears are insinuations as of this date. They are being bandied about as fact. I’d call that a flaw in those required checks and balances expected from supposedly responsible people. I figure the MSM will cover this about as well as Dan Rather’s fine work at CBS and Mary Mapes’ extensive knowledge of kerning, but that is beside the point and doesn’t excuse bloggers, or anyone, from defamation. I mean, what if I just said I heard from a little bird’s blog that Arne Langsetmo is the head of the “Kos Moonbat and Thuggery Club” and wants to suck the blood of your children after beating them soundly? Would that be acceptable to you? That would be an unsubstantiated proclamation that, while I might believe it to be true, would have been made from wholecloth. As such, it should not be published and reinforced by others as truth. But if you don’t mind such “research”, however hyperbolic or minimally scrutinized, I’d be glad to perpetuate the myth.
Just for clarity and before you get your panties in a wad, some of my previous commentary was intentionally over the top to make a point. I don’t really know if you wear panties so I hope you’ll forgive that too. Unless, of course, I do a little research. Then I’ll post here. I hope you’ll stay tuned.
We may see this litigated some day. Such behavior deserves scorn and, if determined to be defamatory, considerable punitive damages. Losing the web site would be the least of his worries.
ROFLMAO. You need to come visit the reality-based community once in a while.
“[T]rying to ruin a man personally ‘as a bonus’ (an attempt to defame)” is not the same as “tak[ing] down a man” (not to mention your assumption of the charge of “defamation” sans evidence).
In addition, hate to say it, but it’s fair play to show someone up to be an azo and a fraud, and if their “reputation” suffers from such a revelation and they never work again, that’s just TS.
You need to study the law; the law doesn’t protect you from your own reputation or deeds.
Cheers,
Blogging may provide for an individual the publicly accessible forum to display whatever one wants about oneself, but one does not have carte blanche to display anything at all.
You haven’t checked out the vast panoply of blogs, have you? 😉
You can say anything you want in a blog (and gosh and golly, people do write the damnedest stuff), just as you can say it on the street corner. The limits on speech come only when it becomes libel or is otherwise legally proscribed. There’s nothing special in a legal sense to blogs here. That was my point.
Cheers,
Defamatory content, among other content, is vulnerable to prosecution though it’s an arena that has not been thoroughly tested.
Oh, nonsense. Go read Anthony Lewis’s fine and informative book Make No Law.
Cheers,
But since you are such an advocate of public display, you won’t mind if an army of partisan and potentially unstable independent investigators around the globe starts hounding you, tracking your email, finding your ISP or IP, scanning records and logs for your home and business address, publishing that information on blogs around the world, and presenting all manner of discovery however public or private to the unwashed masses, right?
I wouldn’t be thrilled with it. But whether I am or am not, that has no bearing on whether the law cares much about it. But then again, I’m not some plagiarising tool of the Republiocna party afforded special privileges by the BushCo maladministration. . . . If you feel inclined, be an azo and do your damnedest.
Cheers,
I mean, what if I just said I heard from a little bird’s blog that Arne Langsetmo is the head of the “Kos Moonbat and Thuggery Club” and wants to suck the blood of your children after beating them soundly?
Why don’t you try it and see? 😉
Cheers,
ROFLMAO. You need to come visit the reality-based community once in a while.
I’m glad you find such comfort in your “reality-based community” and know with absolute certainty that litigation for online defamation will not happen. If it does, I guess I’ll be the one ROFLMAO.
I notice you failed to observe the differentiation in Kos’ own statement separating “exposure” and “tak[ing] down”, two of the three stated independent goals of said witch hunt, I mean, exposé. That other commentators perpetuate the outing of a homosexual/pimp meme lends some credence to my argument. While the law has not been tested, those comments may impact the legal standing of Kos. But, as you observe, I’m no lawyer. But I could be a juror in which case I might find Kos guilty of complicity. Scan through the postings and you’ll notice some wild and inflammatory extrapolations which could be construed as evidence for a defamation suit. If not yet, the tone sure seems to be heading that way.
