PDA

View Full Version : 'I asked to come. They allowed me to come’


memyselfI
02-24-2005, 07:14 AM
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7022981/

Transcript from JJGG on the Today Show:

Access to the White House press room was easy, former reporter Jeff Gannon tells NBC’s Campbell Brown in an exclusive interviewToday show
Updated: 9:09 a.m. ET Feb. 24, 2005He has become infamous in Washington. A conservative White House reporter with a past he wanted to keep secret. NBC’s Campbell Brown talked with Jeff Gannon about his time in the White House and how he was so easily able to gain access to one of the country's most secure places.

advertisement


He says he has been exposed by left-wing Internet bloggers who are trying to destroy his career. But at White House press briefings, Jeff Gannon was a regular:

Jeff Gannon: Since [there are] so many questions about what the president was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam?

And at another press conference:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan: Go ahead, Jeff.

Gannon: I would like a comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. The president said Thursday in his press conference that he was reaching out to the press corps. What did he mean by that? And why would he feel the need to reach out to a group of supposedly nonpartisan people?

His troubles started when he was called on by the president at a Jan. 26 news conference and took a swipe at Democrats with his question:

"...How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality," he asked the president.

Campbell Brown: Were you in that press conference as a plant by the White House?

Gannon: Absolutely not. I mean, look at it, Campbell. If the White House was going to use a plant, wouldn't they pick a better one than me?

Meaning someone without Gannon's past. Because when the liberal bloggers went digging to find out just who this guy was, they turned up some eyebrow-raising material.

Brown: You have said that you registered a number of pornographic Web sites. Is that accurate?

Gannon: Well, I registered a number of domain names, that some have suggested are…

Brown: Pornographic Web sites.

Gannon: Well, yes.

Brown: Did you advertise yourself as a gay, male escort for hire on a Web site?

Gannon: I cannot go into those specifics. I can tell you that there is a lot of misinformation out there. There's a lot of fabrication out there, and a lot of misinformation.

Brown: Why can't you then clear it up right now? The cameras are rolling.

Gannon: As I've said, I've been advised not to get into the specifics out there. Is there some truth out there? Yes. Is there a lot of falsehood out there? Absolutely.

But Jeff Gannon isn't really Jeff Gannon. He uses the pseudonym because his real name is difficult to pronounce, he says.

Gannon: My name is James Guckert.

Brown: James Guckert?

Gannon: Yes.

Brown: It's not so hard to pronounce.

Gannon: Well, when you read it, it's always pronounced some other way.

Brown: So, who was the White House clearing into those briefings every day? Was it James Guckert? Or was it…

Gannon: Yes.

Brown: Jeff Gannon?

Gannon: I go to the gate. I show my driver's license, which I showed you. It has my given name. And that's how I gained entry.

A quick check for a criminal record is all that's required. Gannon avoided the extensive FBI background check most reporters go through for permanent access.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan has said he did know Gannon wasn't using his real name, but that, "he, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly.”

But was Gannon working for a real news organization?

His employer was an Internet site called GOP-USA, funded and staffed by Republican activists to promote a Republican agenda. He then worked for an off shoot site of GOP-USA called Talon News.

"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," said McClellan.

Brown: You don't deny you were writing news with a perspective, with a partisan perspective?

Gannon: Absolutely.

Some might say, how does a guy who works for an obscure, Internet publication, with a background that is linked to Internet porn in some fashion, get into the daily briefings and get to ask the president a question at a news conference?

Gannon: I asked to come. They allowed me to come. And apparently there isn't a very high threshold as far as somebody's personal life to gain access.

Democrats are jumping on this, accusing the White House of being lax about security and of manipulating the media. Several Democrats have signed a letter to the White House demanding further investigation.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

Duck Dog
02-24-2005, 07:18 AM
Bush must be doing a terrific job, if the only thing whiney liberals have to biatch about is a gay Republican.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 08:05 AM
Wow-That is quite the story.

Cochise
02-24-2005, 08:40 AM
Bush must be doing a terrific job, if the only thing whiney liberals have to biatch about is a gay Republican.

Exactly ROFL

Duhnise must be out of batteries for the Richbrator the past week or so... nothing better to do I guess...

whoman69
02-24-2005, 08:46 AM
Bush must be doing a terrific job, if the only thing whiney liberals have to biatch about is a gay Republican.
That isn't the whole story and you know it. He bypassed security to be allowed in the press room. The only security clearance he had was he showed his driver's liscense. Many things about his past would have disqualified him to work in the White House, but that was never done. The administration used him to change the debate in briefings when it was going against them. Its another link in a long chain of them slanting the media illegally.

Duck Dog
02-24-2005, 08:53 AM
That isn't the whole story and you know it. He bypassed security to be allowed in the press room. The only security clearance he had was he showed his driver's liscense. Many things about his past would have disqualified him to work in the White House, but that was never done. The administration used him to change the debate in briefings when it was going against them. Its another link in a long chain of them slanting the media illegally.

Yeah, the Right has (had) Gannon and Fox news, while the Left controlls the rest of the media.

I think it's laughable that liberals would cry about the media.

Chief Henry
02-24-2005, 09:03 AM
Exactly ROFL

Duhnise must be out of batteries for the Richbrator the past week or so... nothing better to do I guess...

She just likes the word come!!!

alnorth
02-24-2005, 09:24 AM
That isn't the whole story and you know it. He bypassed security to be allowed in the press room. The only security clearance he had was he showed his driver's liscense. Many things about his past would have disqualified him to work in the White House, but that was never done. The administration used him to change the debate in briefings when it was going against them. Its another link in a long chain of them slanting the media illegally.

Thats actually not accurate. I have a brother who just got out of the military working for military intelligence, and at one time part of his job was to help run security clearances. If this guy would have undergone a security check, he likely would have passed anyway. If you are an American citizen without serious felonies, its kind of hard to get rejected after they take the time to go through your background. The main reason why most people get axed is if they stupidly lie about something while applying for security clearance that the people running the check finds out about later.

You might complain that he didnt have to go through the process while other reporters did, and thats fine, but he wouldnt have been rejected.

(at least not for non-political reasons anyway. If the Bush administration uncovered the gay background, maybe theyd deny him, who knows?)

homey
02-24-2005, 09:34 AM
Just think if this happened when Clinton was in office. He'd already be impeached.

Brock
02-24-2005, 09:36 AM
Just think if this happened when Clinton was in office. He'd already be impeached.

Again, you mean?

BIG_DADDY
02-24-2005, 09:36 AM
'I asked to cum. They allowed me to cum’

Nobody wants to hear about your Iranian Sausagefest.

homey
02-24-2005, 09:38 AM
Yeah, the Right has (had) Gannon and Fox news, while the Left controlls the rest of the media.

I think it's laughable that liberals would cry about the media.

What’s laughable is neo’s still harping on the “liberal media.” A “liberal media” wouldn’t have sold the public the war in Iraq. A “liberal media” wouldn’t let the $9 billion that is unaccountable for in Iraq slide, when they took down Clinton for, what, $100,000? Think about it kiddies…

Cochise
02-24-2005, 09:40 AM
Just think if this happened when Clinton was in office. He'd already be impeached.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a f***ing idiot.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:42 AM
This was on the Today Show! I thought it was going away and would never see the light of the "Mainstream!" !!!!!!

I can't wait to see the bar move.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:42 AM
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a f***ing idiot.



Take this anyway you'd want: Being an idiot, you'd be qualified to find another.

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 09:47 AM
Just think if this happened when Clinton was in office. He'd already be impeached.

It did. How many people, American and foreign, got access to the White House and the President by writing big checks?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:48 AM
It did. How many people, American and foreign, got access to the White House and the President by writing big checks?



Probably just as many as the current administration... And the one before it. And the one before it. et al.

What does that have anything to do with anything?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaach

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 09:52 AM
Probably just as many as the current administration... And the one before it. And the one before it. et al.

What does that have anything to do with anything?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaach

Don't act naive.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:53 AM
Don't act naive.


Said the idiot who thinks that payola only happens in Democrat administrations...

Don't be such a fool.

BIG_DADDY
02-24-2005, 09:58 AM
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a f***ing idiot.

Amen. I would just put a gun to my head and end it all if I had that few brain cells left. That's coming from a Libertarian who doesn't like Bush at all too.

Radar Chief
02-24-2005, 09:58 AM
Said the idiot who thinks that payola only happens in Democrat administrations...

Don't be such a fool.

Said the idiot try’n to make a scandal out of what he now admits is done by EVERY administration.

Duck Dog
02-24-2005, 10:02 AM
What’s laughable is neo’s still harping on the “liberal media.” A “liberal media” wouldn’t have sold the public the war in Iraq. A “liberal media” wouldn’t let the $9 billion that is unaccountable for in Iraq slide, when they took down Clinton for, what, $100,000? Think about it kiddies…

I took the test. I'm a Realist, not a neo.

And further more, why do liberals cry about cons who mention Clinton, yet they seem to be the only ones mentioning him?

Could it be further proof of hypocrisy?

Iowanian
02-24-2005, 10:04 AM
I guess I still don't see what the drama is about.

I'm sure there are alot of Dykes authoring for CNN et al.

This must be a good sign, that the jazocrats don't have anything valid to bitch about these days.

I'm waiting for Dense to throw up that "ooops, Allah must hate Iranians" with a link to yet another Earthquake.

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 10:10 AM
Said the idiot who thinks that payola only happens in Democrat administrations...

Don't be such a fool.

What a pussy you are. I don't remember ever saying it was only in a dem. administration.

Though I can't remember Republicans ever recruiting from the Chicoms.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 10:37 AM
Though I can't remember Republicans ever recruiting from the Chicoms.



Of course you can't. It's because you have your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't really see what he's doing...

Back when Clinton was easing restrictions on Supercomputer exports to China, he was called a traitor... When Bush does it (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020103-export.htm), idiots like yourself shut the **** up. Unfortunately, you don't stay that way.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 10:44 AM
Of course you can't. It's because you have your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't really see what he's doing...

Back when Clinton was easing restrictions on Supercomputer exports to China, he was called a traitor... When Bush does it (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020103-export.htm), idiots like yourself shut the **** up. Unfortunately, you don't stay that way.


Coming to towns everywhere to reaasure the lambs masses:

http://www.bartcop.com/turd-blossom1.JPG

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 10:51 AM
Of course you can't. It's because you have your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't really see what he's doing...

Back when Clinton was easing restrictions on Supercomputer exports to China, he was called a traitor... When Bush does it (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020103-export.htm), idiots like yourself shut the **** up. Unfortunately, you don't stay that way.


Typical lib. I can't defend the Clintons selling out to the highest bidder so I will say they all did it. Your act is old Taco Jaunita. Though we all expect this type of shit out of you. Still sore your lib buddy lost the election I see.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 10:56 AM
Typical lib. I can't defend the Clintons selling out to the highest bidder so I will say they all did it. Your act is old Taco Jaunita. Though we all expect this type of shit out of you. Still sore your lib buddy lost the election I see.


Just what I thought... Get your point obliterated, and the best you can do is ignore it and attack me for not defending Clinton well enough...

Of course, I don't care to defend Clinton. I don't much care if Clinton sold out to the highest bidder. I expect that from all Presidents in this day and age. Defending Clinton is the last thing I care to do. It's like trying to defend Michael Jackson. Why bother?

Exposing your hypocrisy is at the top of my list, though.

Thanks for trying, but sorry, you lose. Next time, come armed with something other than 'head up your ass' partisainship. When you're point gets obliterated, saving face by calling me a liberal and then running to hide isn't the best strategy. It just makes you look weak.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:02 AM
Typical lib. I can't defend the Clintons selling out to the highest bidder so I will say they all did it. Your act is old Taco Jaunita. Though we all expect this type of shit out of you. Still sore your lib buddy lost the election I see.



Hey stupid... what kind of moron tactic were you trying here anyway? Ignoring the fact that Bush has done the same thing, you attack a guy who I couldn't give a damn about for selling out to the highest bidder? How does THAT work?

How do you completely ignore the fact that your guy is doing the same thing that you are attacking someone else for? Are you really this stupid, or just this stupidly partisain?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:02 AM
I know, I know...

I'm a "liberal."

Gotcha.

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 11:10 AM
Just what I thought... Get your point obliterated, and the best you can do is ignore it and attack me for not defending Clinton well enough...

