PDA

View Full Version : Anyone following the Jeff Gannon story?


NewChief
02-09-2005, 10:25 AM
Pretty interesting stuff. I have a hard time believing that this guy actually ran/owned gay porn sites. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

siberian khatru
02-09-2005, 10:33 AM
Phil Kloster moderates a site that has Denver Chief's avatar on it. Is that like the same thing?

patteeu
02-09-2005, 10:46 AM
Who is Jeff Gannon and why is it surprising he ran a gay porn site. Doesn't everyone? ;)

siberian khatru
02-09-2005, 10:47 AM
Who is Jeff Gannon and why is it surprising he ran a gay porn site. Doesn't everyone? ;)

Let's just say it's not surprising to find the words "Gannon" and "gay porn" in the same sentence.

Stinger
02-09-2005, 10:50 AM
Let's just say it's not surprising to find the words "Gannon" and "gay porn" in the same sentence.
ROFL

the Talking Can
02-09-2005, 10:50 AM
Pretty interesting stuff. I have a hard time believing that this guy actually ran/owned gay porn sites. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

apparently, he's a bogus reporter for a bogus news agency that has been allowed into White House press conferences for the purpose of asking softball/partisan questions of the President and Press Secretary, and he just also happens to own several gay porn websites...here's a little bit of the story that is coming to light:

blogity blog blog (http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/02/08.html)

"Remember "Jeff Gannon," the White House reporter who lobs softballs at Scottie McClellan when the other mean reporters won't let up with the real questions?

The "Jeff Gannon" who accused his colleagues of "working off the talking points provided by the Democrats" and then was found to have copied info directly from GOP documents and used it in his "news report"?

This would be the same "Jeff Gannon" who was subpoenaed in connection with the Plame investigation because he somehow obtained a copy of a purported State Dept. document which said that Ms. Plame had a hand in arranging the assignment to Niger for her husband (an allegation -- and document -- denied by the CIA).

Yes, we're talking about "Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief, Talon News" -- Talon News being the rinkydink wingnut "news service" chaired by the same guy who runs GOP USA (the wingnut site that is less upscale than Renew American, but slightly more professional than BushCountryUSA, and apparently run by various members of the Texas GOP).

Anyway, ever since it was revealed that "Jeff Gannon" is a pseudonym (even though he apparently gets daily White House passes issued in that name), bloggers have been trying to ascertain his real identity. Susan G. at Daily Kos (with the assistance of her readers) has been very energetic and organized in this endeavor, and has uncovered a great deal of interesting and suggestive info about "Jeff" and his associates.

So, just who is Jeff? Well, his Talon News bio has been delated, but it formerly indicated that he was a obtained a B.S. degree in Education from the Pennsylvania State University System, and attended a two-day right-wing school of journalism ("the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism"). Oh, and he "lives on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC."

His posts at his site "ConservativeGuy.com" also seem to have disappeared, but Susan and her readers found an archived copy of his "Who is Conservative Guy?" bio -- and it seems to indicate that "Jeff" can't hold a job:

I've been a preppie, a yuppie, blue-collar, green-collar and white-collar. I've served in the military, graduated from college, taught in the public school system, was a union truck driver, a management consultant, a fitness instructor and an entrepreneur. I'm a two-holiday Christian and I usually vote Republican because they most often support conservative positions

His gun of choice is a Beretta 9mm, and he drives a Nissan Pathfinder.

Anyway, "Jeff" has noted the efforts to identify him, and seems delighted with the attention. He recently posted the following at JeffGanon.com:

HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT

"The hard-core Lefties are conducting an exhaustive search for me in cyberspace, which has produced an entertaining mosaic of conspiracy theories. I appreciate all the attention, but I can do without the threats on my person, property and family.

[...]

For those out there that still have questions about me and don't think I should be able to be a journalist, here's what you need to know:

I'm everything people on the Left seem to despise. I'm a man who is white, politically conservative, a gun-owner, an SUV driver and I've voted for Republicans. I'm pro-American, pro-military, pro-democracy, pro-capitalism, pro-free speech, anti-tax and anti-big government. Most importantly, I'm a Christian. Not only by birth, but by rebirth through the blood of Jesus Christ. [But apparently only at Christmas and Easter, if you go by his ConservativeGuy post.]

I've never been paid by a politician or given money to a politician. I've never worked on a campaign or worked for an elected official. I've never run for office or been appointed to any government position at any level. Few, if any of my colleagues can make the same claim."

And few, if any, of his colleagues in the White House press corps appear to have so few qualifications for the job.

Anyway, "Jeff" seems to be your basic loser who has tried a lot of dead-end jobs and get-rich quick schemes, and then finally, despite any previous experience in journalism (or even any experience or interest in politics or government) got some wingnut group with possible ties to the GOP to pay him a salary -- and now he's a White House Reporter. So, he's everything that Judson Cox hopes to be in 20 years (although Judson has worked on local campaigns, so is probably overqualified to be Jeff).

And yet, despite that lack of background, and the fact that Talon News isn't really a news organization, somehow the White House lets Jeff into the press conferences ever day, and regularly takes his questions. ...."


his real name is probably:

"Sources allege that Jeff Gannon's real name is James D. "JD" Guckert, though I have not been able to confirm this.

But this would make perfect sense, because when the folks at Kos did some digging into the background of Jeff's various sites, they found that they were all registered to "Bedrock Corp" of Wilmington, DE, and the address provided was a Mailbox, Inc location. However, poster dqueue did some further Googling and found another address for Bedrock Corp. of Wilmington -- this address was a single-family home, and it was associated with a "Jim Guckert" who was listed on a business directory page for court reporting and secretarial services in Wilmington. (I found another listing for Bedrock Corp, this one describing it as a "Management Consultant business" -- so, maybe Jim provides both secretarial services AND management consulting.)"
-----------------


none of this should surprise anyone...we already know the White House buys journalists....creating fake ones is just the next logical step...

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 10:56 AM
The horror of it all... a conservative news reporter, who might be gay. Wow, and the libbies, at least the tolerant ones are all up in arms about it.

Great work, guys!

the Talking Can
02-09-2005, 11:02 AM
The horror of it all... a conservative news reporter, who might be gay. Wow, and the libbies, at least the tolerant ones are all up in arms about it.

Great work, guys!

the horror of it...someone intentionaly misreading a post, and responding to a non-point

you should leave those responses to wolfman...the "I'm dense" schtick is his copyright....

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 11:05 AM
the horror of it...someone intentionaly misreading a post, and responding to a non-point.

Ok, if that wasnt the point, what is the point pray tell...Ive read nothing earth shattering or shocking at this point other than the fact that he's a conservative.

I know that whole 9:1 Lib/conservative ratio in the press corps hangs in the balance, here, so tell me what Im missing.