You need to study the law; the law doesn’t protect you from your own reputation or deeds.
No thanks. It’s a profession I usually find distasteful. While law doesn’t protect one from the things you describe, the provedly false accusations on someone’s character or deeds does; and this story has not yet come to fruition. Should Kos and his participating members be wrong, there could be trouble. Continue at your own peril though nothing, in its finality, may happen.
You haven’t checked out the vast panoply of blogs, have you?
Oh, I’ve read a few. I’m glad you’re aware that a charge of libel, while not typically used for blogging, is a potential. That bloggers of all stripes do it to varying degree does not protect them. Defame the “wrong” party and one may find himself legally exposed. Yes, a blogger or street corner pontificator has equal rights to espouse whatever they want, within some parameters… and it is the parameters that are being tested.
Oh, nonsense. Go read Anthony Lewis’s fine and informative book Make No Law.
So his work addresses the digital age and blogging? No, it was text copyrighted in 1991, a few years before the internet started coming of age and over a decade before blogging. I think I’d be safe to assume that his, um, definitive work was a bit dated. He may very well have composed on a Selectric rather than a PC or Mac since they might have been in equal supply at the time. 😉 Nevertheless, his work may be informative; conversely, this is one man’s interpretation of law so it may not. I’m guessing there are others offering a kaleidescope of interpretations.
But whether I am or am not, that has no bearing on whether the law cares much about it. But then again, I’m not some plagiarising tool of the Republiocna party afforded special privileges by the BushCo maladministration…
Well that’s a discussion for another day since it’s clear we disagree here as well. I’d say the law might be interested in the works of possibly illegal search and acquisition of material but that is a different point that I didn’t mean to introduce. I was just curious to your personal position on invasive review of your person by strangers that may not deserve such free reign to parse your history, nevermind the law and its view of such investigations and its standing.
But since you gravititated to an assault on this “tool” of the “BushCo maladministration” (excuse me while my eyes roll back into my head), does that mean it is virtual investigative and uninhibited open season against every reporter, cameraman, photographer, interviewer, producer, writer, author, talking head and, yes, blogger with whom we disagree philosophically? I should hope not or the MSM and fringed activists may find themselves in a deeper hole than they find themselves yet.
Why don’t you try it and see?
Wait, my eyes are rolling again… give me a minute.
From: Joser (February 10, 2005 03:17 PM)
Also, I don’t believe if it matters if Gannon is gay or not. It is the hypocrisy of the situation that matters.
Exactly. Which is the point of the first half of the first post by me on this thread a few thousand words ago. I suggest you review it to get your bearings.
Keywords: gay, hypocrisy
I won’t reiterate later points regarding defamation and blogging any further. I believe I’ve covered it to death or at least to a point where it is a reasonable consideration.
AnonymousDrivel:
Arne claims to have two years of law school but obviously never finished. Still, he likes to make all these legal asides thinking it gives him some sort of credibility.
julie,
Thanks for the heads up. I was unaware of Arne’s pedigree. I guess my next questions should be: where did he attend, who financed it, what were his grades, did he prep for the LSAT, what skins on the wall does he have, what is his association with Kos (if any), is he a paid advocate for the Democratic party, has he attended any Democratic or Liberal functions, does he have panties, and are they in a wad (see previous post)? These are reasonable questions (except for the panty-wad bit, at least for responsible inquisitors – some Kossers excepted) for someone that might proclaim to be knowledgeable in the field and playing resident expert.
To be fair, he didn’t mention any of his legal paperwork in this thread to me so I’ll cut some slack. If, however, there is some universal understanding that he expects respondents to be aware of this already, then we should be updated of his current status and a CV. I do, however, give him credit for citing material however dated and inconsequential to the contemporary debate of blogging and the digital age – responsibilities and repercussions. I’m but a lowly commoner fishing in a foreign pond using the wrong bait in a heavy rain. Clearly I’m out of my element and have been properly chastised since I don’t know what I’m talking about. 😉
That other commentators perpetuate the outing of a homosexual/pimp meme lends some credence to my argument.