Of course, I don't care to defend Clinton. I don't much care if Clinton sold out to the highest bidder. I expect that from all Presidents in this day and age. Defending Clinton is the last thing I care to do. It's like trying to defend Michael Jackson. Why bother?

Exposing your hypocrisy is at the top of my list, though.

Thanks for trying, but sorry, you lose. Next time, come armed with something other than 'head up your ass' partisainship. When you're point gets obliterated, saving face by calling me a liberal and then running to hide isn't the best strategy. It just makes you look weak.

You didn't prove jack asshole. Not once in this thread have I ever defended Bush. You sure like puttiing word in others mouths so you can act all outraged. Kiss my ass loser.

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 11:11 AM
Hey stupid... what kind of moron tactic were you trying here anyway? Ignoring the fact that Bush has done the same thing, you attack a guy who I couldn't give a damn about for selling out to the highest bidder? How does THAT work?

How do you completely ignore the fact that your guy is doing the same thing that you are attacking someone else for? Are you really this stupid, or just this stupidly partisain?

How did Bush do the same? Enlighten me.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:12 AM
Coming from a guy who thinks I'm interested in defending Clinton, that's rich...

Ok. Run along little boy. Let the grown-ups have their say now. It was cute for a minute...

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:13 AM
How did Bush do the same? Enlighten me.



I already did... Forget it. I'm not interested in "debating" with people who are incapable of keeping up.

KCFalcon59
02-24-2005, 11:19 AM
I already did... Forget it. I'm not interested in "debating" with people who are incapable of keeping up.

You're hilarious.

Donger
02-24-2005, 11:25 AM
Of course you can't. It's because you have your head so far up Bush's ass that you can't really see what he's doing...

Back when Clinton was easing restrictions on Supercomputer exports to China, he was called a traitor... When Bush does it (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020103-export.htm), idiots like yourself shut the **** up. Unfortunately, you don't stay that way.

Unless I missed something, I don't believe that Bush has taken any money from the Chinese in the form of contributions, or provided TS clearance to those very same people. Has he?

Duck Dog
02-24-2005, 12:27 PM
You didn't prove jack asshole. Not once in this thread have I ever defended Bush. You sure like puttiing word in others mouths so you can act all outraged. Kiss my ass loser.

You should know by now, that if you don't bash Bush you are automatically a Bush ball licker. I'd take what the semi brain dead liberals have to say with a grain a salt. Their entire argument is based solely off of their pure unadulterated hate.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 01:23 PM
I'm just curious if the critics like Memyselfi, Taco, and Whoman69 think that all WH reporters should have extensive background checks and be excluded from the whitehouse if they have pasts that include things like criminal convictions, DUI's, p2p music downloads, internet porn memberships, drinking problems, drug use, bounced checks, gay prostitution, etc.? Or is it just a matter of having a J-school diploma and a left-leaning political bias?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 02:48 PM
I'm just curious if the critics like Memyselfi, Taco, and Whoman69 think that all WH reporters should have extensive background checks and be excluded from the whitehouse if they have pasts that include things like criminal convictions, DUI's, p2p music downloads, internet porn memberships, drinking problems, drug use, bounced checks, gay prostitution, etc.? Or is it just a matter of having a J-school diploma and a left-leaning political bias?



Yawn. I love how it's the whacky lefties who are responsible for the reporters needing extensive background checks.

THOSE CRAZY LEFTIES WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

Hot Damn! Them ole' yellow dog lefties! Iffin' you aint a liberal, they don't want y'all being reporters! Hoooo weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Damn gay haters!

Is that helping out, Patteu?

I'm sure that we're all real concerned about this guy's music downloading past. YIIIIIIIIIPEEEEEEEEEE KIIIIIIII YIIIIII YAAAAAAAY!


(Hope you don't mind... I answered your intellectually bankrupt question as though it were some sort of a joke.)

Iowanian
02-24-2005, 02:53 PM
I'd like to see what the Lefties say, when that shriveled, sour old goat with the Rodeo Clown Lipstick Reporter, who always argues with Bush(name escapes me) is kicked out, because they found out that she was a Prostitute for Calvin Coolidge.


Since when did this guy taking Bones in the Dumper at home, affect his Affirmative Action protected right to work as a reporter? I'm not supporting the guy, and could care less about what happens to him at this point.

I fail to see what all the drama is about, other than just having something to bitch about.

Joe Seahawk
02-24-2005, 03:02 PM
I'd like to see what the Lefties say, when that shriveled, sour old goat with the Rodeo Clown Lipstick Reporter, who always argues with Bush(name escapes me) is kicked out, because they found out that she was a Prostitute for Calvin Coolidge.


Since when did this guy taking Bones in the Dumper at home, affect his Affirmative Action protected right to work as a reporter? I'm not supporting the guy, and could care less about what happens to him at this point.

I fail to see what all the drama is about, other than just having something to bitch about.

http://www.brooksinternational.com/images/helen_thomas.jpg

Taco John
02-24-2005, 03:04 PM
Yeah. He was a real reporter and all, huh, Iownaian...

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 03:11 PM
I'm just curious if the critics like Memyselfi, Taco, and Whoman69 think that all WH reporters should have extensive background checks and be excluded from the whitehouse if they have pasts that include things like criminal convictions, DUI's, p2p music downloads, internet porn memberships, drinking problems, drug use, bounced checks, gay prostitution, etc.? Or is it just a matter of having a J-school diploma and a left-leaning political bias?


You know, following long standing tradition and rules would be fine and quite reasonable. No more, and certainly no less...as was the case with JJGG.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 03:16 PM
You mean, you, yourself and you didn't just make up the vetting process for Whitehouse reporters just now, Denise?

Radar Chief
02-24-2005, 03:17 PM
I fail to see what all the drama is about, other than just having something to bitch about.

Pretty much how I see it.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 03:21 PM
You mean, you, yourself and you didn't just make up the vetting process for Whitehouse reporters just now, Denise?

No, there has been a longstanding criteria they've used...

I had nothing to do with it. Contrary to those still maintaining there is no story here.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 03:23 PM
Yeah. He was a real reporter and all, huh, Iownaian...


You know, I get the distinct impression some of these guys are on auto pilot and just arguing for the sake of arguing without knowing WTF they are arguing about or even really caring...

thus, they can defend JJGG being a 'good journalist' when they have no clue he has the equivalent of a Sally Struthers certification in the field.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 03:23 PM
Pretty much how I see it.

Of course it is... Until it's Clinton (pick one) doing it... Then it's a MAJOR NEWS STORY!

AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA! (*doing that Muslim tongue thing*)

Duck Dog
02-24-2005, 03:32 PM
There's that Clinton name again...and once again it was echoed by a lib.

So what is the drama about then? If not for the fact he is gay and a Republican, what exactly happened that gave all the libs the sand enema? His education?

I still maintain there is alot of crying going on about absolutely nothing.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 03:32 PM
I know this could be it's own thread seeing Russ made a point to say the story was not MSM matierial but...


Fox News front page:

'Gannon' tied to leak probe

http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

Do they qualify as MSM??? :hmmm:

Taco John
02-24-2005, 03:42 PM
Uh oh!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148604,00.html

Taco John
02-24-2005, 03:43 PM
There's that Clinton name again...and once again it was echoed by a lib.
.



This is the best part of the whole thing... Conservatives bemoaning the use of the name Clinton! ROFL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Apparently it's gone out of style, now that it can be used against them...

patteeu
02-24-2005, 03:54 PM
Yawn. I love how it's the whacky lefties who are responsible for the reporters needing extensive background checks.

THOSE CRAZY LEFTIES WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

Hot Damn! Them ole' yellow dog lefties! Iffin' you aint a liberal, they don't want y'all being reporters! Hoooo weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Damn gay haters!

Is that helping out, Patteu?

I'm sure that we're all real concerned about this guy's music downloading past. YIIIIIIIIIPEEEEEEEEEE KIIIIIIII YIIIIII YAAAAAAAY!


(Hope you don't mind... I answered your intellectually bankrupt question as though it were some sort of a joke.)

I don't mind at all. Aren't all your answers jokes?

If you don't mind taking the clown nose off for a bit, can you tell me what it is that the lefties want the WH to look for in the background checks that Gannon/Guckert supposedly bypassed?

patteeu
02-24-2005, 04:08 PM
You know, following long standing tradition and rules would be fine and quite reasonable. No more, and certainly no less...as was the case with JJGG.

What are the longstanding tradition and rules for the type of pass that Gannon/Guckert had? I've seen descriptions of the rules for granting the so-called hard passes, but I haven't seen anything about the day passes other than the claim by the WH press secretary that the criteria was met. It seems like the ball is in your court to carry the burden of proof now. If you've already done so, please forgive me and repeat it for me if possible because I haven't been able to keep up with all threads focused on this vital topic.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:08 PM
Since when are the lefties in charge of the screening process?

It's funny to watch you try to subvert this thing into something else.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:09 PM
What are the longstanding tradition and rules for the type of pass that Gannon/Guckert had?



Well, usually you have to be an actual reporter.

Just a little detail there...

patteeu
02-24-2005, 04:15 PM
Since when are the lefties in charge of the screening process?

It's funny to watch you try to subvert this thing into something else.

Huh? I didn't imply that they were.

There have been claims made by some critics of the White House that Gannon/Guckert obtained access without proper background checks. If that is the case, I'm curious what kind of background-check results should lead the WH to deny access under the "long standing traditions and rules" that Memyselfi thinks should have been followed. She has suggested that while being gay shouldn't get you banned, a history of prostitution should. I'm wondering if other scandalous personal histories might also be bannable offenses in her mind (or in the minds of any other lefties who subscribe to this argument).

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. If it does, then feel free to give me an answer.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 04:16 PM
Well, usually you have to be an actual reporter.

Just a little detail there...

Wasn't it you that was just talking about intellectual bankruptcy?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:17 PM
Are you claiming he was an actual legit reporter?

If so, then can you link to his actual legit news organization?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:19 PM
Go on.... Link to his legit news organization... I dare you.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:23 PM
How do you suppose this guy got classified information anyway?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:26 PM
No linky linky?

Awwwwwww....

Is it because there is no actual legit news organization?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:29 PM
Check it out... He's got his own blog now!

ROFL

http://www.jeffgannon.com/

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 04:32 PM
Check it out... He's got his own blog now!

ROFL

http://www.jeffgannon.com/
Its no http:///www.zachishere.com

But its ok... :)

patteeu
02-24-2005, 04:33 PM
Are you claiming he was an actual legit reporter?

If so, then can you link to his actual legit news organization?

Here is the link to the news organization he is reported to have been reporting for:

http://www.talonnews.com/

They are currently redesigning their website and reevaluating their operations.

Are you saying that he didn't publish news? Because as far as I know, no one has accused him of the kind of journalistic fraud that organizations like the NYT and TNR have encountered in the past few years.

If you are arguing that a "legit reporter" has to graduate from a J School then we don't agree.

If you are arguing that a "legit reporter" has to reach a certain number of news consumers then we don't agree.

If you are arguing that a "legit reporter" has be invited to the National Press Club on a regular basis, then we don't agree.

IMO, the important criteria for a "legit reporter" is that he reports the news he finds in an honest way. AFAICS, this is the case with Gannon/Guckert.

siberian khatru made some good points on this subject in the Ann Coulter thread.

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 04:34 PM
http://www.talonnews.com/

They are currently redesigning their website and reevaluating their operations.


heh

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:38 PM
Here is the link to the news organization he is reported to have been reporting for:

http://www.talonnews.com/

They are currently redesigning their website and reevaluating their operations.




OMG, we have a SHILL for JEFF GANNON on this website. ROFL ROFL

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:39 PM
Check it out... He's got his own blog now!

ROFL

http://www.jeffgannon.com/


He's probably hoping his new friends at Freepers and maybe even places like this one will hook up with him...

on his blog that is. Not on his other sites. ROFL

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:39 PM
Here is the link to the news organization he is reported to have been reporting for:

http://www.talonnews.com/

They are currently redesigning their website and reevaluating their operations.



ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


You have reached the peak of intellectual dishonesty. Nowhere to go from here but back down the mountain.

Thanks for that!

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:42 PM
Are you saying that he didn't publish news? Because as far as I know, no one has accused him of the kind of journalistic fraud that organizations like the NYT and TNR have encountered in the past few years.