NewChief
02-09-2005, 11:11 AM
From the dailykos:

I used to post here before the site switched to scoop and I was motivated to stop lurking by this awesome investigation. I actually got a one month membership to whois.sc in order to be able to dig around for web-site info.
Domains registered to I. Christian and the Free Speech Foundation:

Faithfullyspeaking.org
Freespeechfoundation.org
Thepeopleschurchdc.org
Proudandgratefulnation.com
conservativecampus.org
Dcbiblemarathon.org
Militaryvote.org
Conservativecampus.org
Conservativecampus.com
Journalismdiversityproject.org
Newmediaproject.org

Domains registered to J. Daniels and the Bedrock Corporation:

Conservativeguy.com
Conservative-guy.com
Conservativelegal.com
Exposejessejackson.com
Jeffgannon.com
Theconservativeguy.com
Theconservativelegal.com
The-conservative-guy.com
conservative-guy.com
Hotmilitarystud.com
Militaryescorts.com
Militaryescortsm4m.com

Domains formerly registered to J. Daniels changed to I. Christian (dates of change in parenthesis)

Freespeechfoundation.org (Changed 2005-01-30)
Faithfullyspeaking.org (Changed 2005-01-30)
Conservativecampus.org (Changed 2005-01-30)
Conservativecampus.com (Changed 2005-01-30)
Journalismdiversityproject.org (Changed 2005-01-30)
Newmediaproject.org (Changed 2005-01-30)

Creation dates for domains, by month/year:

May 2000

militaryescorts.com

October 2000

conservativeguy.com

Apil 2001

hotmilitarystud.com

January 2002

theconservativeguy.com

March 2002

conservative-guy.com
the-conservative-guy.com
conservativelegal.com
theconservativelegal.com

June 2002

jeffgannon.com

May 2003

conservativecampus.org
freespeechfoundation.org

March 2004

dcbiblemarathon.org

Nov 2004

militaryvote.org
thepeopleschurchdc.org

Dec 2004

Newmediaproject.org
Exposejessejackson.com
Faithfullyspeaking.org
Journalismdiversityproject.org
Proudandgratefulnation.com

Additional phone number found for J. Daniels and Bedrock Corp in one of the records:

+1.8005731824

NOTE 1: Militaryvote.org as well as some others also claim to be tax exempt non-profits.

NOTE 2: It appears that the "Free Speech Foundation" is a business entity incorporated in Delaware as a non-profit according to the

the Talking Can
02-09-2005, 02:18 PM
Pretty interesting stuff. I have a hard time believing that this guy actually ran/owned gay porn sites. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

people are starting to figure it out...:

real fake news (http://www.louise.house.gov/HoR/Louise/News/Press+Releases+By+Date/2005+Press+Releases/WH+Briefing+Room+Scandal.htm)
Washington, DC - Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (NY-28)...

"Dear Mr. President:



In light of the mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies, I feel compelled to ask you to address a matter brought to my attention by the Niagara Falls Reporter (article attached), a local newspaper in my district, regarding James "JD" Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) of Talon News.

According to several credible reports, "Mr. Gannon" has been repeatedly credentialed as a member of the White House press corps by your office and has been regularly called upon in White House press briefings by your Press Secretary Scott McClellan, despite the fact evidence shows that "Mr. Gannon" is a Republican political operative, uses a false name, has phony or questionable journalistic credentials, is known for plagiarizing much of the "news" he reports, and according to several web reports, may have ties to the promotion of the prostitution of military personnel...."

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 03:05 PM
figure what out? I guess I dont get an answer...

The WH press corps are political operatives already.

memyselfI
02-09-2005, 09:58 PM
Dang, he's tied to the Valerie Plame story?

This WH just finds ways to get itself deeper by the day. :clap:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/30/9415/11717

Gotta love the blog community... :clap:

PunkinDrublic
02-09-2005, 10:05 PM
I've been following the story through mediamatters.org. I don't know about any of the latest scandals but I know that Gannon is alleged to be sort of a go to guy in the White house press corps that supposedly asks softball questions.

jAZ
02-10-2005, 12:53 AM
God, I miss all the good stuff.

(wish I had more time to spend on the planet)

Just out of curiousity, does this pattern bother ANY Republicans or conservatives or Bush Administration supporters at all?

Serious question.

-- Bush Gov't creating propaganda pieces made to look like (and shown as) actual during actual local news programs.
-- Bush Gov't paying media pundits to promote administration policies.
-- Bush Gov't allowing a bogus reporter using a fake name to become one of the main members of WH press corp.

Does this bother you guys even a little? It's ok to say "yes", the election is over.

the Talking Can
02-10-2005, 06:53 AM
Pretty interesting stuff. I have a hard time believing that this guy actually ran/owned gay porn sites. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

hmm...I can't get it to link from Salon,wierd..


Fake news, fake reporter
Why was a partisan hack, using an alias and with no journalism background, given repeated access to daily White House press briefings?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

printe-mail

Feb. 10, 2005 | When President Bush bypassed dozens of eager reporters from nationally and internationally recognized news outlets and selected Jeff Gannon to pose a question at his Jan. 26 news conference, Bush's recognition bestowed instant credibility on the apparently novice reporter, as well as the little-known conservative organization he worked for at the time, called Talon News. That attention only intensified when Gannon used his nationally televised press conference time to ask Bush a loaded, partisan question -- featuring a manufactured quote that mocked Democrats for being "divorced from reality."

Gannon's star turn quickly piqued the interest of many online commentators, who wondered how an obvious Republican operative had been granted access to daily White House press briefings normally reserved for accredited journalists. Two weeks later, a swarming investigation inside the blogosphere into Gannon and Talon News had produced all sorts of damning revelations about how Talon is connected at the hip to a right-wing activist organization called GOPUSA, how its "news" staff consists largely of volunteer Republican activists with no journalism experience, how Gannon often simply rewrote GOP press releases when filing his Talon dispatches. It also uncovered embarrassing information about Gannon's past as well as his fake identity. When Gannon himself this week confirmed to the Washington Post that his name was a pseudonym, it only added to the sense of a bizarre hoax waiting to be exposed.

Baby Lee
02-10-2005, 06:57 AM
He quit.

the Talking Can
02-10-2005, 06:57 AM
Pretty interesting stuff. I have a hard time believing that this guy actually ran/owned gay porn sites. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

let's see if this link works:

link (http://www.nydailynews.com/02-10-2005/news/gossip/story/279466p-239417c.html)

Bush press pal quits
over gay prostie link

BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Jim Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, on the web
WASHINGTON - A conservative ringer who was given a press pass to the White House and lobbed softball questions at President Bush quit yesterday after left-leaning Internet bloggers discovered possible ties to gay prostitution.

"The voice goes silent," Jeff Gannon wrote on his Web site. "In consideration of the welfare of me and my family, I have decided to return to private life."

Gannon began covering the White House two years ago for an obscure Republican Web site (Talon-News.com). He was known for his friendly questions, including asking Bush at last month's news conference how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

Gannon was also given a classified CIA memo that named agent Valerie Plame, leading to his grilling by the grand jury investigating her outing.

He came under lefty scrutiny after revelations that the administration was paying conservative pundits to talk up Bush's proposals. By examining Internet records, online sleuths at DailyKos.com figured out that his real name was Jim Guckert and he owned various Web sites, including HotMilitaryStud.com, MilitaryEscorts.com and MilitaryEscortsM4M.com.

"The issue here is whether someone with connections to male prostitution was given unfettered access to the White House and copies of internal CIA documents. For a family values administration, that's pretty creepy," said John Aravosis, one of the bloggers chasing the story.

The White House didn't return a call asking how someone using an alias was given daily clearance to enter the White House.

On his TalonNews Web site, Gannon had written that liberals were out to get him because he's a white conservative man who owns a gun, drives a sport-utility vehicle and is a born-again Christian.

Yesterday, however, he abruptly quit, and all of the stories he wrote were erased from the Web site. A great many were on gay issues, including one detailing John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" that was headlined mockingly, "Kerry Could Become First Gay President."

Originally published on February 9, 2005

the Talking Can
02-10-2005, 07:01 AM
Pretty interesting stuff. I have a hard time believing that this guy actually ran/owned gay porn sites. Surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

and one more word on the White House's fake journalist:

link (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/10/reporter_tied_to_gop_quits_over_scrutiny/)

Reporter tied to GOP quits over scrutiny

By Alan Wirzbicki and Charlie Savage, Globe Correspondent and Globe Staff | February 10, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Jeff Gannon, the reporter whose GOP connections, lack of conventional journalistic credentials, and softball questioning of President Bush raised questions about the White House's decision to grant him access to news conferences, abruptly quit yesterday after bloggers connected him to websites apparently devoted to gay sex.