Dunno if any stated that “Gannon”/Guckert was a “homosexual/pimp” (and dunno if that is in fact true). Some have stated that he may be such. Then again, you may be an axe-murdering pederast; I just don’t know. No evidence to support that, but hardly false to admit the possibility, eh? OTOH, there is some information that Guckert may have had some peripheral involvement at least with “escort” services (or potential ones) for “m4m”s. Not at all untoward to bring up questions there.
Cheers,
the provedly false accusations on someone’s character or deeds does
While truthfulness is an absolute defence in a libel suit (wasn’t always that way, FWIW), falsity is not sufficient for a libel claim to succeed. But you’d know that if you read Lewis’s book.
And that ignores the fact that you are claiming here (or at least assuming) “provedly false accusations”. Care to elaborate on your “proof”?
Cheers,
So his work addresses the digital age and blogging? No, it was text copyrighted in 1991, a few years before the internet started coming of age and over a decade before blogging.
Ummm, did you have a point? Perhaps you’d care to explain what that has to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka … or with libel claims.
Cheers,
I’d say the law might be interested in the works of possibly illegal search and acquisition of material. . .
Oh, really? Tossing out a few accusations (or insinuations) yourself? My, my, my, can’t say that Republican apologists are anything if not consistent.
But to the subject matter: So web searches are now illegal? Yeah, I suppose that some folks might think that such should be the case … I have my own cute pet names for such people.
Cheers.
I was just curious to your personal position on invasive review of your person by strangers that may not deserve such free reign to parse your history, nevermind the law and its view of such investigations and its standing.
I think paparazzi are a pretty low form of life, and I suspect that many stars and other famous people have even worse opinions. Regardless, they’re a fact of life (and are supported by the vast mass of people that but the checkout-line tabloids). But the solution is, IMNSHO, not a legal one; you don’t like it, don’t buy it, and tell your friends not to so so either. Digging into the associations and history of flacks like Guckert, OTOH, is a bit nobler venture than just digging dirt on stars for the tittillation value. . . .
Cheers,
Arne claims to have two years of law school but obviously never finished. Still, he likes to make all these legal asides thinking it gives him some sort of credibility.
Hey, Julie, feel free to explain where I went wrong, eh?
But also feel free to elaborate on where I claimed myself as some legal authority above. *crickets*
Cheers,
Thanks for the heads up. I was unaware of Arne’s pedigree.
Maybe that’s because I never mentioned anything about any such thing above. If I was to use any such claim as argumentum ad verecundiam, then you’d be perfectly justified in seeing if I was in fact the authority I claimed to be. Tough noogies; I didn’t.
Cheers,
AnonymousDrivel: He’s been all over the internet for years. As you can already see, part of his m.o. is to post you to death. It won’t be long before he starts calling people “RW foamers.” It’s his trademark. 🙂
Julie:
When I have something to say, I say it. If I don’t, I keep quiet. Not a bad habit, I might add. Say, ever heard the term “moonbat”? If so, you’re familiar with Bloggerland, and you should know better.
Cheers,
Arne,
Here’s are a smattering of selections for you to review – some are direct and indirect declarations of potentially defamatory material, the confirmation of such an opinion by others that are friendly to the cause, and Kos’ direct statement that he was using the sex angle to draw more attention to a story that he felt wasn’t getting enough coverage. Have fun wrapping your head around all of that though it is but a portion of numerous posts.
As far as your sample inference about me, I’m not so sure qualifying with “may” protects you since your proclamations have no foundation whatsoever and the intent is to present a derogatory inference to damage a reputation. If you had some evidence, you could state that offensive description and be free and clear.
Selections from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/10/3624/16968 as of 6:39 PM 2/10/2005:
Do we know yet how a middle aged man,
who was drifting through life, still hanging around his college frat house, owner of homoerotic web pages found his way into the WH?