Actually, if you've been keeping up, it's already well established that he was a plagarist. Along with the other reporter at Talon "News."

The whole operation was a scam, you dope. I hate calling you a dope because I used to respect the hell out of you. But sadly, you've abandoned any principles that I used to respect you for, and have become noting more than a Bush Zombie.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:45 PM
Why do you suppose he was deemed ineligable for a permanent press pass anyway?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 04:49 PM
FYI... Several new stories posted today... (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp%3Fvnu_content_id%3D1000816639)

Apparently, nobody is interested in this thing...

Logical
02-24-2005, 04:52 PM
I have to wonder why the Bush administration, just does not admit they made an error in judgement, say they will research their press pass requests more thoroughly in the future and let this thing die?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:52 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL


http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/RR022205.gif

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:53 PM
I have to wonder why the Bush administration, just does not admit they made an error in judgement, say they will research their press pass requests more thoroughly in the future and let this thing die?

Because when asked previously, ole W could not admit to errors, remember, he simply could not think of ANY. Thus, they probably don't even care that this is not going away. Error, what error?

the Talking Can
02-24-2005, 04:56 PM
Here is the link to the news organization he is reported to have been reporting for:

http://www.talonnews.com/

They are currently redesigning their website and reevaluating their operations.

Are you saying that he didn't publish news? Because as far as I know, no one has accused him of the kind of journalistic fraud that organizations like the NYT and TNR have encountered in the past few years.

If you are arguing that a "legit reporter" has to graduate from a J School then we don't agree.

If you are arguing that a "legit reporter" has to reach a certain number of news consumers then we don't agree.

If you are arguing that a "legit reporter" has be invited to the National Press Club on a regular basis, then we don't agree.

IMO, the important criteria for a "legit reporter" is that he reports the news he finds in an honest way. AFAICS, this is the case with Gannon/Guckert.

siberian khatru made some good points on this subject in the Ann Coulter thread.

In fact he has been proven guilty of journalistic fraud...many times...all documented, and reported on for awhile. And "Talon News" was simply a site set up by a Repulican operative (Eberle). 5 DAYS after the site was created Gannon/Guckert was admitted to the press pool. When asked about this the White House said he was granted access because "Talon News" had 2 YEAR history of publication.

None of this is speculation. All of it is WIDELY reported fact.

This is what is amazingly frustrating about this board. The facts of the case have been reported over and over and over and over and over and STILL people play dumb.

If you honestly cared about the questions you asked you could of answered them in .0000001 secs using google or simply by reading one of the dozen Gannon/Guckert threads on this board.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:57 PM
Why do you suppose he was deemed ineligable for a permanent press pass anyway?


And why should Sargent Rock (Hard) have to follow the rules for a hard press pass...

just go around the rules and give him a daily pass for two years. :hmmm:

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 04:58 PM
In fact he has been proven guilty of journalistic fraud...many times...all documented, and reported on for awhile. And "Talon News" was simply a site set up by a Repulican operative (Eberle). 5 DAYS after the site was created Gannon/Guckert was admitted to the press pool. When asked about this the White House said he was granted access because "Talon News" had 2 YEAR history of publication.

None of this is speculation. All of it is WIDELY reported fact.

This is what is amazingly frustrating about this board. The facts of the case have been reported over and over and over and over and over and STILL people play dumb.

If you honestly cared about the questions you asked you could of answered them in .0000001 secs using google or simply by reading one of the dozen Gannon/Guckert threads on this board.

He, and a handful of others, are too busy being a shill for Gannon and an apologist for W to care about the facts or how ridiculous their defense sounds.

the Talking Can
02-24-2005, 04:59 PM
I have to wonder why the Bush administration, just does not admit they made an error in judgement, say they will research their press pass requests more thoroughly in the future and let this thing die?

Because they didn't make an "error." They knew exactly what they were doing. Plus, they knew that no Republican would be honest enough to call them on it.

So far they're right.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 05:01 PM
I have to wonder why the Bush administration, just does not admit they made an error in judgement, say they will research their press pass requests more thoroughly in the future and let this thing die?




Well, I think they'd have to make an error in judgement first... Am I right? :)

Taco John
02-24-2005, 05:02 PM
Personlly I'm loving this, because the cover-up is always more damaging than the crime. And the cover-up so far has been damned sloppy.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 05:06 PM
Personlly I'm loving this, because the cover-up is always more damaging than the crime. And the cover-up so far has been damned sloppy.


You think anyone involved with JJGG could use an extra 10K??? Gotta love this new 'media paradigm'.... ROFL And who wouldn't confuse blogs like this with existing and traditional mainstream media? :hmmm:

http://kellyanncollins.com/2005/02/reward-jeff-Gannon-information.html

Reward: Jeff Gannon information
By Kelly Ann Collins

Have you seen this man?

A wealthy Washington socialite is offering a $10,000 reward for proof that Jeff Gannon (pictured), an allegedly gay kinky-sex prostitute / escort / white house reporter / GOP operative, has had sexual relations with top-ranking government officials.

The news on the Jeff Gannon case broke when he lost his White House correspondent credentials after some left wing blogs published links to gay military porn, featuring photos of him.

Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, says (in a Newsweek article to go to print Feb 28) that what has happened to him is "political assassination." He has has singled out the Media Matters quasi-blog that focuses on the political affiliations of US media outlets, although John Aravosis of AmericaBlog is another possible lawsuit target, as he posted links to Gannon's image on gay military porn sites.

It remains unclear how Gannon got White House press access for almost two years (first in early 2003 as a GOPUSA [a group led by Texas GOP activist Bobby Eberle], and more recently for Eberle's Talon News blog.

But one thing is for sure: Jeff Gannon is on the lips of every insider in Washington D.C., and many say he's been kissing some of them, too -- for $200/ hour and $1,200 / weekend. His profiles on escort websites say he leaves no marks, only lasting impressions.

So, I ask again -- have you seen this man? Have you slept with this man? Do you know this man?

A local socialite, who wishes to remain anonymous, has teamed up with this site to offer a $10,000 reward to anyone that can provide hard proof (photos, phone pictures, locks of hair, DNA on a suit) that Jeff Gannon had ANY sexual -- or romantic -- relationship with any top-ranking officials here in Washington.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 05:28 PM
Personlly I'm loving this, because the cover-up is always more damaging than the crime. And the cover-up so far has been damned sloppy.

Cover up of what?

And by whom?

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 05:31 PM
Cover up of what?

And by whom?

That is what an investigation is for. To see if there is a coverup and by whom.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 05:36 PM
That is what an investigation is for. To see if there is a coverup and by whom.

It's the seriousness of the charges? Been there, done that.

You guys played that card already with the October Surprise with Gary Sick and Bush 41.

Maybe you should have kept it.

Logical
02-24-2005, 05:42 PM
Because they didn't make an "error." They knew exactly what they were doing. Plus, they knew that no Republican would be honest enough to call them on it.

So far they're right.That is the cynical view of it, you might be right, but obviously even if you are the most they would do is admit an error in judgement. Let's be realistic about it.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 05:44 PM
Cover up of what?

And by whom?



The cover-up of this story...


...by you idiots.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 05:48 PM
It's the seriousness of the charges? Been there, done that.

You guys played that card already with the October Surprise with Gary Sick and Bush 41.

Maybe you should have kept it.



Ah, now here is a wonderfully principled individual...

"You guys have already played your 'investigate inapropriate conduct' card. Now we are free to do whatever we want."



See what I mean about the cover-up being the most damaging... You people will say anthing. I remember when this was a charged levied exclusively on the left. How amusing to see the tables have turned.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 05:51 PM
The cover-up of this story...


...by you idiots.

What story?

There's nothing there.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 05:55 PM
Ah, now here is a wonderfully principled individual....

You are going to have to have more than he's a gay guy that cleared WH security and asked the president a question.

You've got nothing so far.

There is nothing to cover up.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 05:57 PM
Keep sayin' it man! Keep sayin' it!

I mean... Gay scandals have never gotten any press in the past. I'm sure there's nobody interested in how a gay prostitute working for a phony news organization got access to classified files...

Pshaw! Nobody wants to write about tawdry stuff like that!

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:00 PM
...access to classified files...



You're going to need proof of that..

It's been debunked pretty well by the left and the right so far.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:01 PM
In fact he has been proven guilty of journalistic fraud...many times...all documented, and reported on for awhile. And "Talon News" was simply a site set up by a Repulican operative (Eberle). 5 DAYS after the site was created Gannon/Guckert was admitted to the press pool. When asked about this the White House said he was granted access because "Talon News" had 2 YEAR history of publication.

None of this is speculation. All of it is WIDELY reported fact.

This is what is amazingly frustrating about this board. The facts of the case have been reported over and over and over and over and over and STILL people play dumb.

If you honestly cared about the questions you asked you could of answered them in .0000001 secs using google or simply by reading one of the dozen Gannon/Guckert threads on this board.



Hey Can... Looks like you've been put on notice man...


You are going to have to have more than he's a gay guy that cleared WH security and asked the president a question.



Apparently, despite the lies already established, it's not a story until you have a picture of Gannon blowing Rove.... Got one of those? Then it's not a story.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:03 PM
Apparently, despite the lies already established, it's not a story until you have a picture of Gannon blowing Rove.... Got one of those? Then it's not a story.

Hey--you finally get it.

Congrats.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:10 PM
You're going to need proof of that..



Well... Let's see what the score is here...


1 Male prostitute. Check.

1 Fake news organization. Check.

1 Outed CIA Agent. Check.

Several questions revolving around the involveds connections. Check.

Sounds like a recipe for an investigation into any possilbe wrongdoing by an imposter organization who had infiltrated the Whitehouse.

Or is that not how you would characterize it? Lemme guess... I'll go with the Baby Lee style outrage... This poor gay man who was just trying to fight his way back from a tawdry past of male prositution clawed his way up to the level where he had access to the President, and those evil Gay-hating liberals just wouldn't let him be because he was nice to Bush! (*tearing up here*) I'm verclempt here... Tawk amungst yo'selves.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:12 PM
THEY RUINED HIS CAREER BECAUSE HE WAS GAY AND HE LOVED BUSH!!

BASTARDS!

(*MORE TEARS*)

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:13 PM
IT WAS AN HONEST LOVE!

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:14 PM
Boy, that's going to be some tough demagoguery to keep up for very long. You guys might think re-adjusting your strategery...

I think Logical gave you guys some good leadership here. Perhaps you should consider the sheep you're following right now, and think about making the switch.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:16 PM
Well... Let's see what the score is here...


1 Male prostitute. Check.

1 Fake news organization. Check.

1 Outed CIA Agent. Check.

Several questions revolving around the involved people's connections. Check.

Sounds like a recipe for an investigation into any possilbe wrongdoing by an imposter organization who had infiltrated the Whitehouse.


It's just not enough.

Don't blame me, I'm just telling you what the news market is. Surely a PR guy like you can figure that out.

Oh-wait, you blew the SwiftVet story as well.

Carry on.

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:17 PM
Boy, that's going to be some tough demagoguery to keep up for very long. You guys might think re-adjusting your strategery...

I think Logical gave you guys some good leadership here. Perhaps you should consider the sheep you're following right now, and think about making the switch.
I love the sheep stuff the left extremists keep using everytime they present their straw arguments.

It never gets old



IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US, YOU ARE JUST SHEEP


Another 70 or 80 sheep posts from you and d-enise and someone just might believe this is truly something big, eh?

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:19 PM
It's just not enough.

Don't blame me, I'm just telling you what the news market is. Surely a PR guy like you can figure that out.

Oh-wait, you blew the SwiftVet story as well.

Carry on.
Nice

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 06:22 PM
I love the sheep stuff the left extremists keep using everytime they present their straw arguments.

It never gets old



IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US, YOU ARE JUST SHEEP


Another 70 or 80 sheep posts from you and d-enise and someone just might believe this is truly something big, eh?
Check your PM box. :)

http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/competition2001/tads/journey/sheep.jpg

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:27 PM
I love the sheep stuff the left extremists keep using everytime they present their straw arguments.

It never gets old



IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US, YOU ARE JUST SHEEP


Another 70 or 80 sheep posts from you and d-enise and someone just might believe this is truly something big, eh?



That's a clever little diversion...

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:28 PM
It's just not enough.

Don't blame me, I'm just telling you what the news market is. Surely a PR guy like you can figure that out.