Gannon, who uses a pseudonym, posted a message on his website saying that recent scrutiny had made it impossible for him to continue covering the White House for TalonNews.com, a website operated by a Texas Republican Party operative that has run articles skeptical of what it calls ''the homosexual agenda."

''The voice goes silent," Gannon, whose real name is James Dale Guckert, wrote. ''Because of the attention being paid to me, I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family, I have decided to return to private life."

Gannon posted the announcement shortly after a group of liberal bloggers posted reports saying they had connected another of his identities to the registration records for website domains such as hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescort.com, and militaryescortm4m.com. The websites are either inactive or shielded by a password.

Although he would not comment about those reports, Gannon told the Globe yesterday that it was entirely his decision to resign from Talon, where many of his reports over the past two years have been criticized for consisting largely of passages from official press releases reprinted verbatim.

Gannon came under scrutiny after Bush called on him during a rare and nationally televised news conference two weeks ago. Gannon's question attacked Democrats as having ''divorced themselves from reality" and repeated an allegation against Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, that turned out to be a joke by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

The unusual question prompted a wave of attention initially led by David Brock, the former right-wing investigative journalist who now operates a left-wing media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.

''We didn't think it was appropriate for a conservative partisan with no journalism experience asking loaded questions to be included in those briefings," Brock said.

The scrutiny was later picked up by the bloggers on sites such as DailyKos and Atrios, which began using public records to look into his private life. Gannon said that he had been ''stalked" by the bloggers.

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."

''Those are not tactics you would see practiced in most traditional newsrooms," McBride said.

Meanwhile, US Representative Louise Slaughter, Democrat of New York, sent a letter to the president yesterday seeking an explanation for why Gannon had been ''repeatedly cleared by your staff to join the legitimate White House press corps."

The White House did not return calls yesterday. Last week, press secretary Scott McClellan said suggestions that he used Gannon as a lifeline were ''nonsense" dreamed up by liberal bloggers and that any reporter for a news organization who passes a background check can get a daily pass to the briefing room.

''I don't think the press secretary should get into the business of being a media critic or picking and choosing who gets credentials," he said.

Gannon also applied for a congressional press pass but was denied one on the grounds that Talon did not qualify as a legitimate news service, according to Jim Drinkard, a USA Today reporter who headed the committee that reviewed the application.

Gannon said yesterday that he had applied for the background check and White House daily passes under the name on his driver's license, not his ''professional name." He asserted he got no special consideration.

''The White House decides who gets in," he said. ''They generally go with established recognizable news services, and Talon had established itself as a news service."

Baby Lee
02-10-2005, 07:29 AM
Punk this guy for alleged ties to gay porn smacks of calling Andrew Sullivan 'barebacker.'

NewChief
02-10-2005, 07:45 AM
Punk this guy for alleged ties to gay porn smacks of calling Andrew Sullivan 'barebacker.'


The guy is a conservative pundit who writes about how he's hated because he's a strong Christian with conservative moral beliefs. Presumably he also supports the don't ask don't tell policy of this administration. All the while he's running websites promoting gay sex in the military. Comparisons to Sullivan are null and void because Sullivan is upfront about his lifestyle.

Additionally, he's catching much less heat for his alleged gay porn ring than he is for the various other ethical issues his press credentials bring up. Even those outing him have admitted they need to scale back on the gay porn thing and pursue more authentic issues. The gay porn thing just sensationalizes it due to the hyporcrisy and irony.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 08:05 AM
The guy is a conservative pundit who writes about how he's hated because he's a strong Christian with conservative moral beliefs. Presumably he also supports the don't ask don't tell policy of this administration. All the while he's running websites promoting gay sex in the military. Comparisons to Sullivan are null and void because Sullivan is upfront about his lifestyle.

Additionally, he's catching much less heat for his alleged gay porn ring than he is for the various other ethical issues his press credentials bring up. Even those outing him have admitted they need to scale back on the gay porn thing and pursue more authentic issues. The gay porn thing just sensationalizes it due to the hyporcrisy and irony.

Anyone noticing how those being exposed as being hypocritical or unethical media cronies for DUHbya have all been from the 'minority' community...

gay man, black man, white woman. :hmmm:

Something fishy going on...

Ultra Peanut
02-10-2005, 08:27 AM
So is this a bitch fight between "journalists," or something?

bkkcoh
02-10-2005, 08:36 AM
A co-worker mentioned something real interesting. Since 9-11, how could someone really get into the pressroom with apparently fake press credentials?

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 08:36 AM
So is this a bitch fight between "journalists," or something?

I'm not sure what is going on but I find it highly suspect that the 'journalists' who have been outed as being/doing unethical things on behalf of the WH have ALL been from minority communities...

I'm torn between thinking the WH has used these people's desires to get ahead in a white man's world (journalism) as a tool for it's cynical purposes (but again, a WH with this record of integrity would NEVAH do such a thing... ROFL ) or if it's the journalism world outing it's own as a way of keeping it's power base.

Perhaps both?

The latter makes less sense since these people are frauds and are not truly journalists in the first place. Further, is the WH approaching ONLY minority based journalists to do their unethical deeds? If so, why?

jAZ
02-10-2005, 08:49 AM
Just out of curiousity, does this pattern bother ANY Republicans or conservatives or Bush Administration supporters at all?

Serious question.

-- Bush Gov't creating propaganda pieces made to look like (and shown as) actual during actual local news programs.
-- Bush Gov't paying media pundits to promote administration policies.
-- Bush Gov't allowing a bogus reporter using a fake name to become one of the main members of WH press corp.

Does this bother you guys even a little? It's ok to say "yes", the election is over.
I'll assume people missed this, rather than assume that the silence is tacit endorsement of highly organized government funded political party propaganda as long as that propaganda lines up with your political views.

Of course, the latter is a fairly easy conclusion to jump to, but it would be unfair I think.

Radar Chief
02-10-2005, 09:50 AM
I'll assume people missed this, rather than assume that the silence is tacit endorsement of highly organized government funded political party propaganda as long as that propaganda lines up with your political views.

Of course, the latter is a fairly easy conclusion to jump to, but it would be unfair I think.

That or maybe everyone is scratching there heads over the sudden anger with White House leaks/planted information. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/media041299.htm) :shrug:

jAZ
02-10-2005, 10:40 AM
That or maybe everyone is scratching there heads over the sudden anger with White House leaks/planted information. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/media041299.htm) :shrug:
That you don't see a meaningful difference between the activies in that article and those I summarized in my post above is chilling.

Radar Chief
02-10-2005, 10:41 AM
That you don't see a meaningful difference between the activies in that article and those I summarized in my post above is chilling.

That you do is telling.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:27 AM
BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Jim Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, on the web
WASHINGTON -

...

"The issue here is whether someone with connections to male prostitution was given unfettered access to the White House and copies of internal CIA documents. For a family values administration, that's pretty creepy," said John Aravosis, one of the bloggers chasing the story.

...

I wonder if he thinks it's creepy that someone with connections to male prostitution (Barney Franks) has unfettered access to the halls of Congress? Or does he think that the democrats are against family values so it's an unfair comparison?

bkkcoh
02-10-2005, 11:32 AM
I wonder if he thinks it's creepy that someone with connections to male prostitution (Barney Franks) has unfettered access to the halls of Congress? Or does he think that the democrats are against family values so it's an unfair comparison?