It is certain that he did, but how?
My second question is why is it that so many of these wing nuts are closeted gays? Self hatred? The left had McGreevey, but that’s about the only example that comes to mind, the right has Rush (Jeff Christy), Santorum and maybe even the chimp himself. There are others like that US Rep. from California with the coiffed hair, you get the picture. What’s up with that?
by Thistime on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 07:09:18 PST
————————————————–
Two Things I’ve Noticed
1. The MSM is covering only the prurient parts of the Gannon story. In effect, the story is that a reporter with links to male prostitution and gay porn was being credentialed by the White House and resigned after some bloggers overzealously exposed his background. They are studiously avoiding the fact that Guckert was subpoenaed in the Plame investigation. While some go so far as to admit that Talon News is “suspicious”, they are not asking (or willing to ask) why a fake reporter had access to secret information.
2. The Conservatives in this country are going out of their way to disenfranchise the gay population of this nation — going so far as to amend the Constitution of the United States in order to deprive them of rights enjoyed by non-gay Americans. However, they scream at the injustice of one of their own being outed! What a bunch of hypocrites.
by slidge on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 08:00:32 PST
————————————————–
JEFF JARVIS SYNDROME
Its good that a punk like Gannon was taken down, even though he will be replaced in a week. But is this worth all the congratulations? Is a single Congressman going to get elected because of this?
I feel a little awkward that its really about gay sex. The story has no legs otherwise. I mean there are thousands and thousands of evil Republican hacks out there, why pick on the one that who REALLY likes to support the troops?
by litero on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 08:29:44 PST
————————————————–
Folsom Street aint big enough for two parties
Maybe we can split this.
Yes Gannon was a fraud, hack, partisan
No, Gannon should not be fired/resign for his sexual activities.
Liberal Democrats for Deviant Republicans! How cool would it be to start a legal defense fund for Gay Republican Pornographers?
by litero on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 09:45:22 PST
————————————————–
Can you tell me how to get to Folsom St?
Actually. I think we should make an effort to defend Republican perversity.
All these little jerks clapping that the FAMOUS AND POWERFUL Jeff Gannon was brought down for being queer, and it makes me a little sick, because its not important enough. No one outside the very small world of political bloggers will ever know about Jeff Gannon or care.
Here is the real problem, if Gannon had had no links to gay porn, he wouldnt have resigned. If he hadnt resigned, it wouldn’t have made the newpapers.
its good gossip, but bad poltics
by litero on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 09:58:59 PST
————————————————–
I don’t know, “gannon” is gay…
…come on now, the wingnuts discarded Newt [of all people] and Trent quick enough. They’re not gonna stand up for a man-on-dog Propagandist. They can’t even stand Mary Cheney – foxx nexx compared her sexuality to alcoholism.
To them, just talking about being gay [not bashing gays], is like facing Kryptonite.
by Al Rodgers on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 00:41:28 PST
————————————————–
You are not mean spirted and snarky
I posted something below about Gannon fucking jackrabbits. Is that too snarky? Your far more eloquent deconstruction Ms. Mcbride’s critique is appreciated.
Is it ethical for an ethicist to comment when they are unfamiliar with the facts of a story? Eeech.
by joejoejoe on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 00:34:13 PST
————————————————–
That the word “snarky” could . . .
be uttered in the same sentence without using “Cokie Roberts” is, to me, the Great Mystery.
I certainly cannot use the word “sneer” in a sentence without also using the words “Cokie Roberts.” See?
On another note, maybe “Ms. Ethics” has a point: if Gannon’s [sic] baffling brand of Fundamentalist Christianity (with an emphasis on “mental”) includes ( a ) rejoicing in the saving grace of the Blood of Jesus Christ, ( b ) idol worship of George W. Bush, and, ( c ) involvement with a naked boy prostitution ring (oh, excuse me, “escort service”), then who are mere Internets Bloggers to trash this man for his religious convictions?!
by BenGoshi on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 07:11:23 PST
————————————————–
prostitution and treason are ethical?