Yeah... Which is why I know that you're the one chewing on a turd right now and hoping that no one notices that your breath stinks.


Oh-wait, you blew the SwiftVet story as well.




How so?

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:29 PM
That's a clever little diversion...
A diversion from what? "You guys had better look at your leaders and change your mind or you are sheep"?

Hardly worth a serious answer, is it?

It is pretty damned simple, and obviously you are pissed about it or you wouldn't keep harping like D-enise on the topic. It simply is not big news. I know that crushes you and the other blind hating Anti-Bushies, but it is a fact.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:33 PM
A diversion from what? "You guys had better look at your leaders and change your mind or you are sheep"?

I noticed you put quotes around that... You know what quotes are for, right? Quoting things. Nice try though. For future reference, when you quote someone, you should actually QUOTE them... Not just make up what you want.



It is pretty damned simple, and obviously you are pissed about it or you wouldn't keep harping like D-enise on the topic. It simply is not big news. I know that crushes you and the other blind hating Anti-Bushies, but it is a fact.


Yep. You're not a sheep at all.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:36 PM
How so?

Have at it. 8-21-2004.


You say you're in PR, and this is one of the best political PR campaigns in recent memory.

I saw it very early, you didn't.

How did you miss it?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96083&page=3&pp=15

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:39 PM
I noticed you put quotes around that... You know what quotes are for, right? Quoting things. Nice try though. For future reference, when you quote someone, you should actually QUOTE them... Not just make up what you want.






Yep. You're not a sheep at all.


You don't agree with my viewpoint, you must be a sheep.

Honestly, doesn't that sad little argument get old? It is like your lame "egg on your face" quote you used to death.

You are the Yakov Smirnoff of the internet, one good line and you have tried to ride it for 5 years.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:39 PM
Have at it. 8-21-2004.




http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96083&page=3&pp=15


Yeah, and... ?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:40 PM
Honestly, doesn't that sad little argument get old? It is like your lame "egg on your face" quote you used to death.


Twice at the most.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:41 PM
Yeah, and... ?

You blew it. Nothing to be ashamed of. 8-11-04

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=95320

Yeah, these guys have a LOT of credibility when Jon Stewart can brush them off so easily...

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:42 PM
Twice at the most.
Whatever, Yakov

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:50 PM
Twice at the most.

Seems like a pattern. 8-21-04.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96110

Yeah... I'm certain it's all fine by you that you've got egg all over your face thanks to some disgraceful lying vets who shoved their dongs in your face and you happily guzzled.

mmmm... maybe that isn't egg on your face...

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:53 PM
Seems like a pattern. 8-21-04.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=96110
We went through this before when he said something like "I have never used the word 'guarantee'." I immediately pulled up 4 or 5 posts in which he had made 'guarantee' after 'guarantee'. It's a pattern I have grown used to.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:55 PM
We went through this before when he said something like "I have never used the word 'guarantee'." I immediately pulled up 4 or 5 posts in which he had made 'guarantee' after 'guarantee'. It's a pattern I have grown used to.

He does need new material.

I'd at least like to be entertained a bit.

Iowanian
02-24-2005, 06:55 PM
Yeah. He was a real reporter and all, huh, Iownaian...

Well......apparently the requirements have slipped these days. He's at least as Accurate as Dan Rather and unbiased as Peter Jennings Eh.


c'mon now tacowboy....shout it out "Young man......."


I must be simple or missing something, because I'm failing to see why Joe American should give a fug? This guy might like some beef in the keister, own the websites you frequent for your Lunch spank, and might be a partisan.......but no worse than the room full of hags that have been in there for decades.

Kick is ass out of the WH if he did something wrong.........and move along little doggie.

Feel free to convince me in 100 words or less why I give a Fug.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 06:56 PM
He does need new material.

I'd at least like to be entertained a bit.



Uh oh... I'm getting circle jerked on...

I gotta split before the moaning starts...

KCWolfman
02-24-2005, 06:57 PM
Uh oh... I'm getting circle jerked on...

I gotta split before the moaning starts...
What was that about homophobes again?

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 06:58 PM
Uh oh... I'm getting circle jerked on...

I gotta split before the moaning starts...

I answered your question directly with your own quotes.

Perhaps you are only jerking yourself...

Iowanian
02-24-2005, 07:11 PM
I guess I'm seeing some accusations. I'm not seeing anything substantial to back them up.

Where is it proven or accused from a legit source that he's a pay for pump?

I see accusations and insinuations that he gave up Plume's name, yet the author of the published article isn't saying that.

If he leaked info.......prove it and punish him. I'm all for Justice.......but as an American, pardon me if I'm a little more scared of Nukes given to China than a bottle rocket in some reporter's ass.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 07:49 PM
Actually, if you've been keeping up, it's already well established that he was a plagarist. Along with the other reporter at Talon "News."

The whole operation was a scam, you dope. I hate calling you a dope because I used to respect the hell out of you. But sadly, you've abandoned any principles that I used to respect you for, and have become noting more than a Bush Zombie.

I'd have to actually see how he used those press releases before I'm willing to equate it with plagiarism which is the act of copying the writing of another as if it's your own. Copying from a press release is a fairly common, albiet lazy, occurance in journalism. Perhaps this separates Gannon/Guckert from original writers like Michael Michigan and Mark Steyn, but it's not like the kind of fabricated news we've experienced from some of the "more reputable" news outlets over the past few years.

When you can tie this to Bush or his administration (and I don't mean through fellow travellers), go ahead and do it. If by "scam" you mean it was journalism with an agenda, then so what?

patteeu
02-24-2005, 07:50 PM
Why do you suppose he was deemed ineligable for a permanent press pass anyway?

Did he apply?

patteeu
02-24-2005, 07:55 PM
In fact he has been proven guilty of journalistic fraud...many times...all documented, and reported on for awhile. And "Talon News" was simply a site set up by a Repulican operative (Eberle). 5 DAYS after the site was created Gannon/Guckert was admitted to the press pool. When asked about this the White House said he was granted access because "Talon News" had 2 YEAR history of publication.

None of this is speculation. All of it is WIDELY reported fact.

This is what is amazingly frustrating about this board. The facts of the case have been reported over and over and over and over and over and STILL people play dumb.

If you honestly cared about the questions you asked you could of answered them in .0000001 secs using google or simply by reading one of the dozen Gannon/Guckert threads on this board.

What journalistic fraud has be been proven guilty of many times? You aren't referring to the lazy, but not that uncommon practice of copying from press releases are you? If there's something more substantial, I'm afraid I haven't followed the story closely enough to come across it. I have OTOH, read hundreds of posts on the subject here and on other discussion boards and haven't seen anyone lay out a convincing case.

I don't honestly care about the questions I'm asking because to me this is a non-issue until I see more than manufactured indignation coming from the usual, dishonest Bush bashers. Your side, the side that's exercised about this "scandal,' has to carry the burden of proof. Please break it down for me in easy to digest summaries with well organized supporting references if you don't mind. Thanks.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 07:57 PM
Did he apply?



You really don't know any the facts of this story, do you?

Is that purposeful, you just don't want to know? Or are you just feigning ignorance and saying whatever just to protect your boy?

I could go for the former, because that's how I started out. I just didn't want to know. But then once I decided to look into it, I found the whole thing so hilarious that I couldn't help myself. Watching the Keystone like comedy of people running into themselves to insist that there is "no there, there" only adds to the comedy of this story.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:00 PM
You think anyone involved with JJGG could use an extra 10K??? Gotta love this new 'media paradigm'.... ROFL And who wouldn't confuse blogs like this with existing and traditional mainstream media? :hmmm:

http://kellyanncollins.com/2005/02/reward-jeff-Gannon-information.html

Reward: Jeff Gannon information
By Kelly Ann Collins

Have you seen this man?

A wealthy Washington socialite is offering a $10,000 reward for proof that Jeff Gannon (pictured), an allegedly gay kinky-sex prostitute / escort / white house reporter / GOP operative, has had sexual relations with top-ranking government officials.

The news on the Jeff Gannon case broke when he lost his White House correspondent credentials after some left wing blogs published links to gay military porn, featuring photos of him.

Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, says (in a Newsweek article to go to print Feb 28) that what has happened to him is "political assassination." He has has singled out the Media Matters quasi-blog that focuses on the political affiliations of US media outlets, although John Aravosis of AmericaBlog is another possible lawsuit target, as he posted links to Gannon's image on gay military porn sites.

It remains unclear how Gannon got White House press access for almost two years (first in early 2003 as a GOPUSA [a group led by Texas GOP activist Bobby Eberle], and more recently for Eberle's Talon News blog.

But one thing is for sure: Jeff Gannon is on the lips of every insider in Washington D.C., and many say he's been kissing some of them, too -- for $200/ hour and $1,200 / weekend. His profiles on escort websites say he leaves no marks, only lasting impressions.

So, I ask again -- have you seen this man? Have you slept with this man? Do you know this man?

A local socialite, who wishes to remain anonymous, has teamed up with this site to offer a $10,000 reward to anyone that can provide hard proof (photos, phone pictures, locks of hair, DNA on a suit) that Jeff Gannon had ANY sexual -- or romantic -- relationship with any top-ranking officials here in Washington.


Well there you go. For $10,000, we can expect to see some results real soon. Let's see how this plays out.

And BTW, I'm sure you posted this for the update on Gannon/Guckert's potential lawsuit rather than for the gay porn angle, because you aren't interested in that, right?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:00 PM
I'll ask you this Patteau...

An imposter news organization infiltrated the Whitehouse, with the infiltrant being a gay prostitute who advertised his rates online.

1. Is that a story?
2. Should there be an investigation?

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:02 PM
That is what an investigation is for. To see if there is a coverup and by whom.

When you have no idea what you are trying to find, that's more accurately called a fishing expedition.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:03 PM
Well there you go. For $10,000, we can expect to see some results real soon. Let's see how this plays out.

And BTW, I'm sure you posted this for the update on Gannon/Guckert's potential lawsuit rather than for the gay porn angle, because you aren't interested in that, right?



Yeah right. For $10,000 we can expect to see some results real soon? Are you kidding?

All that is is a publicity stunt. Someone would have to be stupid to put their lives on the line for a paltry $10,000. Besides, that's pocketchange compared to what Simon & Schuester would pay.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:04 PM
When you have no idea what you are trying to find, that's more accurately called a fishing expedition.


An imposter news organization infiltrated the Whitehouse, with the infiltrant being a gay prostitute who advertised his rates online.

1. Is that a story?
2. Should there be an investigation?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:05 PM
I know exactly what we're trying to find: How did an imposter news organization infiltrate the Whitehouse?

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:21 PM
I'll ask you this Patteau...

An imposter news organization infiltrated the Whitehouse, with the infiltrant being a gay prostitute who advertised his rates online.

1. Is that a story?
2. Should there be an investigation?

1. My opinion is that it isn't terribly interesting and it is even less important. My opinion is that it is a political battle not an issue of right and wrong.

2. The story, in general, is already being investigated, but the bloggers who are doing the investigation apparently aren't real journalists by your standards.

The Plame case is being investigated by an actual investigator even though it's not at all clear that a crime has been committed. But I'm sure that the investigator will pursue any credible angle that leads to Gannon/Guckert and if there is actual impropriety it will come out.

If you are asking me whether the justice department should open up a new investigation to fish around and see if they can find anything here, then no I don't.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 08:23 PM
An imposter news organization infiltrated the Whitehouse, with the infiltrant being a gay prostitute who advertised his rates online.

1. Is that a story?
2. Should there be an investigation?


Of course not, because those are not the issues but his being gay and friendly ARE. Dontcha get it, if he were straight and unfriendly to the WH this would not be an issue and your trying to deflect to infiltration of a prostitute who happened to be gay is just a diversion. :rolleyes:

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:23 PM
Yeah right. For $10,000 we can expect to see some results real soon? Are you kidding?

All that is is a publicity stunt. Someone would have to be stupid to put their lives on the line for a paltry $10,000. Besides, that's pocketchange compared to what Simon & Schuester would pay.

Their lives on the line? Are you suggesting that Bush would have a whistleblower (no pun intended) killed? Haha.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think memyselfi's purpose in posting that story about the $10,000 reward was?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:35 PM
Their lives on the line? Are you suggesting that Bush would have a whistleblower (no pun intended) killed? Haha.

