Since the left side of the blogosphere has realized that gay bashing is backfiring, they are now trying to go back to the “Gannon was no journalist” line. Millions of pixels were killed long before this event trying to define what a journalist was. Clearly there is no static definition.
But who is most qualified to answer whether he should have been in the White House briefing room? Anyone rational person would agree the other members of the White House press corps would be the most qualified to make the call.
They’re not impressed by the liberal bloggers outting Gannon.
There’s A Fourth Estate And A Fifth Estate
James Dale Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, the former White House correspondent for Talon News, set off a firestorm of controversy and introspection last week inside the cramped press work quarters behind the West Wing briefing room.
The unabashedly conservative reporter had already disappeared in a flash of green smoke, drummed out by left-wing bloggers who had set out to expose the personal background of the short, shaved-head man after he asked a particularly right-wing question in a presidential press conference.
…
Left behind after the smoke cleared were a few fundamental questions: What is a reporter? Does asking biased or loaded questions invalidate a reporter’s credentials? Do columnists count? And above all, who gets to decides?Members of the White House press corps offered some insight last week after Guckert’s resignation.
“We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters,” said Terry Moran of ABC News. “I don’t know anything about Gannon’s–or Guckert’s–private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration. But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions–from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary.”
Moran’s point is food for thought. Although Guckert’s question to President Bush in the Jan. 26 press conference–about how Bush planned to work with Democrats “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality”–clearly crossed a line, the Talon News reporter occasionally held the president’s feet to the fire. Guckert asked questions about GOP discontent over such issues as immigration, pressed the White House on conservative issues and drew out the administration’s perspective on Democratic initiatives.
While many White House reporters oppose advocacy journalism in the briefing room, Moran vehemently objected to the course of action that led to Guckert’s resignation.
“Whatever the ostensible rationale, it seems clear to me that `Gannon’s’ personal life was investigated and targeted by some bloggers because they did not like the ideas he expressed in his questions. That is chilling to me,” he said.
John Roberts of CBS News agreed that “the liberal blogosphere”–not the White House press corps–drove the onslaught against Gannon. But he also said that Guckert’s “presence at the daily briefing was not an issue with me.”
“There are other people there with a clear agenda as well,” he said.
Judy Keen, the sage White House correspondent for USA Today, closed the loop.
“Gannon–or whatever his name is–certainly isn’t the only reporter whose point of view is reflected in their questions. Anyone who regularly attends the gaggles and briefings knows that there are other reporters there whose questions suggest a certain hostility toward the administration,” she said.
Regular briefing attendees know that only too well. Helen Thomas, a former reporter turned columnist, despises Bush and once called him “the worst president in all of American history.” Her daily rants come from the hard left, including this question during the lead-up to war in Iraq: “The president claims he’s compassionate, but he’s on the warpath against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Philippines, and this new report he would use nuclear weapons whenever he gets the urge. Is he trying for dictator?”
How very true. If Gannon is to be attacked for his question, Helen Thomas should be drawn and quartered.
OK so how do we decide in the future then???
The White House certainly doesn’t want the job.
“I don’t think it’s the role of the press secretary to get into picking or choosing who gets press credentials,” Scott McClellan said. “I’ve never inserted myself into the process. [Guckert], like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are. The issue comes up — it becomes, in this day and age, when you have a changing media, it’s not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. And there — it gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room. … There are a number of people in that room that express their points of view.”
The spokesman said he would welcome any input from the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues. But the association’s president, Ron Hutcheson, does not want the organization to be the arbiter of White House credentials.
“I want the association to be an advocate for getting people into the White House, not for keeping people out,” he said. While Hutcheson noted that “we don’t want someone hijacking the briefing so they can talk about their agenda, from the left or the right,” it’s not the task of the association to decide who should be allowed to attend daily briefings.
Nobody wants the job. Partisans abound in the briefing room, they always have. Gannon was no less a journalist than Helen Thomas.