From the Boston Globe:
Kelly McBride, who teaches media ethics at the Poynter Institute, said the investigation of Gannon’s personal life crossed traditional boundaries and was characterized by “mean-spiritedness and snarkiness.”
Ahh…nobody cares if Jeff Gannon fucks jackrabbits. This issues are why is he connected to websites that suggest illegal activity, why is he getting leaked information that may be treason and why is he credentialed by the White House under a pseudonym when married women cannot even get credentials under their professional name?
by joejoejoe on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 00:29:34 PST
————————————————–
What’s sad
or amusing is that all the charges that we leveled at the guy fell on deaf ears until we outed him as a fag.
Outed as a fag he didn’t last a day.
And they blame us for delving into his personal life?
How about this? Next time take something seriously other than furtive blow jobs and military ass sex, and maybe we’ll stop short of intruding into someone’s personal life.
We’re trying to change the rules of the game. We only did what it took to get you perverts to pay attention.
Assholes.
by BooMan23 on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 00:38:30 PST
————————————————–
Another issue
To me, another issue is how he is connected to the WH.
The religious right is always trying to ‘cure’ homosexuality. Jeff could be’cured’ or reformed.
by khloemi on Thu Feb 10th, 2005 at 06:10:29 PST
————————————————–
————————————————–
Selections from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/183147/5008 as of 6:49 PM 2/10/2005:
But if you do
Can you nix “male prostitute” for “man whore?” Seems less hoity-toity.
by Drew on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 16:04:53 PST
————————————————–
A little “accident”?
…the “death threats” are most likely coming from homophobic Freepers who want to wash their hands of Mr.”Gannon”
by Wamsutta on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 16:15:24 PST
————————————————–
Question for winger pundits… (none / 0)
I guess we need just make the following standard questions for conservative pundits-
1. How much is the GOP paying you for your ‘opinion’?
2. Are you a gay, male prostitue with a pechant for gay soldiers writing under a psuedonym and getting paid by the GOP for your ‘opinion’?
by patriot spear on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 16:18:22 PST
————————————————–
I’m a little troubled
by the fact that the suggestion that Guckert/Gannon may be a prostitute or a pimp is rising so quickly to the top of this mess. It’s a distraction from the real issue, IMO, and, other than the militaryescortsm4m site, what’s our proof?
I’m serious about this — what is our proof, other than than that website.
Yes, if it had ever gone live, it could have constituted a prostitute ring, but it didn’t. And yes, if actual military personnel had provided escort services, that would be a breach of military conduct. But again, we have no proof that any military personnel might have been involved. Could have been a bunch of men who like to pretend they’re military personnel — a “fantasy” escort service.
Again, we don’t know, the website did not go live, we have no proof.
(If I’m wrong, correct me, but I’ve been reading most of the PropaGannon diaries and I haven’t seen anything to substantiate these claims)
I know it’s fun to jump up and down on Repug hypocrisy, given their attitude toward homosexuality, but, please, this veering towards the squickily salacious.
by renska on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 16:33:27 PST
————————————————–
But when the story gets out, what is it about?
If we can’t prove the prostitute/pimp angle (and right now both accusations don’t really hold water) then the story could very easily end up being “liberals drive onservative from job with false accusations” rather than what the story is:
Conservatives set up paid mouthpiece to disseminate propaganda.
Is there inside information that points to this being a) true and b) provable.