No. I'm saying that their life as they know it would be flipped upsidedown. They'd be thrusting themselves in the center of a political


Let me ask you a question. What do you think memyselfi's purpose in posting that story about the $10,000 reward was?

I'm guessing humor.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:36 PM
You really don't know any the facts of this story, do you?

If you guys had damning facts instead of innuendo and supposition, I'm sure you wouldn't hold out on me, would you?

I do have to admit that I haven't been scouring the net to find every detail of this story. I've learned most of what I "know" from Bush bashers and links they've provided. I haven't been impressed, but I admit that I'm looking for solidly incriminating evidence rather than enough gray area for me to form an anti-Bush theory.

Do I think that Gannon/Guckert was realizing a dream to be the next Mike Wallace? No. Is it likely that he was operating with a conservative agenda? Sure. Do I see anything wrong with that? No. Would I be complaining and trying to spin public opinion against President John Kerry if Gannon/Guckert was a socialist reporter lobbing softball questions in a Kerry press conference? Probably. Like I said before, I see this as a political fight not a matter of right and wrong.

Is that purposeful, you just don't want to know? Or are you just feigning ignorance and saying whatever just to protect your boy?

I could go for the former, because that's how I started out. I just didn't want to know. But then once I decided to look into it, I found the whole thing so hilarious that I couldn't help myself. Watching the Keystone like comedy of people running into themselves to insist that there is "no there, there" only adds to the comedy of this story.

I am purposefully not seeking additional information independent of these internet discussions because I don't care enough. I'm not feigning ignorance at all, I'm cutting through the spin and overreaching that you Bush critics are laying on thick. I'm also remaining open to factual evidence of wrongdoing. If we find out that Gannon/Guckert was using his access to spy on the Whitehouse and sell secrets to Al Qaeda, I'll be all over him and whoever gave him a press pass.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 08:36 PM
Their lives on the line? Are you suggesting that Bush would have a whistleblower (no pun intended) killed? Haha.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think memyselfi's purpose in posting that story about the $10,000 reward was?

Same purpose as posting this one...that is to show this story is not going away and the more people dig, the more people know, the more they tell the story, the more people know, the bigger the story gets, the more people know...

oh, and I'm posting this one to show that not all RWNJs are apologizing for W/the WH or shilling for JJGG.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42974

No substitute for real journalism

Posted: February 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

There are some lessons to be learned in the Jeff Gannon-Jim Guckert scandal – for the press and for the politicians.

Guckert is a right-wing political activist with a seriously compromised personal life. Somewhere along the line, he decided the best way he could make a name for himself or help spread his "conservative" political ideology was to pose as a journalist.


He got a boost from a conservative political organization that founded a faux news organization called GOP USA.

GOP USA arranged with Guckert to become its White House correspondent under a pseudonym, Jeff Gannon.

Once the organizers of GOP USA realized its very name betrayed its agenda, they hastily retooled a second sister outfit called Talon News. Guckert then apparently was able to continue seamlessly to get his daily White House press passes representing Talon News, despite using the phony name and despite the fact that he was leading a double life as a would-be purveyor of homosexual pornography and $1,200-per-weekend stud services on the Internet through now defunct websites such as Hotmilitarystuds.com, Militaryescorts.com and Meetlocalmen.com.

Maybe the reason the White House didn't mind looking the other way when it came to Gannon-Guckert was the fact that he was only too eager to lob softball questions at press conferences.

Who knows why this symbiotic relationship succeeded for as long as it did? Perhaps Gannon-Guckert knew something about people in the Bush administration. Or, perhaps some inside the Bush administration knew the truth about Gannon-Guckert. We may never know the full truth.

But the whole sordid affair illustrates just why a truly free and independent press is so vital to watchdogging government.

I have no doubts that the people who launched Gannon-Guckert in his ill-fated journalism career probably looked at the success of WorldNetDaily and said to themselves: "We can do this. Any one can start a website and claim to be a news operation, get access to government and use this platform to spread our ideology, befriend politicians we like and buy influence with politicians. It looks easy."

However, what the political activists pretending to be journalists never understood – and still do not understand to this day – is that you can't fool everyone.

WorldNetDaily has succeeded in reaching millions and influencing the rest of the media because it does not pretend. I founded WorldNetDaily only after working inside the news media doing everything one can possibly do for more than 25 years. WorldNetDaily's mission is to telling the truth – no matter whose ox is gored. WorldNetDaily hires only serious and experienced journalists with the highest standards of ethics – both in their professional lives and their personal lives.

That's the WorldNetDaily difference – something easily missed by political activists who want to hitch their wagons to the New Media trail blazed by WorldNetDaily and WorldNetDaily alone.

Oh, sure, there are other efforts. But I would submit to you that all of them have, unfortunately, more in common with the Gannon-Guckert media model than with the WorldNetDaily model.

There is no substitute for good journalism. There is no substitute for seeking the truth. There is no substitute for upholding high ethical standards. There is no substitute for fierce independence.

What the pretenders did backfired. They have hurt their own ideological cause more than they know. They have tarnished the image of the administration they championed. They have undermined the cause of the responsible New Media and the free press in America.

You might remember the two-year fight WorldNetDaily waged to become credentialed by the Senate Press Gallery. Meanwhile, an activist organization – pretending to be a journalistic one and ensnared in personal scandal – pranced into the White House and secured access to the president of the United States.

It raises serious security questions. It raises questions of propriety. It raises questions of judgment. And it raises questions about the role of a free press in a free society.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:42 PM
I know exactly what we're trying to find: How did an imposter news organization infiltrate the Whitehouse?

How did an inexperienced reporter working for a fledgling news organization get the opportunity to work side by side with the establishment press in the White House press room? Sounds like the egalitarianism to me.

You are spinning instead of articulating some kind of wrongdoing. That's what I mean about over-reaching.

Now if you had said that a person claiming to be a journalist but who never actually published any articles spent weeks in the White House press room and has been linked to a foreign intelligence organization, you would have my attention.

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 08:44 PM
Would I be complaining and trying to spin public opinion against President John Kerry if Gannon/Guckert was a socialist reporter lobbing softball questions in a Kerry press conference? Probably. Like I said before, I see this as a political fight not a matter of right and wrong.



It is supposed to be journalism.... :hmmm:

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:44 PM
No. I'm saying that their life as they know it would be flipped upsidedown. They'd be thrusting themselves in the center of a political

OK, I'll buy that. You are probably right that $10K wouldn't be much compared to the turmoil you'd be creating for yourself.

I'm guessing humor.

I won't buy that one though.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 08:48 PM
How did an inexperienced reporter working for a fledgling news organization get the opportunity to work side by side with the establishment press in the White House press room? Sounds like the egalitarianism to me.

You are spinning instead of articulating some kind of wrongdoing. That's what I mean about over-reaching.

Now if you had said that a person claiming to be a journalist but who never actually published any articles spent weeks in the White House press room and has been linked to a foreign intelligence organization, you would have my attention.


Man, do you need sleep or are sick or something because you are just not getting the jist of this story.

Talon News was NOT a fledgling news organization. It was a front for a political organization called GOPUSA. The 'Talon News' organization was CREATED for the sole purpose of giving the appearance of a legitimate news establishment so JJGG could gain access to the WH and not violate their rules on the WH press corps being involved in political campaigns or being political operatives.

You keep insisting that Talon News was somehow a legitimate agency and granted you have admitted to not being up on all the facts but this is a rather crucial one to keep ignoring or not grasping.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:50 PM
How did an inexperienced reporter working for a fledgling news organization get the opportunity to work side by side with the establishment press in the White House press room? Sounds like the egalitarianism to me.



That's a good angle... if I gave a **** about the establishment press. But the herd will buy that one, so go with it. It's a good angle, because it avoids what the real issue is entirely.

This isn't about an inexperienced reporter working for a fledgling news organization. This is about a male prostitute working for a fake news organization infiltrating the whitehouse and gaining access to the president. How did it happen, and what ethical lines are being crossed?

You have quite a hill to climb to even establish Talon News as a "fledgling news organization." That's a laugh riot in itself.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 08:52 PM
That's a good angle... if I gave a **** about the establishment press. But the herd will buy that one, so go with it. It's a good angle, because it avoids what the real issue is entirely.

This isn't about an inexperienced reporter working for a fledgling news organization. This is about a male prostitute working for a fake news organization infiltrating the whitehouse and gaining access to the president. You have quite a hill to climb to even establish Talon News as a "fledgling news organization." That's a laugh riot in itself.

Not to mention it has been reported that JJGG had not published an article before Talon's creation.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:53 PM
As we've seen... Ethics are only important when it's a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 08:53 PM
Same purpose as posting this one...

You will be happy to know that the Lehrer News Hour had a segment on this story tonight.

Referring back to a discussion we were having earlier in the Coulter thread you posted, the News Hour reports that criteria for access to the WH press room is "VERY VAGUE." Apparently they're so vague that the correspondent couldn't articulate them. So much for the claims that Gannon/Guckert was granted improper access.

WilliamTheIrish
02-24-2005, 08:57 PM
Just think if this happened when Clinton was in office. He'd already be impeached.

Only nine posts? That's incredible.

Nine posts to invoke penchief's Law ( The invocation of Clinton's name into an argument that has no Clinton reference whatsoever)

You've lost the argument by default.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 08:58 PM
Only nine posts? That's incredible.

Nine posts to invoke penchief's Law ( The invocation of Clinton's name into an argument that has no Clinton reference whatsoever)

You've lost the argument by default.



Whatever... The fact is: it's true...

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 08:58 PM
You will be happy to know that the Lehrer News Hour had a segment on this story tonight.

Referring back to a discussion we were having earlier in the Coulter thread you posted, the News Hour reports that criteria for access to the WH press room is "VERY VAGUE." Apparently they're so vague that the correspondent couldn't articulate them. So much for the claims that Gannon/Guckert was granted improper access.


So vague that they were sent to JJGG in his rejection letter from Capitol Hill? :hmmm:

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/02/12/6682016


To receive a hard pass, a journalist must submit a letter confirming that he or she works for a legitimate news organization, lives in the D.C. area, and needs access to the White House for regular news stories. But before the White House will send the request along to the Secret Service for a background check, the journalist must also confirm having received accreditation to cover Capitol Hill. Without Hill credentials, the White House will not forward a hard-pass application. Gannon had no such credentials.

But not because he didn't try to get them. On Dec. 12, 2003, Guckert applied to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press-credential distribution on Capitol Hill. On April 7, 2004, his application was rejected when the committee could not conclude that Talon was a legitimate, independent news organization. "We didn't recognize the publication, so we asked for information about what Talon was," Julie Davis, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun who is on the committee, previously told Salon. "We did some digging, and it became clear it was owned by the owner of GOPUSA. And we had asked for some proof of Talon's editorial independence from that group ... They didn't provide anything, so we denied their credentials, which is pretty rare," she said.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000787908

Gannon's credibility was first called into question last spring by The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press credential distribution on Capitol Hill. Julie Davis, a reporter at The Sun of Baltimore and a member of that committee, said Gannon approached the group in April 2004 seeking a Capitol Hill credential for Talon News, but he was refused.

"We asked for evidence that they were an independent news organization," Davis told E&P. "That they were not connected to a political organization, and they could not provide that, so we denied them their credential." She also said Talon News could not prove it carried paid advertising or paid circulation, two other criteria for approval.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:00 PM
You will be happy to know that the Lehrer News Hour had a segment on this story tonight.

Referring back to a discussion we were having earlier in the Coulter thread you posted, the News Hour reports that criteria for access to the WH press room is "VERY VAGUE." Apparently they're so vague that the correspondent couldn't articulate them. So much for the claims that Gannon/Guckert was granted improper access.



You really should get the facts straight for yourself instead of being jerked around so much... He was denied a permanent pass.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:03 PM
Man, do you need sleep or are sick or something because you are just not getting the jist of this story.

Talon News was NOT a fledgling news organization. It was a front for a political organization called GOPUSA. The 'Talon News' organization was CREATED for the sole purpose of giving the appearance of a legitimate news establishment so JJGG could gain access to the WH and not violate their rules on the WH press corps being involved in political campaigns or being political operatives.

You keep insisting that Talon News was somehow a legitimate agency and granted you have admitted to not being up on all the facts but this is a rather crucial one to keep ignoring or not grasping.