I guess they lefty bloggers will have to go back to gay bashing.
Julie
I was think of that slob Craig Livingstone…but you of course made a brilliant point! Thanks
Ah, you all seem to have driven away poor Clive by your ruthless determination to address the facts, correct false information, and call him on stealing other people’s work. What meanies.
I’m late to the show, but I wanted to point out that if by merely discussing it Wizbang makes this Gannon thing a story, then J.’s cat is a huge story, as is some blonde bimbo’s cell phone.
julie, I was thinking the same thing. what? Are they worried for the President’s safety???? LOL!
What a joke. Like I posted on another site. If we start a witchhunt like this on every reporter from the white house from Bush to Clinton to Reagan, we would probably find a whole mess of nasty things. So , the left can just give it a rest. These guys aren’t running for office and the media lost credibility a long time ago.
“julie, I was thinking the same thing. what? Are they worried for the President’s safety?”
I am wondering what threat they actually think a prostitute poses? Other than the fact that in most jurisdictions it is illegal, I just don’t rank prostitutes up there with people who pose a real threat to the president or society.
I just don’t rank prostitutes up there with people who pose a real threat to the president or society.
Somebody please explain to the moonbats that:
JG’s 8 1/2 ” DOES NOT FIRE REAL BULLETS!
So you post in a left-wing echo chamber. Good for you. I thought the left might realize that what they hear on their sites is not necessarily the reality for the country.
Well, if it’s like Kos, they’d be banned for saying something contradictory.
-=Mike
RE: julie’s post (February 20, 2005 10:16 PM)
Somebody please explain to the moonbats that:
JG’s 8 1/2 ” DOES NOT FIRE REAL BULLETS!
So in other words, are you saying he’s firing blanks? That’s not very nice. 😉
I suggest that every time the Lefty bloggers show their hypocrisy by complaining about something that they would complain just as loudly about the opposite as in: “OMG they let a Gay Escort into a press briefing” vs “OMG they stopped a Gay reporter from going to a press briefing” or “The President said ‘Happy Holidays’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’ he’s out of touch” vs “Bush said ‘Merry Christmas’ – THEOCRACY!” – we just respond by saying “Guckert”. A secondary definition could be “PIG IN A POKE” unless of course any of those lefty bloggers were ever his clients when he was a Gay Escort then it would be “A POKE IN A….” well you get the idea. Sorry I couldn’t resist.
Isn’t it interesting that the left seems to suddenly care about security clearances
Yeah, considering the number of times they called for Bush to be assasinated!
Julie, which people on the left who called for Bush’s assasination are now concerned about security clearances?
How many writers for the Onion get WH passes?
RE: mantis’s post (February 21, 2005 03:43 PM)
Julie, which people on the left who called for Bush’s assasination are now concerned about security clearances?
Julie might have been trying to be gracious and merely tag them (whoever they are) as hypocrites as opposed to assassin advocates. But we can always return to the original assumption that those on the Left that wanted Bush assassinated still want him assassinated and would gladly exclude security checks and would, if possible, recruit the unhinged and hand out Uzis. Would that provide more comfort to the argument? [Now where’s that “evil grin” emoticon?]
How many writers for the Onion get WH passes?
The Onion is a comedy outfit (mind you, a brilliantly terrific one) and does not desire, as far as I’m aware, a real Q&A with the President. Your argument is one of apples and oranges. However, should they want access, they deserve every opportunity to get a day pass just like any other journalist. They may even be called to pose a question though that is unlikely. As such it seems much more efficient for their mission to read the transcript, view the tape, and editorialize as appropriate.
Hey Mantis since you are here why don’t you answer my question.
Exactly what risk does a prostitute pose to the president in the briefing room?