Ironic, isn't it.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:35 AM
Reporter tied to GOP quits over scrutiny

By Alan Wirzbicki and Charlie Savage, Globe Correspondent and Globe Staff | February 10, 2005

WASHINGTON --
...

Although he would not comment about those reports, Gannon told the Globe yesterday that it was entirely his decision to resign from Talon, where many of his reports over the past two years have been criticized for consisting largely of passages from official press releases reprinted verbatim.

Isn't this a common approach to journalism these days? Fax machine journalism isn't what I'd consider good journalism but I don't think it's really that uncommon.

Amnorix
02-10-2005, 11:39 AM
To be blunt about it, I find it sad and pathetic that so many people investigate, post about, debate about, and try to draw conclusions from utterly irrelevant bullshit such as this.

Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.

This kind of totally irrelevant crap isn't worth anyone's time. Politics is increasingly focused on destroying opponents or those who annoy you by undermining them personally, or finding some vague problem in their personal background. And it's disgusting, unproductive, contrary to republican ideals, and just useless.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:44 AM
Anyone noticing how those being exposed as being hypocritical or unethical media cronies for DUHbya have all been from the 'minority' community...

gay man, black man, white woman. :hmmm:

Something fishy going on...

You can't lump them all together like that. Armstrong Williams is the only one who has been shown to have taken money to present the administration's views as his own. The other two previous "scandals" involved subject matter experts hired by the government for their expertise who also write editorials containing their own personal opinions. Until it is shown that this guy was planted by the Bush administration, all you have is a partisan journalist and the only thing new about that is which side of the plate this guy swings from (and I'm not talking about his sexuality). Does anyone really believe that Sydney Blumenthal was objectively covering the Clinton administration instead of advancing it's agenda?

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:46 AM
Further, is the WH approaching ONLY minority based journalists to do their unethical deeds? If so, why?

Do you have a link showing that the White House "approached" this guy?

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Serious question.

-- Bush Gov't creating propaganda pieces made to look like (and shown as) actual during actual local news programs.
-- Bush Gov't paying media pundits to promote administration policies.
-- Bush Gov't allowing a bogus reporter using a fake name to become one of the main members of WH press corp.

Does this bother you guys even a little? It's ok to say "yes", the election is over.

Haven't been paying much attention to this story for whatever reason.

For my part, I'll say that I don't like the use of taxpayer money used to pay people to publicly support policy. I'll also say that the "propaganda" that you talk about is simply the media battle that goes on in every administration at all times. Given that this guy was apparently the only one friendly to the administration that the Boston Globe was able to find in the entire WH press corp., I don't really see the point of getting worked up over it. Certainly Clinton had members of the press corp. (Helen Thomas comes to mind) that advocated his policies/positions regardless how soulless they might have been.

I just tend to view all this the same way I view a lot of politics. Why is it that people with money go to congress to do "public service", and end up making millions, come away filthy rich while they've earned salaries of $200k/yr and lived like kings? There's dirty money exchanged for things that would disgust all of us. The "bogus" reporter you mention to me is no different than any of the guys at the NYT with an agenda. Least this guy was actually there, and not making up quotes and false stories.

I do wonder how in the hell this guy managed to be involved in gay porn and politics at fairly in depth levels of each, and getting this far without being ruined.

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 11:51 AM
To be blunt about it, I find it sad and pathetic that so many people investigate, post about, debate about, and try to draw conclusions from utterly irrelevant bullshit such as this.

Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.

This kind of totally irrelevant crap isn't worth anyone's time. Politics is increasingly focused on destroying opponents or those who annoy you by undermining them personally, or finding some vague problem in their personal background. And it's disgusting, unproductive, contrary to republican ideals, and just useless.

Pretty much what I was thinking. I guess it's just not all that important to me. :shrug:

homey
02-10-2005, 11:51 AM
Question nothing neo's...

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:54 AM
-- Bush Gov't creating propaganda pieces made to look like (and shown as) actual during actual local news programs.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about this to comment.


-- Bush Gov't paying media pundits to promote administration policies.

"Pundits" as in more than one pundit? Who were these other pundits? Armstrong Williams is the only case of which I'm aware. As for Williams, he was wrong to do it and the administration should have known better. They should have stuck to propaganda like the "your brain on drugs" campaign which are at least recognizable as such.

-- Bush Gov't allowing a bogus reporter using a fake name to become one of the main members of WH press corp.

There might be a security issue here, but we have yet to see evidence that there was an awareness of the fake name on the part of the Bush administration. If he was a plant, then I AM bothered a little bit. Thank goodness for the blogoshere and it's emerging role as a media and government watchdog.

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 11:54 AM
Question nothing neo's...

You truly are an asshat deluxe. Keep lapping up DU.com's sloppy seconds.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:55 AM
That you don't see a meaningful difference between the activies in that article and those I summarized in my post above is chilling.

That you don't articulate the meaningful difference is telling.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 11:56 AM
That you do is telling.

Ha, great minds think alike or at least similarly.

Radar Chief
02-10-2005, 11:59 AM
Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.


Thanks Amno, that’s what I was try’n to get at.

siberian khatru
02-10-2005, 12:01 PM
To be blunt about it, I find it sad and pathetic that so many people investigate, post about, debate about, and try to draw conclusions from utterly irrelevant bullshit such as this.

Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.

This kind of totally irrelevant crap isn't worth anyone's time. Politics is increasingly focused on destroying opponents or those who annoy you by undermining them personally, or finding some vague problem in their personal background. And it's disgusting, unproductive, contrary to republican ideals, and just useless.

You're too reasonable. You're no fun. Get off DC and go back to the Lounge.

KCTitus
02-10-2005, 12:42 PM
I'll assume people missed this, rather than assume that the silence is tacit endorsement of highly organized government funded political party propaganda as long as that propaganda lines up with your political views.

Of course, the latter is a fairly easy conclusion to jump to, but it would be unfair I think.

I think you're the wrong person to be spouting about assuming 'silence is tacit endoresement' for anything considering you've yet to pull Krugmans SS piece back out after getting it jammed in your a$$.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 02:56 PM
Do you have a link showing that the White House "approached" this guy?

How is it that he is the ONLY 'journalist' thusfar to have access to a confidential CIA memo? How was he given access to WH press credentials and yet was DENIED Capital Hill credentials?

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 03:07 PM
To be blunt about it, I find it sad and pathetic that so many people investigate, post about, debate about, and try to draw conclusions from utterly irrelevant bullshit such as this.

Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.

This kind of totally irrelevant crap isn't worth anyone's time. Politics is increasingly focused on destroying opponents or those who annoy you by undermining them personally, or finding some vague problem in their personal background. And it's disgusting, unproductive, contrary to republican ideals, and just useless.


Softballs by 'friendly' journalists are one thing...


I suppose all of the taxpayer funded propaganda could have happened in ALL administrations...

but I can't seem to remember the GAO claiming Clinton was breaking the law for the same type of taxpayer funded 'pr'. Can you? :hmmm:

the Talking Can
02-10-2005, 03:14 PM
To be blunt about it, I find it sad and pathetic that so many people investigate, post about, debate about, and try to draw conclusions from utterly irrelevant bullshit such as this.

Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.

This kind of totally irrelevant crap isn't worth anyone's time. Politics is increasingly focused on destroying opponents or those who annoy you by undermining them personally, or finding some vague problem in their personal background. And it's disgusting, unproductive, contrary to republican ideals, and just useless.

I'm going to assume you're kidding.

Try reading about the issue before spouting the everyone-does-it rationale as a means of not addressing a serious issue.