Otherwise, this is the stupidest thing we could possibly do to the story, and ourselves…
(And now I’m going to go read the updated diary/diaries to see if I’ve just put my foot in my mouth because I’m speaking without knowing that new information has come to light.
by renska on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 23:05:44 PST
————————————————–
Credibility issue
Sure it’s fine if the Majority Report keeps calling him a male prostitute, but renska’s right that we have to be careful about this meme. We risk the story becoming “liberal bloggers and radio hosts identified Guckert as a prostitute based on flimsy evidence” (and they’ve shown that they can spin things that way). Here, people have talked about the sites as a sting operation, or called him a pimp — and it is just as likely that those websites were just Mittyesque wish fulfillment. So, we know many things for sure. That we don’t know for sure. So you can bet which point the right counter attack will harp on if we’re not careful.
by MarkC on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 17:04:35 PST
————————————————–
————————————————–
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/191334/0754 as of 7:20 PM 2/10/2005:
————————————————–
McLelland looks like…
Gannon just slipped him an ace. If you know what I mean….
by jsmckay on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 18:23:07 PST
NOT that there’s anything wrong with that…. (none / 0)
of course.
by jsmckay on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 18:23:57 PST
————————————————–
right…
Hannity was referring to militaryescortsm4m.com forced silent, not Gannon. Now Hannity’s going to have to find another conservative male “escort” service and we all know what a drag that is.
by debraz on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 18:37:19 PST
————————————————–
As I was watching Olbermann
I was thinking perhaps we should be careful around the gay-military-stud stuff. Has anyone checked these sites out? I worry they could be a white house contingency plan if/when Gannon was ‘outed’ as a fake, shifting focus to his alleged sexual improprieties. Do these sites seem like the real thing?
I apologize if this has been asked before – I’ve been away at, well, my job.
by QueenMizz on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 17:36:06 PST
————————————————–
Kos on Gannon in the WaPo
Howard Kurtz has written an article in the Washington Post about Gannon, and includes a quote from Kos:
Markos Moulitsas, a San Francisco liberal who writes the popular Kos site, said of Gannon: “He has been extremely anti-gay in his writings. He’s been a shill for the Christian right. So there’s a certain level of hypocrisy there that I thought was fair game and needed to be called out.”
Asked if digging into someone’s personal and business activities was proper retaliation, Moulitsas said: “If that’s what it took to really bring attention to him, it’s one of those unfortunate facts of reality in the way we operate today. It’s sex that really draws attention to these things.”
by silence on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 21:01:30 PST
————————————————–
Howie the Hack
says things which are very reasonable, then studiously ignores them when they apply to his own work.
‘Digging into his personal and business activities’ sounds like people are rooting through his trashbags after they are put to curb.
Jeff ‘Still sexy, militarystud and pimp’ Gannon forged an online presense and persona which left an easy trail. No one invaded any area of the man’s life where a reasonable person would expect privacy.
‘Gannon’ preaches how others should live, while hacks like Howie demand no one should examine this ‘spokesmodel’ from the comfort of an easychair with an internet connection.
It’s time to torture CNN. Howie the Hack must go.
by JoeWPgh on Wed Feb 9th, 2005 at 21:20:55 PST
————————————————–
That’s enough material to get the point.
julie,
As you can already see, part of his m.o. is to post you to death.
Jeez, you’re not kidding! It’s like it has turned into a posting contest where he reads a line and responds to each one individually without grasping or completing the entire post. It’s turned into short-attention-span-while-beating-a-dead-horse- and-do-I-get-a-prize-for-the-most-posts-theater.
Clearly I’ve wasted too much time responding and everyone has wasted too much time reading. Sorry folks, my apologies. I’ll remember our intrepid Arne for future reference and not respond as appropriate.
Enough of this nonsense, Arne.
AnonymousDrivel:
Thanks for the post showing the chatter on Kos. I can’t actually stand going on that site anymore without feeling completely soiled afterwards. The attack on all Republicans as if they were all homophobes is great… from the perspective of Republicans, since it just offends more and more people and digs the hole for the ultraliberals that much deeper. How much of the American population will they have to offend before they start shutting down some of their more extremist attacks?!
The way they are going, they will need to join the Communist Party, USA in a couple of years. Actually if you compare the slatherings from the two sites, it is already getting hard to tell them apart.
Regarding Arne, I did enjoy the reference to “reality-based” community. “Reality-based” … that indicates to me that this community was originally based on reality but has deviated from it. A synomym might be “schizophrenic community”.