You just posted a Joe Farah(?) article describing GOPUSA and Talon as a clumsy attempt to emulate WorldNetDaily. That sounds more like a fledgling news organization with a political agenda (ala WND) than a political operation to me, but I guess it depends on what you mean by a political operation. If you are suggesting that this is something like the brainchild of Karl Rove and that it was run out of the White House, then I guess you have some footwork to do to make your case.

I actually think I must be up on the facts concerning the "legitimacy" of Talon News since you aren't telling me anything I don't already know.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:07 PM
That's a good angle... if I gave a **** about the establishment press. But the herd will buy that one, so go with it. It's a good angle, because it avoids what the real issue is entirely.

This isn't about an inexperienced reporter working for a fledgling news organization. This is about a male prostitute working for a fake news organization infiltrating the whitehouse and gaining access to the president. How did it happen, and what ethical lines are being crossed?

You have quite a hill to climb to even establish Talon News as a "fledgling news organization." That's a laugh riot in itself.

I don't have a hill to climb. I'm waiting for you to climb your hill and show how Talon was something improper or illegal. You just keep using biased adjectives to plaster over the fact that you don't have anything to pin on anyone with respect to the legitimacy issue. Legitimacy is really in the eye of the beholder here IMO.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:08 PM
Not to mention it has been reported that JJGG had not published an article before Talon's creation.

And what does that prove other than this guy is a rookie?

WilliamTheIrish
02-24-2005, 09:08 PM
Whatever... The fact is: it's true...


Weak.

There's plenty to this story. The reference to WWHHICDI? is bullshit and a waste of my time.

But lap it up all you want....

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:10 PM
So vague that they were sent to JJGG in his rejection letter from Capitol Hill? :hmmm:

Capitol Hill has a different set of criteria. *sheesh* You were accusing me of not knowing what's going on in this story? :shake:

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 09:15 PM
You just posted a Joe Farah(?) article describing GOPUSA and Talon as a clumsy attempt to emulate WorldNetDaily. That sounds more like a fledgling news organization with a political agenda (ala WND) than a political operation to me, but I guess it depends on what you mean by a political operation. If you are suggesting that this is something like the brainchild of Karl Rove and that it was run out of the White House, then I guess you have some footwork to do to make your case.

I actually think I must be up on the facts concerning the "legitimacy" of Talon News since you aren't telling me anything I don't already know.

I'm done arguing with you. You admitttedly claim to have not read up on the story. I've posted links to the story from LW, RW, and moderate press...all saying pretty much the same thing. I've posted quotes from people who decided the Talon agency was legit or not (not I) but those overseeing the credential process, and I've posted enough info on the board that for someone to not know the facts by now they are choosing to be an ignorant lambs for the WH or they can't fuggin read.

Regardless, here is something I added to a previous post just to give you one last bit of background on the topic. Not that it will matter...you are so dug in there is no backin down for you now and that is a shame. I expect it from a few other morons on the board, not you.

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/02/12/6682016


To receive a hard pass, a journalist must submit a letter confirming that he or she works for a legitimate news organization, lives in the D.C. area, and needs access to the White House for regular news stories. But before the White House will send the request along to the Secret Service for a background check, the journalist must also confirm having received accreditation to cover Capitol Hill. Without Hill credentials, the White House will not forward a hard-pass application. Gannon had no such credentials.

But not because he didn't try to get them. On Dec. 12, 2003, Guckert applied to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press-credential distribution on Capitol Hill. On April 7, 2004, his application was rejected when the committee could not conclude that Talon was a legitimate, independent news organization. "We didn't recognize the publication, so we asked for information about what Talon was," Julie Davis, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun who is on the committee, previously told Salon. "We did some digging, and it became clear it was owned by the owner of GOPUSA. And we had asked for some proof of Talon's editorial independence from that group ... They didn't provide anything, so we denied their credentials, which is pretty rare," she said.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000787908

Gannon's credibility was first called into question last spring by The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press credential distribution on Capitol Hill. Julie Davis, a reporter at The Sun of Baltimore and a member of that committee, said Gannon approached the group in April 2004 seeking a Capitol Hill credential for Talon News, but he was refused.

"We asked for evidence that they were an independent news organization," Davis told E&P. "That they were not connected to a political organization, and they could not provide that, so we denied them their credential." She also said Talon News could not prove it carried paid advertising or paid circulation, two other criteria for approval.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:17 PM
You really should get the facts straight for yourself instead of being jerked around so much... He was denied a permanent pass.

I didn't know that. That's why I asked if he's applied earlier in this thread. I'll assume that you are right about this, but it is meaningless in this context. The pass he did have (i.e. the daily pass) is the one that the Lehrer correspondent was talking about when he said the criteria were "very vague." I realize that there are more well defined criteria, worked out between the White House and the establishment press agencies, for permanent passes. My understanding is that one of the criteria for a permanent pass is that the applicant already have a Capital Hill pass. Since Gannon/Guckert didn't have such a pass, it's not surprising he was denied a permanent White House pass.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 09:18 PM
Capitol Hill has a different set of criteria. *sheesh* You were accusing me of not knowing what's going on in this story? :shake:

Uh, again journalists usually get WH credentials after they've bee granted CH credentials.

memyselfI
02-24-2005, 09:20 PM
I didn't know that. That's why I asked if he's applied earlier in this thread. I'll assume that you are right about this, but it is meaningless in this context. The pass he did have (i.e. the daily pass) is the one that the Lehrer correspondent was talking about when he said the criteria were "very vague." I realize that there are more well defined criteria, worked out between the White House and the establishment press agencies, for permanent passes. My understanding is that one of the criteria for a permanent pass is that the applicant already have a Capital Hill pass. Since Gannon/Guckert didn't have such a pass, it's not surprising he was denied a permanent White House pass.

uh, he was not able to GET a permanent pass so the way around it was to give him a 'daily' pass for TWO YEARS.

Why couldn't he get a permanent pass? Because his organization did not meet the criteria (as posted before) and he likely would not have survived the background check.

I keep thinking a light bulb will go off for you at some point...

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:31 PM
I keep thinking a light bulb will go off for you at some point...



Same here... At least it did for Logical, so some of the smart people are at least using their heads.

Rausch
02-24-2005, 09:35 PM
Bush pretty much presents himself as Putin's whipping boy in a press conference today, after kissing frog and German azz the last three days, and the libs have nothing better to talk about than why some fruitcake got a press pass?...

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:36 PM
I'm done arguing with you. You admitttedly claim to have not read up on the story. I've posted links to the story from LW, RW, and moderate press...all saying pretty much the same thing. I've posted quotes from people who decided the Talon agency was legit or not (not I) but those overseeing the credential process, and I've posted enough info on the board that for someone to not know the facts by now they are choosing to be an ignorant lambs for the President or they can't fuggin read.

What I'm admitting is that I'm not independently going out and searching for additional information on my own initiative (and I'm not likely to start any time soon). When you post something as proof of a point you are trying to make, I'm giving it a fair shake. The problem is that you seem to think that when you find something posted somewhere that shares your OPINION, that it acts as evidence that your OPINION is TRUTH. It doesn't. It just proves that there are others who are willing to use the same characterizations and jump to similar conclusions. I'm looking for facts. For example, the AmericaBlog.org guy who actually produced Gannon/Guckert invoices and cached copies of websites was dealing with facts. They could have been fabricated (although I'm not saying they were), but it was factual support as opposed to the crap you are producing.

Regardless, here is something I added to a previous post just to give you one last bit of background on the topic. Not that it will matter...you are so dug in there is no backin down for you now and that is a shame. I expect it from a few other morons on the board, not you.

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/02/12/6682016


To receive a hard pass, a journalist must submit a letter confirming that he or she works for a legitimate news organization, lives in the D.C. area, and needs access to the White House for regular news stories. But before the White House will send the request along to the Secret Service for a background check, the journalist must also confirm having received accreditation to cover Capitol Hill. Without Hill credentials, the White House will not forward a hard-pass application. Gannon had no such credentials.

But not because he didn't try to get them. On Dec. 12, 2003, Guckert applied to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press-credential distribution on Capitol Hill. On April 7, 2004, his application was rejected when the committee could not conclude that Talon was a legitimate, independent news organization. "We didn't recognize the publication, so we asked for information about what Talon was," Julie Davis, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun who is on the committee, previously told Salon. "We did some digging, and it became clear it was owned by the owner of GOPUSA. And we had asked for some proof of Talon's editorial independence from that group ... They didn't provide anything, so we denied their credentials, which is pretty rare," she said.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000787908

Gannon's credibility was first called into question last spring by The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press credential distribution on Capitol Hill. Julie Davis, a reporter at The Sun of Baltimore and a member of that committee, said Gannon approached the group in April 2004 seeking a Capitol Hill credential for Talon News, but he was refused.

"We asked for evidence that they were an independent news organization," Davis told E&P. "That they were not connected to a political organization, and they could not provide that, so we denied them their credential." She also said Talon News could not prove it carried paid advertising or paid circulation, two other criteria for approval.

He wasn't admitted to the White House with a hard pass. He was using a day pass which has different, presumably far more lax, much more vague (according to the Lehrer News Hour) criteria.

The Standing Committee of Correspondents (aka the establishment press) also denied WorldNetDaily (a news organization that you've cited in this very thread) access for 2 years or so before they finally granted them a pass. That's the kind of political filter that I think is inappropriate, but that's the way they do business. Anyone who looks at WND and says they aren't a news organization is crazy. They are a news organization with a viewpoint, but they are a news organization nonetheless. What changed after 2 years that make WND suddenly more worthy?

The fact that the Standing Committee of Correspondents denied Gannon/Guckert just means they were looking down their noses at him and his fledgling agency. Big deal. Fortunately for him, daily passes at the White House aren't as tough to get.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:38 PM
Uh, again journalists usually get WH credentials after they've bee granted CH credentials.

You are confusing hard passes with daily passes again. Pay attention.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:40 PM
Fortunately for him, daily passes at the White House aren't as tough to get.



Tell that to Maureen Dowd:


Published on Thursday, February 17, 2005 by the New York Times
Bush's Barberini Faun
by Maureen Dowd

I am very impressed with James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon.

How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts .com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?

Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?

It's hard to believe the White House could hit rock bottom on credibility again, but it has, in a bizarre maelstrom that plays like a dark comedy. How does it credential a man with a double life and a secret past?

"Jeff Gannon" was waved into the press room nearly every day for two years as the conservative correspondent for two political Web sites operated by a wealthy Texas Republican. Scott McClellan often called on the pseudoreporter for softball questions.

Howard Kurtz reported in The Washington Post yesterday that although Mr. Guckert had denied launching the provocative Web sites - one described him as " 'military, muscular, masculine and discrete' (sic)" - a Web designer in California said "that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request."

And The Wilmington News-Journal in Delaware reported that Mr. Guckert was delinquent in $20,700 in personal income tax from 1991 to 1994.

I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.

In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.

Mr. McClellan shrugged this off to Editor & Publisher magazine, oddly noting, "People use aliases all the time in life, from journalists to actors."

I know the F.B.I. computers don't work, but this is ridiculous. After getting gobsmacked by the louche sagas of Mr. Guckert and Bernard Kerik, the White House vetters should consider adding someone with some blogging experience.

Does the Bush team love everything military so much that even a military-stud Web site is a recommendation?

Or maybe Gannon/Guckert's willingness to shill free for the White House, even on gay issues, was endearing. One of his stories mocked John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" with the headline "Kerry Could Become First Gay President."

With the Bushies, if you're their friend, anything goes. If you're their critic, nothing goes. They're waging a jihad against journalists - buying them off so they'll promote administration programs, trying to put them in jail for doing their jobs and replacing them with ringers.

At last month's press conference, Jeff Gannon asked Mr. Bush how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." But Bush officials have divorced themselves from reality.

They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.

Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy. It's worse than hating the press. It's an attempt to reinvent it.

Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995 after having served as a correspondent in the paper's Washington bureau since 1986. She has covered four presidential campaigns and served as White House correspondent. She also wrote a column, "On Washington," for The New York Times Magazine.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:41 PM
Same here... At least it did for Logical, so some of the smart people are at least using their heads.

I suspect that Logical is just suggesting a course of action that minimizes political fallout. I'm not sure he agrees with you that something improper occured. The only way that this matters is politically. It's not an issue of right and wrong.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:42 PM
It's not an issue of right and wrong.