We're not talking about "people in the press corp who were friendly"..we're talking about a Republican plant from a phony news organization. He was granted a press pass 5 day after Talon News was created. Talon News is a phony operation created by GOPUSA.

According to McClellan today, "He, 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..."

Uh...Talon News had existed for 5 days...they were not "a news organization that published regularly." And this is clearly a matter worth asking questions about. No need to even mention that he was involved with the leak of Plame's identity, or that he regularly wrote "articles" that were literal cut and pastes of Republican talking points.

It is fine if you don't care. Really. But spare us all the white noise of your small time indignation. If we had anything other than a corporate owned press in the this country we might actually get answers about these things instead of having to wait for various partisan blogs to piece it together. But we don't, so there it is.

Personally, the fact that the white house buys journalists and uses fake journalists is a matter of importance, especially coming on the heels of the massive dis-information campaign related to Iraq. Where the hell can we get real information?

I want to know the whole story about Talon News and how this fake journalist was credentialed by the White House. You don't. So what? Yea for you?

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 03:16 PM
I'm going to assume you're kidding.

Try reading about the issue before spouting the everyone-does-it rationale as a means of not addressing a serious issue.

We're not talking about "people in the press corp who were friendly"..we're talking about a Republican plant from a phony news organization. He was granted a press pass 5 day after Talon News was created. Talon News is a phony operation created by GOPUSA.

According to McClellan today, "He, 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..."

Uh...Talon News had existed for 5 days...they were not "a news organization that published regularly." And this is clearly a matter worth asking questions about. No need to even mention that he was involved with the leak of Plame's identity, or that he regularly wrote "articles" that were literal cut and pastes of Republican talking points.

It is fine if you don't care. Really. But spare us all the white noise of your small time indignation. If we had anything other than a corporate owned press in the this country we might actually get answers about these things instead of having to wait for various partisan blogs to piece it together. But we don't, so there it is.

Personally, the fact that the white house buys journalists and uses fake journalists is a matter of importance, especially coming on the heels of the massive dis-information campaign related to Iraq. Where the hell can we get real information?

I want to know the whole story about Talon News and how this fake journalist was credentialed by the White House. You don't. So what? Yea for you?

It's kind of giving me the impression that the only way the WH can get 'friendly' journalists is to pay them or create them.

ROFL TALON, not Salon.

Anyone else does their job and exposes their bull shit.

Radar Chief
02-10-2005, 03:26 PM
It's kind of giving me the impression that the only way the WH can get 'friendly' journalists is to pay them or create them.

ROFL TALON, not Salon.

Anyone else does their job and exposes their bull shit.

Yea, cause like we all know no one else would do something as horrendous. (http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics.kerry/messages/66185.html)

Amnorix
02-10-2005, 03:30 PM
You're too reasonable. You're no fun. Get off DC and go back to the Lounge.

I'm the token sane one on this forum. :LOL: :LOL: :p

Amnorix
02-10-2005, 03:32 PM
I want to know the whole story about Talon News and how this fake journalist was credentialed by the White House. You don't. So what? Yea for you?

If taxpayer dollars were given to him, that's a different story.

If the GOP created a phony news organization and arranged for him to get a press pass, I'm not worried about it. Couldn't care less.

jAZ
02-10-2005, 03:40 PM
If the GOP created a phony news organization and arranged for him to get a press pass, I'm not worried about it. Couldn't care less.
That's not "reasonable", that's insane.

There are 3 pillars of our democracy... the unspoken 4th is the news media. The Republican party is in the process of trying to dismantle objective journalism and install agenda spokesman.

You seem to hold in very low esteem the absolutely essential part of check-and-balance part of our democracy that is journalism.

I'm almost speechless that you "couldn't care less".

jAZ
02-10-2005, 03:43 PM
I think you're the wrong person to be spouting about assuming 'silence is tacit endoresement' for anything considering you've yet to pull Krugmans SS piece back out after getting it jammed in your a$$.
So am I shoving this post up your a$$ by posting this link?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=109422

Amnorix
02-10-2005, 03:50 PM
That's not "reasonable", that's insane.

There are 3 pillars of our democracy... the unspoken 4th is the news media. The Republican party is in the process of trying to dismantle objective journalism and install agenda spokesman.

You seem to hold in very low esteem the absolutely essential part of check-and-balance part of our democracy that is journalism.

I'm almost speechless that you "couldn't care less".

If the Republican party (or Democrats for that matter) bought, lock-stock-and-barrel, a major network, or a newspaper in a very large cities, then I'd be in complete agreement with what you're saying.

That isn't what happened here. What happened here, so far as I can tell, is the GOP planted a phony reporter among the WH press corp. Correct me if I'm wrong but the WH press corp still has people from the AP, UPI, other major news organizations, largest newspapers, etc. etc. Right?

So this one guy, who was planted to throw softball questions at the President once in a while, is single-handedly undermining the fourth pillar of our democracy? Methinks you are carrying this a bit too far.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 04:36 PM
How is it that he is the ONLY 'journalist' thusfar to have access to a confidential CIA memo? How was he given access to WH press credentials and yet was DENIED Capital Hill credentials?

How does any reporter gain access to leaked information? Let me know when you have something other than cynicism and uninteresting questions to make your case.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 04:43 PM
If the Republican party (or Democrats for that matter) bought, lock-stock-and-barrel, a major network, or a newspaper in a very large cities, then I'd be in complete agreement with what you're saying.

That isn't what happened here. What happened here, so far as I can tell, is the GOP planted a phony reporter among the WH press corp. Correct me if I'm wrong but the WH press corp still has people from the AP, UPI, other major news organizations, largest newspapers, etc. etc. Right?

So this one guy, who was planted to throw softball questions at the President once in a while, is single-handedly undermining the fourth pillar of our democracy? Methinks you are carrying this a bit too far.

For someone I consider rather intelligent and 'in the know' you sure seem to have your head in the sand here...

first off, this whole Jeff Gannon thing is not happening in a vaccum. The WH has been accused by the GAO of BREAKING THE LAW in their creating 'news' segments with TAXPAYERS MONEY and distributing them without disclosure as to the origination of the segments.

Secondly, the paying off of 'columnists' with taxpayers money with the lack of disclosure from the columnists hired to PROMOTE DUHbya's policies.

Now, the appearance of a 'journalist' who the WH issued credentials to when he could not get them from Capital Hill and that same reporter is one of the only ones to get access to documents that would discredit Joe Wilson and the possible treason case for which his wife was outed? And that this same 'journalists' newspaper was established by a RW organization and not even a major Con outlet like the Washington Times or Faux News????

Come on.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 04:47 PM
Yea, cause like we all know no one else would do something as horrendous. (http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics.kerry/messages/66185.html)

Seems these reporters interests were OUT IN THE OPEN. If they were seen to have illegal or conflict of interest issues then there was ample time to uncover and present them.

The difference here is that Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher did theirs in SECRET. The non-disclosure being the issue here.

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 04:56 PM
Seems these reporters interests were OUT IN THE OPEN. If they were seen to have illegal or conflict of interest issues then there was ample time to uncover and present them.

The difference here is that Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher did theirs in SECRET. The non-disclosure being the issue here.

So now your outrage is that it was done without a press release of the payment, or that taxpayer money was used to buy their public opinion?

All this stuff is the same regardless of which administration in happens in--it's all about the war over policy being fought in the media. Although I'd rather not be having tax money paying for PR campaigns, I see no differentiation between someone offering an opinion that he/she's been paid to, and some political hack at a newspaper trying to make a name for him/herself. These are all being offered up into the arena of public opinion, and it's your job to decide which you agree/disagree with.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 04:59 PM
So now your outrage is that it was done without a press release of the payment, or that taxpayer money was used to buy their public opinion?