Just Me,
I think a prostitute in the briefing room poses no real threat or risk to the president or anyone else. As far as I know Gannon was not convicted of any criminal behavior relating to prostitution (or anything else for that matter), and the fact that he had once maintained a website should not preclude him from access. Sorry, I can’t defend anyone who says a prostitute is a risk. An embarassment? Sure, but not a risk. I do think, however, that the quality of his questions and the nature of his employer do beg the question, why was this guy given access so often and for so long (including before Talon news even existed). I’ve been hearing stories lately about how difficult it is for reporters from other small organizations (arguably more legitimate than Talon) to get into the briefing room. I think the sex crap is diverting all the attention from what may be a legit story. However I do not think a website constitutes “private life” and by drawing attention to it others are somehow invading Gannon’s privacy. They are, however, following an irrellevant lead.
It wasn’t his personal life–being a prostitute was his business. He continued to do it while also posing as a reporter in the White House pressroom. He also received scoops that he then fed to others–why?
There’s a difference. And thank god he wasn’t a Timothy McVeigh, which he might well have been. I think you might be singing a different tune then.
Sorry AnonymousDrivel,
For not responding earlier to your outrage! I was over at AMERICAblog waiting for julie and GW to show. Guess they can talk the talk here, but…
Now, I don’t even consider them my equal, a worthy adversary. Cause just like you AD, I come here to debate, vastly outnumbered, fending off vitriol, hypocrisy and distortions – but, I hold my own.
Of course, it helps to have truth on your side.
As for your scurrilous accusations of plagiarism – bite me! I’ve only completed my first week at Talon News ‘Journalist’ Training School, and I only know how to ‘cut & paste’! Most of the ‘sessions’ have been held in a local bathhouse, and it’s trouble enough trying to keep my towel tied around my waist!
Posted by: Clive “Plagiarist” Tolson at February 20, 2005 06:15 PM
Your post started off well enough with the simple “Sorry…” (which I would have accepted with admitted reticence) but deteriorated from there.
This was the best apology you could come up with in about a day and a half [your last visit to this thread: Clive Tolson at February 20, 2005 06:15 PM] and well after the offense? You divert attention and refer to julie and GW – wholly irrelevent to the issue at hand. Next you try to patronize me with some nonsense about debating skills and “worthy” adversaries. Next you call my “accusation” “scurrilous”, request that I “bite [you]”, and change the topic again to incorporate the gay innuendo meme.
That’s one twisted apology. You should have stayed true to your comment that “it helps to have truth on your side” before padding your defense.
You plagiarized, tried to weasel out of the shame, and somehow managed to blame others for your transgression. Color me unimpressed. Your moniker still stands.
I understand that you put yourself in an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation, and I know that it’s sometimes difficult to right a wrong. It’s just that you seem to have exacerbated the mistake.
Seriously. What if the shoe were on the other foot and I plagiarized your statements and twisted them to mean the exact opposite of what they intended to illustrate? Then what if I ignored you when my offense was discovered? Then what if I presented the same “thoughtful” (my quotes) response to you that you presented to me? Would you accept that?
I’d wager from your online persona that you would not. You can wager from my online persona that I will not. We’ll let the readers decide who is being fair, honest, conciliatory, and reasonable and who is not. Anyone want to take that wager? Clive, I suggest you stand pat.
As far as I’m concerned AD,
Then your Lefty friends digging up dirt on Jeff Gannon are plagiarists, too! Media Matters lifted whole sections of his plagiarism of WH briefing memos – that ain’t right!
Btw, what I wrote was just an opinion, and not an apology. Furthermore, anything written on the web is in the public domain. How do I know you didn’t copy someone else?
You don’t come across as the type that can be so intuitive and insightful…
RE: Clive “Fill-in-the-Blank” Tolson’s post (February 23, 2005 01:45 AM)
…anything written on the web is in the public domain.
Ah ha ha! And you probably think all software and music accessible by network connection is free too. Clueless freeloader perchance? Just askin’.
Try extended duplication of works of well known authors or other online commercial entities and test that hypothesis. “Fair Use” provides some cover but there is a limit. If you had integrity, you’d recognize the difference.