Ann Megalomaniac On This Thread:
No, not “lies.” As in, KOS and also ATRIOS relegated their websites to the realm of the non-identified until others fluffed them out…and most of the expose’ gossip on both sites, among others similar to them in community, are notoriously peopled with bogus identities. I still think it’s very amusing that a “SusanG” can be taken seriously on KOS as to their shock and awe amusement about someone’s identity.
Sorry, typo again, that (^^) was intended as comment to and about “Arne Langsetmo” or whatever on this thread.
On the other hand, THIS is just plain crap:
===>>Lies. Markos was harldy anonymous. Maybe you’re confusing Atrios and Markos. As for Markos being a “paid site on behalf of the DNC”, that’s just flat-out wrong. But see, you have the freedom to make anonymous and scurrilous allegations here, all unsubstantiated (and some clearly simply wrong). You’re hardly in a position to complain….Cheers,Posted by: Arne Langsetmo at February 10, 2005 11:32 AM
AnonymousDrivel: for one reader/sometime participant, I can assure you that you owe no one an apology and that your wonderful commentary here is very much appreciated. As is, nearly always (ha!) that by julie.
Carrick Talmadge,
Yeah, I felt the same way regarding “I can’t actually stand going on that site anymore without feeling completely soiled afterwards.” I don’t read Kos, but for some serendipitous reason, I followed Kevin’s link in the initial blogpost and this gay-outing/hypocrisy/privacy theme stood out. Believe me, it gave me a headache to scan posts though there were a couple of individuals whom, while I disagree politically, seemed reasonable and at least exhibited functioning neurons. Sadly, they were few and far between but did provide an occasional respite.
———-
-S-,
Thank you. I was hoping the debate wouldn’t become quite so redundant or stray too far from point, but I can’t help if some people don’t get the point or just enjoy having it reparsed and repeated. Restraint from such sideshow is the wiser tack.
As far as your sample inference about me, I’m not so sure qualifying with “may” protects you since your proclamations have no foundation whatsoever and the intent is to present a derogatory inference to damage a reputation.
ROFLMAO. When you want to come visit the reality-based community, you’re welcome as long as you don’t cause too much damage tripping over objects. You have my real name, Mr. “AnonymousDrivel”, go to it. . . .
As for “the intent is to present a derogatory inference to damage a reputation”: Sorry you missed it, but the intent was to get a point through your skull. Some people call such things an analogy. Perhaps I should start charging you for further lessons.
Cheers,
AnonymousDrivel:
Thistime may have crossed the line (but keep in mind that actual falsity is required and even this hasn’t been shown by you). But that is insufficient; “actual malice” is also required.
Slidge is OK; [S]he never made any accusation; they simply stated that was the MSM meme.
Litero and Al Rodgers are OK on similar grounds.
JoeJoeJoe may be fine with his snark (consider Falwell v. Hustler).
Renska has it right.
No point in going on much about the rest; believe me, “Gannon” isn’t going to have much luck, IMNSHO (though it would be delicious to see the RW come stomping to his defence here … imagine the possibilities).
Cheers,
Say, AnonymousDrivel, what do you think of this:
(click on comments and scroll to end)
Is that a concrete accusation? Defamatory? False? That might well fit the bill, eh?
Cheers,
Jeez, you’re not kidding! It’s like it has turned into a posting contest where he reads a line and responds to each one individually without grasping or completing the entire post.
You have a problem with treating individual points individually?
Cheers,
Carrick Talmadge:
Apparently you’re unaware of the origin of the term “reality-based community”. I didn’t make it up. Leftists have proudly adopted the moniker; it does seem appropriate.
Here’s why you’re on the outside, nose to the glass, looking in: “The way they are going, they will need to join the Communist Party, USA in a couple of years.”
Cheers,
… most of the expose’ gossip on both sites, among others similar to them in community, are notoriously peopled with bogus identities.
Sure thing, Mr. …. — ummm, “S”.
Cheers,