All this stuff is the same regardless of which administration in happens in--it's all about the war over policy being fought in the media. Although I'd rather not be having tax money paying for PR campaigns, I see no differentiation between someone offering an opinion that he/she's been paid to, and some political hack at a newspaper trying to make a name for him/herself. These are all being offered up into the arena of public opinion, and it's your job to decide which you agree/disagree with.


I've said all along the non-disclosure is the issue.

The lack of it give the appearance that these people are expressing support of DUHbya and his whacked policies of their own FREE will...

no pun intended.

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 05:06 PM
I've said all along the non-disclosure is the issue.

The lack of it give the appearance that these people are expressing support of DUHbya and his whacked policies of their own FREE will...

no pun intended.

You're assuming that their only support for these issues was acquired by paying them for it. Maybe they already agree with the issue, and the pay offsets the time out of their lives required to go around talk about it. I don't know. And I don't care, really. How far do you want to take disclosure to write an opinion?

Should we have everyone at the NYT disclose politically related motivations and activities from puberty forward in their articles? How about every donation they've made to a political cause? How about reporters listing their resumes and connections every time their asking a question of an administration?

As I said before, an opinion is an opinion. It's our job to sort out what we agree with or don't logically, rather than following a highly convoluted money trail to its roots.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 05:16 PM
You're assuming that their only support for these issues was acquired by paying them for it. Maybe they already agree with the issue, and the pay offsets the time out of their lives required to go around talk about it. I don't know. And I don't care, really. How far do you want to take disclosure to write an opinion?

Should we have everyone at the NYT disclose politically related motivations and activities from puberty forward in their articles? How about every donation they've made to a political cause? How about reporters listing their resumes and connections every time their asking a question of an administration?

As I said before, an opinion is an opinion. It's our job to sort out what we agree with or don't logically, rather than following a highly convoluted money trail to its roots.


If they, the 'journalists in question, agree and have no ethical problems with taking the money then they should disclose their deal BEFORE it is exposed to an unsuspecting public. Then, they can be treated and accepted as paid spokepeople vs. independent writers/speakers. Simple.

patteeu
02-10-2005, 05:23 PM
Seems these reporters interests were OUT IN THE OPEN. If they were seen to have illegal or conflict of interest issues then there was ample time to uncover and present them.

The difference here is that Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher did theirs in SECRET. The non-disclosure being the issue here.

Not really any more OUT IN THE OPEN than Maggie Gallagher was. I'm sure her employment by the government was as public as were the conflicts of the journalists in RadarChief's article (even if it was more obscure). I didn't see Christian Amanpour disclosing her connections to the State Department everytime she filed a foreign affairs report. That's essentially all that Maggie Gallagher failed to do.

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 05:28 PM
If they, the 'journalists in question, agree and have no ethical problems with taking the money then they should disclose their deal BEFORE it is exposed to an unsuspecting public. Then, they can be treated and accepted as paid spokepeople vs. independent writers/speakers. Simple.

You and I just have a disagreement about the importance of a monetary transaction in the public disclosure of an opinion. I think that an underlying political agenda is just as important/dangerous to evaluating an opinion as is a monetary tie. As a younger lad, I've debated several times using arguments that I didn't necessarily agree with but used to win a debate. For the judges, how I felt inside didn't matter, nor would any political or monetary connection (had it existed), but rather the argument was used to win or lose the case. Same case here, and in all cases of opinions offered up to the public. On the most basic level, all of these people are being paid to promote opinions.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 05:39 PM
I'll assume people missed this, rather than assume that the silence is tacit endorsement of highly organized government funded political party propaganda as long as that propaganda lines up with your political views.

Of course, the latter is a fairly easy conclusion to jump to, but it would be unfair I think.
Yeah because Jeff Gannon and talonnews.com reach almost as many people as Eason Jordan and CNN.

No surprise that you have no comments on the biggest story of leftist lies since Dan Rather - you still believe him to be innocent while crying about a "journalist" at a website while totally ignoring two of the largest news agencies on the planet and their leftist tripe.

Joe Seahawk
02-10-2005, 07:31 PM
To be blunt about it, I find it sad and pathetic that so many people investigate, post about, debate about, and try to draw conclusions from utterly irrelevant bullshit such as this.

Honestly -- raise your hand if you think every Administration hasnt' had people in the press corp who were friendly, who would lob a softball question, or whatever.

This kind of totally irrelevant crap isn't worth anyone's time. Politics is increasingly focused on destroying opponents or those who annoy you by undermining them personally, or finding some vague problem in their personal background. And it's disgusting, unproductive, contrary to republican ideals, and just useless.


:clap:

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 07:53 PM
So I'm clear...

What exactly are you on the left upset with...

That the guy may or may not be gay?

Or that he was a partisan reporter with a credential?

There's really not much here, and I'm not understanding the outrage.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 09:20 PM
Jeff Gannon is a big fuggin azzhole because he's ruining the name Gannon. And it's not even his fuggin name.

:banghead: :cuss:

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:22 PM
So I'm clear...

What exactly are you on the left upset with...

That the guy may or may not be gay?

Or that he was a partisan reporter with a credential?

There's really not much here, and I'm not understanding the outrage.
You forgot the adjective "pretend" before your last word.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 09:22 PM
Jeff Gannon is a big fuggin azzhole because he's ruining the name Gannon. And it's not even his fuggin name.

:banghead: :cuss:
That was done with 5 INTs in one game.

memyselfI
02-10-2005, 09:28 PM
That was done with 5 INTs in one game.

You mean by the defense that had the playbook...yeah. Unlucky break. Hardly proves the guy a fraud.

Unlike the imposter using his name. ROFL

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by jAZ
I'll assume people missed this, rather than assume that the silence is tacit endorsement of highly organized government funded political party propaganda as long as that propaganda lines up with your political views.

Of course, the latter is a fairly easy conclusion to jump to, but it would be unfair I think.

KCWolfman wrote: Yeah because Jeff Gannon and talonnews.com reach almost as many people as Eason Jordan and CNN.

No surprise that you have no comments on the biggest story of leftist lies since Dan Rather - you still believe him to be innocent while crying about a "journalist" at a website while totally ignoring two of the largest news agencies on the planet and their leftist tripe.

Wow, you are just a fount of disinformation, aren't you KC?

You conveniently forget that Gannon had access to the POTUS, and was able to ask a question that could have been used by a legitimate journalist who wasn't giving the metaphorical equivelent of a Monica Lewinski.

You can't even come up with an actual quote of what Eason said, let alone anything else that he has said in the last four months.

You are only flogging the story to distract from having a gay-millitary-fake journalist to think about as you fall asleep tonight.
Because that is not what I would hope is your wet dream.

It's kinda wierd, because it sort of is a leftist-anarchists-hollywood-movie type dream, isn't it?

What kind of wacko world are we in when the exact things that the righties have had their panties in a bunch about for the last six months?

It's like a perfect storm.
Woody Allen and Oliver Stone couldn't have written it, even with Ellen and the whole cast of "Will and Grace"!

By the way, please provide conclusive proof that the docs Rather put forth were NOT real.

Otherwise, you are just another propaGannon-sit.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:22 PM
You mean by the defense that had the playbook...yeah. Unlucky break. Hardly proves the guy a fraud.

Unlike the imposter using his name. ROFL
Really, st rich the fallen was too stupid to change his playbook after a full year?

Damn, I don't blame you for being bitter if he was that ignorant.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:31 PM
Wow, you are just a fount of disinformation, aren't you KC?