Whatever. There is absolutely an ethical issue here.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 09:47 PM
Weak.

There's plenty to this story. The reference to WWHHICDI? is bullshit and a waste of my time.

But lap it up all you want....



Whatever. The fact is, we all know that the people who have dug in on this ones are the same people who were throwing the biggest stones at Clinton. Citing some stupid Penchief law doesn't make anybody lose this argument any more or less... It just points out what is obvious. We all know that if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be a HUGE story.

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 09:54 PM
I have no idea how this cannot be seen as an ethical issue.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 09:55 PM
Tell that to Maureen Dowd:



Well since you guys have already brought Clinton into the discussion, where was the outrage when Paul Sperry (then a reporter for Investor's Business Daily) was banned from the White House for asking difficult questions in 1999?

I see nothing wrong with keeping Maureen Dowd hung up in the process (and out of the White House press room) indefinitely. If her buddies at the NYTimes want to make a stink about it then that is their perogative. Don't you get it yet? It's political, it's not about right and wrong. The White House is free to grant access as they see fit and can change the rules for access at any time, subject only to the political consequences of doing so. You and memyselfi are trying to apply political consequences and I'm speaking up to make sure you don't do it unopposed here in our little corner of the political universe. You have nothing concrete so you use innuendo and biased language. I'm just pointing out that when you eliminate that stuff, there's nothing left behind but a minor political squabble.

WilliamTheIrish
02-24-2005, 09:56 PM
Tell that to Maureen Dowd:


Published on Thursday, February 17, 2005 by the New York Times
Bush's Barberini Faun
by Maureen Dowd .

Chopped for brevity..

Tell Maureen to talk to an actual WH reporter.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110488&page=12&pp=15

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050210/en_bpiep/looseisittooeasytogetintothewhpress


NEW YORK In the wake of revelations about ex-reporter Jeff Gannon, veteran White House correspondents told E&P today they could not recall another instance of a credentialed reporter using an alias allowed on that beat.



White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan acknowledged this morning that he knew Talon News reporter Jeff Gannon was really James Guckert.


Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), meanwhile, asked McClellan today to immediately release documents to my office relating to the White House press credentials of James D. Guckert, a.k.a. Jeff Gannon.


Several White House reported told E&P they are concerned that Gannons ability to get into briefings, and even ask President Bush (news - web sites) a question two weeks ago, suggests that it may be too easy for reporters to gain admission to the James S. Brady Briefing Room despite being from a purely partisan or bogus news organization.


"Virtually no one is not allowed in," said Gwen Flanders, a USA Today editor who oversees the paper's White House reporters. "Getting that [day] pass is a simple matter of passing a background check and working for a news organization." But she added that there is not as much scrutiny of the legitimacy of the news organizations: "Who is in the position to say who is not legitimate?"


Bruce Bartlett, a syndicated columnist and former White House staffer in the Reagan administration's Office of Policy Development, took the concern a step further, claiming the use of fake names could open the door to terrorists. "Some terrorist could invent some publication and put through their name and get in," he said. "It raises the question of whether it is appropriate for the White House Press Office to clear people who are operating under aliases."


White House Press officials did not respond to several calls for comment. Most White House reporters who spoke with E&P declined to comment on Gannon's work, other than to say he was known to be partisan.


"There was a 'there goes Jeff again' attitude among many in the room," said Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers, who often sat next to Gannon at press briefings but rarely spoke with him. "He was often agitated by other's questions. He seemed wound up pretty tight at times."


But Herman, who has covered the White House on and off since 2001, said there are a number of reporters who show up from news organizations he's never heard of or offer questions as partisan as Gannon's, although in their cases, mostly likely, they are working under their real names. "There are times in that briefing room where I am hard-pressed to tell you who they are working for or who sees their reporting," Herman said.


"Every day there are a whole bunch of people there I have never seen, and their questions make you wonder who they are representing," said Judy Keen, a USA Today White House reporter whose time there dates to 1992. "It is not as rigid and structured as people might think."


Several reporters pointed to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, who has been attending press events through a daily press pass for several years. Some say he is as partisan as Gannon in his questions, but often with a left-leaning approach. One reporter called him "the ideological flip-side of Gannon."


Most recently, Mokhiber gained notice during a McClellan press briefing on Feb. 1 by asking the press secretary if Bush believed in the Sixth Commandment -- thou shalt not kill -- and if so, how could he support the Iraq (news - web sites) War? McClellan did not respond to the question.


Mokhiber, reached by E&P, did not want to comment on his work, but explained that his print publication comes out 48 times per year and circulates to about 500 people, while his Web site also offers news. He said he was denied access to the White House for about four months in 2001 and told only that it was for security reasons. He also said he requested, but was denied, a long-term pass, called a "hard pass".


Many White House reporters who spoke with E&P were reluctant to bar access to anyone with a legitimate interest in news coverage but acknowledged that questions like those from Gannon and Mokhiber might be out of place.


"There is a certain amount of consternation among reporters from the mainstream media about some people coming in to the briefing room and using it as a platform," said Richard Stevenson of The New York Times, who has covered the White House for more than two years. "I don't think it is good for our profession to have the briefing room hijacked."

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 09:57 PM
So you are fine with disemboweling real journalism in the White House. I can't believe this post.

WilliamTheIrish
02-24-2005, 10:04 PM
Whatever. The fact is, we all know that the people who have dug in on this ones are the same people who were throwing the biggest stones at Clinton. Citing some stupid Penchief law doesn't make anybody lose this argument any more or less... It just points out what is obvious. We all know that if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be a HUGE story.

Whatever. I haven't 'dug in' on a damned thing. I think it's a huge story.

But I cannot stand crying candy asses that wanna tell me "If Clinton had done this..balh, blah, blah... it adds zero to the conversation.

Not that there's going to be great debate here to begin with...but, lap it up.

Oh, it's a great law. Cause I made it.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 10:04 PM
Whatever. There is absolutely an ethical issue here.

Well I guess if there is a code of ethics for members of the National News Media Society (a fictional organization used for illustrative purposes only) then they can refuse to admit Gannon/Guckert to their club.

Why would this be an issue of ethics? Is there an ethical issue involved in choosing which reporter to call on at a press conference since there isn't enough time to call on them all? Is there an ethical issue involved when a politician chooses which citizens at a townhall meeting to take questions from since there isn't time to let them all take their shot? This isn't an ethics issue.

Choosing whether to admit Gannon/Guckert was a political issue (on the assumption that the WH knew that he was a friendly). Deciding how much credibility the guy has is up to each individual consumer of his news product (with the help of media watchdog organizations and bloggers among others). Whether to admit him into the Journalism Hall of Fame (another fictional organization) is a question for the JHOF voters and if they think he doesn't live up to their code of ethics then they can refuse to vote him in.

WilliamTheIrish
02-24-2005, 10:06 PM
So you are fine with disemboweling real journalism in the White House. I can't believe this post.

You talking to me?

If so, hell no I'm not. I'm just pointing out that according to the USA Today Supervisior of White House Staff, there are a lot of people in there that shouldn't be.

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 10:10 PM
You talking to me?

If so, hell no I'm not. I'm just pointing out that according to the USA Today Supervisior of White House Staff, there are a lot of people in there that shouldn't be.
No, the post before yours...

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 10:10 PM
Well I guess if there is a code of ethics for members of the National News Media Society (a fictional organization used for illustrative purposes only) then they can refuse to admit Gannon/Guckert to their club.

Why would this be an issue of ethics? Is there an ethical issue involved in choosing which reporter to call on at a press conference since there isn't enough time to call on them all? Is there an ethical issue involved when a politician chooses which citizens at a townhall meeting to take questions from since there isn't time to let them all take their shot? This isn't an ethics issue.

Choosing whether to admit Gannon/Guckert was a political issue (on the assumption that the WH knew that he was a friendly). Deciding how much credibility the guy has is up to each individual consumer of his news product (with the help of media watchdog organizations and bloggers among others). Whether to admit him into the Journalism Hall of Fame (another fictional organization) is a question for the JHOF voters and if they think he doesn't live up to their code of ethics then they can refuse to vote him in.
So what you have been saying is there is that the White House is no place for objective journalism.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 10:11 PM
So you are fine with disemboweling real journalism in the White House. I can't believe this post.

To which post are you referring? I don't think there is any danger of "disemboweling" any "real" journalism at the White House. But I'll give you 6.5 points for colorful and interesting language. Are you a budding journalist?

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 10:14 PM
To which post are you referring? I don't think there is any danger of "disemboweling" any "real" journalism at the White House. But I'll give you 6.5 points for colorful and interesting language. Are you a budding journalist?
I have an intrest in media...

Don't you get it yet? It's political, it's not about right and wrong.

Where is the objectivity?

patteeu
02-24-2005, 10:19 PM
So what you have been saying is there is that the White House is no place for objective journalism.

Not at all. You act as though you don't understand that the news media is a very powerful force. If the White House were to push too far toward a compliant press corps, the objective news media (along with the antagonistic news media) would crucify them politically. If, OTOH, a news organization gets too outrageously antagonistic, the White House will ban them and refuse to deal with them and the public will be sympathetic. The pendulum can't swing too far in either direction because there are political checks and balances at work.

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 10:19 PM
Gannongate: It's worse than you think
Bush's press office gave Jim Guckert access, even knowing his only credentials were from the blatantly partisan group GOPUSA.

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

printe-mail

Feb. 23, 2005 | When the press first raised questions about why Jim Guckert had been awarded access to the White House press room for two years running while he worked for Talon News, critics charged that Talon, with its amateurish standards and close working ties to Republican activists, did not qualify as a legitimate news organization. It turns out the truth is even stranger: Guckert was waved into the White House while working for an even more blatantly partisan organization, GOPUSA.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan originally told reporters that Guckert was properly allowed into press briefings because he worked for an outlet that "published regularly." But that's when the questions were about Talon. More recently McClellan offered up a new rationale. Asked by Editor and Publisher magazine how the decision was made to allow a GOPUSA correspondent in, McClellan said, "The staff assistant went to verify that the news organization existed." (Emphasis added.)

That, apparently, was the lone criterion the press office used when Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) approached it in February 2003 seeking a pass for White House briefings. Not yet working for Republican-friendly Talon News, which came into existence in April 2003, Guckert, using an alias and with no journalism experience whatsoever, was writing on a voluntary basis for a Web site dedicated to promoting Republican issues. To determine whether Guckert would gain entrance to the press room, normally reserved for professional journalists working for legitimate, recognized and independent news organizations, the press office simply logged on to the Internet and confirmed that GOPUSA "existed," and then quickly approved Guckert's access. In a White House obsessed, at least publicly, with security and where journalists cannot even move between the White House and the nearby Old Executive Building without a personal escort, Guckert's lenient treatment was likely unprecedented.

Yet, if there's one other person who did manage to receive the same type of kid-glove treatment from the White House press office, it was Guckert's boss at GOPUSA and later at Talon News, Bobby Eberle. A Texas-based Republican activist and a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2000, Eberle founded Talon News after he became concerned that the name GOPUSA might appear to have a "built-in bias." With no journalism background, he too was able to secure a White House press pass, in early 2003, on the strength of representing GOPUSA, dedicated to "spreading the conservative message throughout America."

This is not how the White House press office has traditionally worked. "When I was there we didn't let political operatives in. It was completely contrary to what the press room should be used for," says Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary to President Clinton during his second term. Asked what would have happened if a reporter from a clearly partisan operation, say "Democrats Today," had requested a White House press pass, Lockhart said that if the chief of the Democratic National Committee were attending an event at the White House, then perhaps the Democrats Today reporter might be allowed in for that one day. "But to be admitted as a reporter and sit in a chair and act like a reporter" for months on end the way Guckert did? "No," said Lockhart, "that's not within the realm of what [is] proper."

Guckert and Eberle remain at the center of the scandal. When liberal bloggers revealed that Guckert, who posed reliably friendly questions to administration officials, had recently offered his services online as a gay male escort, the questions for the White House only became more uncomfortable.