You conveniently forget that Gannon had access to the POTUS, and was able to ask a question that could have been used by a legitimate journalist who wasn't giving the metaphorical equivelent of a Monica Lewinski.

You can't even come up with an actual quote of what Eason said, let alone anything else that he has said in the last four months.

You are only flogging the story to distract from having a gay-millitary-fake journalist to think about as you fall asleep tonight.
Because that is not what I would hope is your wet dream.

It's kinda wierd, because it sort of is a leftist-anarchists-hollywood-movie type dream, isn't it?

What kind of wacko world are we in when the exact things that the righties have had their panties in a bunch about for the last six months?

It's like a perfect storm.
Woody Allen and Oliver Stone couldn't have written it, even with Ellen and the whole cast of "Will and Grace"!

By the way, please provide conclusive proof that the docs Rather put forth were NOT real.

Otherwise, you are just another propaGannon-sit.
Who said I cannot provide a quote from Eason? No one asked for one before now. Since you blame me without proof, are you guilty of libel or defamation?

The fact that Rather admitted they weren't real is enough for all. The fact that you refuse to admit it even when presented with the fact shows you to be an extremist with an agenda and without a shred of dignity to admit the falsehood.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:33 PM
Now you get to proivide me a quote from Dan Rather where he says that they were not real.

I'm not sure if you really know the meaning of the big words I used...

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:37 PM
Now you get to proivide me a quote from Dan Rather where he says that they were not real.

I'm not sure if you really know the meaning of the big words I used...
Ahhh, the great equivocator along with the failed attempt at slams.

Okay, Lefty the Little, you are correct. Rather didn't admit they were false. He admitted they came from a faulty source and never should have been used. He had no confidence in the documents after review.

Now that you feel better about your played along falsehood, how about admitting there was no "libel" on Eason as I have provided the quotes you have asked for.

Funny how you dodged that issue altogether, and I didn't even use "big words". Man, you must feel stupid right now.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 10:52 PM
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you were wrong in such a snide way that it might have been missed under the sarcasm, or did you actually act like a man and admit that you were wrong when you made the claim in the first place.

I like to know what kind of person I am dealing with.

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 10:54 PM
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you were wrong in such a snide way that it might have been missed under the sarcasm, or did you actually act like a man and admit that you were wrong when you made the claim in the first place.

I like to know what kind of person I am dealing with.

Wait--this should get good.

Let me get a cocktail and a cigar.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:54 PM
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you were wrong in such a snide way that it might have been missed under the sarcasm, or did you actually act like a man and admit that you were wrong when you made the claim in the first place.

I like to know what kind of person I am dealing with.
I admitted I am not an equivocator looking for an edge instead of dealing with common sense, like yourself.

And you dodged my questions again. Obviously, I already know what kind of person I am dealing with. Unfortunately, it is the same ilk as most liberals.

siberian khatru
02-10-2005, 10:57 PM
Wait--this should get good.

Let me get a cocktail and a cigar.

Don't forget your Ricky Ricardo smoking jacket.

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 10:57 PM
Wait--this should get good.

Let me get a cocktail and a cigar.

Precisely what I was thinking. This individual has all the earmarkings of a Denise recruited stooge from DU.com.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 10:58 PM
Precisely what I was thinking. This individual has all the earmarkings of a Denise recruited stooge from DU.com.
It is obvious the moron is a Dunderground lackey.

Michael Michigan
02-10-2005, 11:00 PM
Don't forget your Ricky Ricardo smoking jacket.



You're just jealous of the way I look in mine.

Leeeeffffttyyyyyy youuu got some spllllainin' to do.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:03 PM
Let's keep the subjects in thier reletive threads, shall we?

I'm pretty sure that you aren't keeping track, because you keep asking questions that I have already answered.

In this thread, you are supposed to get back to be about the Kerry story.

Remember?

Soupnazi
02-10-2005, 11:04 PM
Ah, investigation reveals that Lefty was referred by jAZ through airhead america. My apologies Denise.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:05 PM
Let's keep the subjects in thier reletive threads, shall we?

I'm pretty sure that you aren't keeping track, because you keep asking questions that I have already answered.

In this thread, you are supposed to get back to be about the Kerry story.

Remember?
Sorry, evidently I am thrown by the fact that you refuse to answer any direct question.


Are you Duhnise's brother?

Again, do you have a DIRECT quote regarding "Gannon" or are you holding yourself to a lesser standard?

BTW , I haven't mentioned Kerry once, Your tinfoil is too tight and you are really screwed up.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:09 PM
You haven't mentioned Kerry once?
My, aren't you forgetful?

KCWolfman
I was a teenage Chiefs fan

Avatar

Joined: Aug 2000
Location: Liberty, Mo 64068

:Originally Posted by Lefty_the_Right
Please provide two quotes.

First one with me defending Jordan, and a second with what he actually said.


As far as I can tell it wasn't a public pronouncment?
I can't seem to find any direct quotes.

What Gannon did as far as getting CIA documents, owning some gay millitary porn sites when he is writing anti gay screeds, like "If John Kerry is elected he will be the first gay President".

Do you not read the news? Or are you just stuck reading talonnews.com?

Give me a link on the Kerry quote..... what goes around....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110001&page=1

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:10 PM
You haven't mentioned Kerry once?
My, aren't you forgetful?



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110001&page=1
You mentioned Kerry, I asked for a quote.

One which you have conveniently avoided offering several times while demanding I do the same for Eason.

Pathetic.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:18 PM
You seem to have a problem following more than one thread.

I told you that Gannon wrote that story, it isn't about a quote, it is about a story he wrote that has been scrubbed from the net.

I even told you what words to type into Google to find the link to the story on GOPUSA, but you don't seem to be able to handle such a difficult task.

Wanna try again and get back to me?

By the way, you just proved yourself wrong.
You DID ask about Kerry.

Stop acting like you are incapable of making a mistake.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:22 PM
You seem to have a problem following more than one thread.

I told you that Gannon wrote that story, it isn't about a quote, it is about a story he wrote that has been scrubbed from the net.

I even told you what words to type into Google to find the link to the story on GOPUSA, but you don't seem to be able to handle such a difficult task.

Wanna try again and get back to me?

By the way, you just proved yourself wrong.
You DID ask about Kerry.

Stop acting like you are incapable of making a mistake.
So the story disappeared from the internet and you have no proof of your claim?

Are you guilty of libel or slander?

You just keep digging yourself deeper.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:33 PM
Why don't you use Google and see for yourself?

I even gave you the link for the search, but the board won't display it correctly, that isn't exactly my fault, now is it?


Here it is again.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=john+kerry+elected+gay+president+gannon&btnG=Google+Search

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:34 PM
Why don't you use Google and see for yourself?

I even gave you the link for the search, but the board won't display it correctly, that isn't exactly my fault, now is it?


Here it is again.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=john+kerry+elected+gay+president+gannon&btnG=Google+Search
Don't give me a link to a search engine, give me a link to a direct quote. That is what you are asking for, why would you demand less of yourself?

This is pathetic. Go back to Dunderground where they ban those that don't think like you. You stand a chance there.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:36 PM
You know it isn't a quote, but an entire article.

Doing a Google search using these words:
John Kerry
Gay
President
Gannon

Will get you the result.

It will show you where it was hosted, who wrote it, and what it was titled.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:37 PM
You know it isn't a quote, but an entire article.

Doing a Google search using these words:
John Kerry
Gay
President
Gannon

Will get you the result.

It will show you where it was hosted, who wrote it, and what it was titled.
So just give me the link. Why can't you?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:37 PM
If the article was removed today, how would I provide you a link?

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:38 PM
If the article was removed today, how would I provide you a link?
Ah, so you have no proof of your assertations other than a supposed quote from a missing article.

Again, libel or slander, I keep getting confused?

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:42 PM
Here is the URL for the cached copy:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KyThnVOFKZIJ:www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1012_kerry_gay_president.shtml+kerry+gay+president++gannon&hl=en

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:45 PM
Gannon keeps comming up as an icon.

Here is the tinyurl version:
http://tinyurl.com/3zs9j

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:46 PM
Here is the URL for the cached copy:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KyThnVOFKZIJ:www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1012_kerry_gay_president.shtml+kerry+gay+president++gannon&hl=en
So what you are quoting is an article that the author equivocates the Bill Clinton statement as black president as he had a large black following to Kerry as a gay nominee as he had a large homosexual following. In fact, the author deliberately quoted both "black president" and "gay president" to show the comparison. He did not call Kerry gay anymore than Clinton was accurate by calling himself black.

Your stretches of imagination are vast.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:47 PM
That one works, now you can read the story yourself.

KCWolfman
02-10-2005, 11:48 PM
That one works, now you can read the story yourself.
No problem reading it. I hope you can interpret it as you have already done so poorly in attempting to do so.

Lefty_the_Right
02-10-2005, 11:49 PM
With all of the gay bashing by the GOP, and the moves to outlaw gay marriage, the reason for the story isn't hard to see.

It played on the homophobia of the right.

All the "queerer", coming from a guy that was trying to set up gay porn sites.

I'm sure that even you can see the hypocrisy.

memyselfI
02-11-2005, 07:54 AM
Ah, investigation reveals that Lefty was referred by jAZ through airhead america. My apologies Denise.

Accepted but not necessary. I don't recruit folks.

I figure we have ample brainpower here as the liberal minority to keep an entire board full of CONS in a tizzy...

they prove it, DAILY.

memyselfI
02-11-2005, 08:05 AM
Really, st rich the fallen was too stupid to change his playbook after a full year?

Damn, I don't blame you for being bitter if he was that ignorant.


Quarterbacks are in charge of the playbooks? Not OCs or HCs? Ah, that explains it. He didn't make up a new offense. Damn him. He followed his HCs lead and used the previous coaches offense instead. You know, the one that helped him get to the SB, to the AFC championship game, and MVP.

Still, what a MORAN to think he should not author a new playbook. Fug him.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

jAZ
02-11-2005, 11:10 AM
So I'm clear...

What exactly are you on the left upset with...

That the guy may or may not be gay?

Or that he was a partisan reporter with a credential?

There's really not much here, and I'm not understanding the outrage.
That a political party (doesn't matter which, IMO) currently holding power over all 3 branches of government are systematically trying to replace the checks and balances within our government to retain power.

Not rocket science, and not a partisan issue.

But absolute power corrupts absolutely, so Bush supporters have "nothing to see here!" syndrome. Chilling.

Him being gay is not a meaningful issue. It's icing on the cake and provides a good laugh at the expense of the of the "moralist" party. But that's it. That aspect truely is "nothing to see here!"

jAZ
02-11-2005, 11:14 AM
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=john+kerry+elected+gay+president+gannon&btnG=Google+Search
The URL isn't working because this board has an autosmiley that is one of the words in your link.

When posting, click the checkbox next to "Disable Smiles in This Post" under options.

patteeu
02-11-2005, 12:05 PM
Do we know for sure that those domains associated with this guy's identity were related to gay porn or gay prostitution? Not that it really makes a bit of difference in the larger issue of journalistic integrity, but we are talking about it as if it is verified fact and I haven't seen the verification.

NewChief
02-11-2005, 12:30 PM
Do we know for sure that those domains associated with this guy's identity were related to gay porn or gay prostitution? Not that it really makes a bit of difference in the larger issue of journalistic integrity, but we are talking about it as if it is verified fact and I haven't seen the verification.

Not sure, in all honesty. I've also seen some speculation that he might have been running these gay military escort sites in an effort to "out" gays in the military. That is, find out who was gay and turn them in.

patteeu
02-11-2005, 12:51 PM
Not sure, in all honesty. I've also seen some speculation that he might have been running these gay military escort sites in an effort to "out" gays in the military. That is, find out who was gay and turn them in.

That theory, as repulsive as it is to me, makes more sense than the theory that a gay pornographer/pimp is the person selected to shill for a conservative administration. But I guess either one is possible.

jAZ
02-11-2005, 12:55 PM
That theory, as repulsive as it is to me, makes more sense than the theory that a gay pornographer/pimp is the person selected to shill for a conservative administration. But I guess either one is possible.
It does make some sense, but I'd be suprised by it more than him just being a gay republican with some net-skills and a private fetish for soldiers.

The Republican party has all kinds, it's just that the Dems don't spend so much effort trying to hide it.

patteeu
02-11-2005, 01:21 PM
It does make some sense, but I'd be suprised by it more than him just being a gay republican with some net-skills and a private fetish for soldiers.

The Republican party has all kinds, it's just that the Dems don't spend so much effort trying to hide it.

I'd rather believe that he is a gay pornographer (which doesn't really bother me) than that he was planning to deviously try to "out" gays in the military who otherwise were performing their duties effectively under the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

Radar Chief
02-11-2005, 01:25 PM
The military can’t kick someone out because of sexual preference anymore, right?
Then what good would it do to “out” someone? :shrug:
Haven’t spent much time worry’n ‘bout it so I may be way off here.

KCTitus
02-11-2005, 01:29 PM
Im still lost as to why this was such a big deal...seemed to me the other 'journalists' were upset at his asking softball questions of the press secretary. Surely it wasnt because he was gay was it?

Im missing the scandal here, other than there was a conservative in the WH press corp office.

patteeu
02-11-2005, 01:44 PM
The military can’t kick someone out because of sexual preference anymore, right?
Then what good would it do to “out” someone? :shrug:
Haven’t spent much time worry’n ‘bout it so I may be way off here.

I think they can if they become aware of it as a result of an action on the part of the gay military person. For example, if a gay person announced that they were gay, I think the military could still kick them out (even if they were celebate). I think "Don't Ask Don't Tell" just restricts how aggressively they can investigate. I could be wrong.

jAZ
02-11-2005, 02:11 PM
The military can’t kick someone out because of sexual preference anymore, right?
Yes they can.

jAZ
02-11-2005, 02:12 PM
I'd rather believe that he is a gay pornographer (which doesn't really bother me) than that he was planning to deviously try to "out" gays in the military who otherwise were performing their duties effectively under the "don't ask don't tell" policy.
Agreed.

This gay issue is a total non-issue to me as long as it's nothing more than his personal choice. If so, it's a total non-issue.

Everything else that goes along with the story? That's the real issue.

Michael Michigan
02-12-2005, 03:26 PM
That a political party (doesn't matter which, IMO) currently holding power over all 3 branches of government are systematically trying to replace the checks and balances within our government to retain power.

Not rocket science, and not a partisan issue.

But absolute power corrupts absolutely, so Bush supporters have "nothing to see here!" syndrome. Chilling.

Him being gay is not a meaningful issue. It's icing on the cake and provides a good laugh at the expense of the of the "moralist" party. But that's it. That aspect truely is "nothing to see here!"

So you believe Talon news is the next news powerhouse?

That's what you believe is the "plan?"

:spock:

Michael Michigan
02-12-2005, 03:30 PM
How is it that he is the ONLY 'journalist' thusfar to have access to a confidential CIA memo?

Debunked.


http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/know_why_did_th.html

KCWolfman
02-12-2005, 03:56 PM
Debunked.


http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/know_why_did_th.html
Betting she doesn't have a response for this one.