Guckert first came to national attention when he asked President Bush a question at his Jan. 26 press conference. Guckert's query, in which he ridiculed Democratic leaders for having "divorced themselves from reality," was what initially raised the ire of liberals. It was not how an openly Republican partisan got inside the White House press room, because partisans have been there for years. Lockhart recalls having been confronted with a similar question of White House access regarding veteran Baltimore, Md., radio host Lester Kinsolving, who for decades has pitched eccentric, long-winded and usually conservative-leaning questions inside the briefing room. (Kinsolving is currently recuperating from triple-bypass surgery.) Lockhart thought it was inequitable that Kinsolving was virtually the only local radio show host with daily access. "The issue got kicked up to my level. I thought it was fundamentally unfair, and it was clear that he was an annoyance to everyone in the room. And frankly we should have shut him down. But I knew if we kicked him out it would be a big story with the right-wing press, and I didn't need that."

Unlike Guckert, though, Kinsolving has an authentic background in journalism, having worked for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Indianapolis Star. Talon's defenders suggest that it too is a legitimate news outlet. But providing some insight into how it operates, Eberle told the New York Times last week that he rarely monitored Guckert's White House work. "Jeff did his thing. I did my thing," Eberle said. In other words, it appears that Guckert, who often cut and pasted White House press releases and posted them on Talon as "news," did not even have an editor. As Media Matters for America noted, Talon "apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers."

Just how blatantly the White House press office looked the other way in regard to Guckert and his dubious status as a legitimate reporter comes into stark relief when examining his attempt to secure a similar press pass to cover Capitol Hill. Guckert submitted his application in December 2003 to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a press group in charge of handing out credentials. In April 2004, the committee denied Guckert's request. Writing to Guckert, committee chairman Jim Drinkard outlined three clear deficiencies in Guckert's application:

1) "Committee guidelines require that on-line publications 'must charge a market rate fee for subscription or access, or carry paid advertising at current market rates.' You have not demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction that Talon News has any paid subscribers, that paid client newspapers publish Talon News stories, or that it is supported by advertising."

2) "The application for accreditation to the press galleries states that 'members of the press shall not engage in lobbying or paid advertising, publicity, promotion, work for any individual, political party, corporation, organization, or agency of the Federal Government.' Talon News has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that there is a separation from GOPUSA."

3) "Gallery rules and the application state that the principal income of correspondents must be obtained from news correspondence intended for publication in newspapers or news services. The committee feels that paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet the intent of the rule."

The White House, in contrast, said that as long as Talon News or GOPUSA "existed," Guckert was free to attend its press briefings. Yet, in the past, a reporter seeking a permanent White House press pass has had to first secure credentials to cover Capitol Hill. Without those, the White House would not submit the application for a background check. But even though Guckert failed to secure Capitol Hill credentials, the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Those passes are designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use by reporters who flunk the Capitol Hill test.

To obtain a day pass during the Clinton administration, a reporter "had to make the case as to why that day was unique and why [he] had to cover the White House from inside the gates instead of outside," Lockhart says.

So the mystery remains: How did Guckert, with absolutely no journalism background and working for a phony news organization, manage to adopt the day-pass system as his own while sidestepping a thorough background check that might have detected his sordid past? That's the central question the White House refuses to address. And like its initial explanation that Guckert received his press pass the same way other journalists do, the notion first put out by White House officials that they knew little or nothing about GOPUSA/Talon News, its correspondent Guckert or its founder Eberle has also melted away. Instead, we now know, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer personally spoke with Eberle about GOPUSA, so concerned was Fleischer that it was not an independent organization. (Eberle convinced Fleischer that it was.) Additionally, Guckert attended the invitation-only White House press Christmas parties in 2003 and 2004, and last holiday season, in a personal posting on GOPUSA, Eberle thanked Karl Rove for his "assistance, guidance, and friendship."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.

patteeu
02-24-2005, 10:21 PM
I have an intrest in media...

Cool.

Don't you get it yet? It's political, it's not about right and wrong.

Where is the objectivity?

I wasn't trying to come across as a jerk with my "budding journalist" comment, but when I re-read it I could see how it might have come across that way. :)

patteeu
02-24-2005, 10:24 PM
Gannongate: It's worse than you think.

And this article is submitted for the purpose of proving what? Memyselfi has already posted a plethora of evidence that there are people out there who share some of these same opinions. So what? The next step in advancing this scandal has to be finding something illegal or improper, not just finding another person who doesn't like what happened.

|Zach|
02-24-2005, 10:29 PM
And this article is submitted for the purpose of proving what? Memyselfi has already posted a plethora of evidence that there are people out there who share some of these same opinions. So what? The next step in advancing this scandal has to be finding something illegal or improper, not just finding another person who doesn't like what happened.
http://www.jonschallert.com/shared/content_objects/page_objects/blinders.jpg

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 10:33 PM
Same here... At least it did for Logical, so some of the smart people are at least using their heads.

Didn't we already establish that you have no idea what makes a news story?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 10:59 PM
Didn't we already establish that you have no idea what makes a news story?



Whatever you say. Just don't breathe on me.

Rausch
02-24-2005, 11:01 PM
Didn't we already establish that you have no idea what makes a news story?

That said, what do you think about GWB putting his neck out there stating Putin's a man of his word?

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:03 PM
He hasn't gotten the talking points on that one yet...

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 11:12 PM
That said, what do you think about GWB putting his neck out there stating Putin's a man of his word?

Politics as usual.

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 11:13 PM
Whatever you say. Just don't breathe on me.

FTR It was whatever you said.

Don't breathe on me? WTF is that?

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 11:30 PM
Here you go moonbats:

The story is so dead, Gannon is now having to pimp himself.

http://www.jeffgannon.com/


Bruised but not broken

I'm baaaaaaack! If you thought I was going to slink away - then you don't know much about me. Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I've emerged from the crucible, I'm stronger than before.

Despite all the pleas from the Left to go over to the 'dark side' and expose the 'corrupt Bush administration' simply isn't going to happen. My faith and my ideology are rock solid.

Still, the last few weeks have been difficult for my family and my associates. To them I offer my apology and gratitude for their support.

In regard to the allegations about my personal life, I have been advised by my attorneys not to comment on any of the details pending the outcome of any possible legal action I might pursue. Therefore, I won't be discussing any of that stuff here.



His first article has a pretty tastless headline considering the good doctor's recent passing:



Fear and Loathing in the Press Room

http://www.jeffgannon.com/fear_and_loathing_in_the_press_r.htm

But--hey, maybe he can get this thing to move.

Taco John
02-24-2005, 11:52 PM
Here you go moonbats:

The story is so dead, Gannon is now having to pimp himself.

http://www.jeffgannon.com/


Bruised but not broken

I'm baaaaaaack! If you thought I was going to slink away - then you don't know much about me. Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I've emerged from the crucible, I'm stronger than before.

Despite all the pleas from the Left to go over to the 'dark side' and expose the 'corrupt Bush administration' simply isn't going to happen. My faith and my ideology are rock solid.

Still, the last few weeks have been difficult for my family and my associates. To them I offer my apology and gratitude for their support.

In regard to the allegations about my personal life, I have been advised by my attorneys not to comment on any of the details pending the outcome of any possible legal action I might pursue. Therefore, I won't be discussing any of that stuff here.



His first article has a pretty tastless headline considering the good doctor's recent passing:



Fear and Loathing in the Press Room

http://www.jeffgannon.com/fear_and_loathing_in_the_press_r.htm

But--hey, maybe he can get this thing to move.



We already posted that you moron...

Michael Michigan
02-24-2005, 11:57 PM
We already posted that you moron...


Moron?

You really aren't very good at this--are you?

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:07 AM
No. I'm not very keen on the talents of being a media wing tard.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:09 AM
Great! Now I'm never going to get invited to Crossfire.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:13 AM
Check it out... He's got his own blog now!

ROFL

http://www.jeffgannon.com/

Okay--I see where you posted it, and then lampooned it.

Just an FYI:

This could actually help the story along. It looks as if he is going to actively pursue publicity.

A lesser man would now point out how they must not have taught this at PR summer camp and that only a PR hack would not pick up on this fact.

But I'll leave that to someone else.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:15 AM
Great! Now I'm never going to get invited to Crossfire.


CNN axed that show.


Should I call you a moron?

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:17 AM
Eh... There's a difference between real PR and the PR that is clogging up the pipes in this day and age. It's the difference between information and propoganda.

Being called a hack by a cog in the machine is really hurtful to me.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:19 AM
CNN axed that show.


Should I call you a moron?



It's unfortunate that you didn't catch the sarcasm there... But being a text medium, that's bound to happen.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:23 AM
Eh... There's a difference between real PR and the PR that is clogging up the pipes in this day and age. It's the difference between information and propoganda.

Being called a hack by a cog in the machine is really hurtful to me.

I noted that a lesser man would have said that. You must have missed that.


"But being a text medium, that's bound to happen."

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:24 AM
Okay--I see where you posted it, and then lampooned it.

Just an FYI:

This could actually help the story along. It looks as if he is going to actively pursue publicity.

A lesser man would now point out how they must not have taught this at PR summer camp and that only a PR hack would not pick up on this fact.

But I'll leave that to someone else.



Re-reading this... You said this like you were saying something that I didn't already know... Did you forgot which side I've taken on this? I think this thing has got wheels. A whitehouse scandal with a gay prostitute involved!? Are you kidding me? There is MONEY to be made there. Of course Jeff is going to actively pursue publicity. He just hit the freaking Jackpot!

Keep saying that this thing is going away. Go ahead.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:24 AM
I noted that a lesser man would have said that. You must have missed that.


"But being a text medium, that's bound to happen."



Silly me. I guess that's what I get for reading between the lines. I guess I'm not very good at this.

|Zach|
02-25-2005, 12:27 AM
I don't care what you guys say. I am great at this.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:28 AM
Re-reading this... You said this like you were saying something that I didn't already know... Did you forgot which side I've taken on this? I think this thing has got wheels. A whitehouse scandal with a gay prostitute involved!? Are you kidding me? There is MONEY to be made there. Of course Jeff is going to actively pursue publicity. He just hit the freaking Jackpot!

Keep saying that this thing is going away. Go ahead.

No--I get which side you are on. I just note that you know little about what drives news cycles.

The fact that you lampooned his blog proves that quite well.

It's a big score for your side and you are clueless.

I point that out and you call me a moron.

You've still got absolutely nothing without a big name. It's still in the moonbat stage, and will never move a news cycle without one.

Count on it.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:29 AM
I guess I'm not very good at this.

Admitting it is the first step to recovery.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:30 AM
I don't care what you guys say. I am great at this.

I've always believed in you Zach.

Get your ass to DC and get a day pass.

:)

|Zach|
02-25-2005, 12:32 AM
I've always believed in you Zach.

Get your ass to DC and get a day pass.

:)
I ask for the 2 year version.

Although the domains I own are a lot less incriminating.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:36 AM
I ask for the 2 year version.

Although the domains I own are a lot less incriminating.

So you want the "hard" pass?

Go grab that domain. Then you may have something.

;)

|Zach|
02-25-2005, 12:38 AM
So you want the "hard" pass?

Go grab that domain. Then you may have something.

;)

From all that guy did to get a soft one I dont even wanna know what you have to do to get a hard one... :hmmm: :Lin:

I am going to put this out there for public record...these are the domains I own...

www.zachishere.com
www.lunarbowl.com
www.drinkspringfield.net
www.football-boards.net

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:40 AM
No--I get which side you are on. I just note that you know little about what drives news cycles.

The fact that you lampooned his blog proves that quite well.

It's a big score for your side and you are clueless.

I point that out and you call me a moron.

Dude, you're a moron because you think you've pointed out some huge revelation. Lampooning his blog doesn't mean that anyone missed the fact that this story isn't going away anytime soon.



You've still got absolutely nothing without a big name. It's still in the moonbat stage, and will never move a news cycle without one.

Count on it.


You're right. I guess we'll see what big names end up getting presented to Bush this morning...

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:41 AM
From all that guy did to get a soft one I dont even wanna know what you have to do to get a hard one... :hmmm: :Lin:

I am going to put this out there for public record...these are the domains I own...

www.zachishere.com
www.lunarbowl.com
www.drinkspringfield.net
www.football-boards.net



You're such a pimp... ;)

|Zach|
02-25-2005, 12:43 AM
You're such a pimp... ;)
I know man, start talking about how many domains you own at a party and hot busty girls just throw themselves at you.

I can't remember faces let alone names.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:43 AM
Dude, you're a moron because you think you've pointed out some huge revelation. Lampooning his blog doesn't mean that anyone missed the fact that this story isn't going away.

Going away? It's nowhere right now. It has to actually make a splash before it can "go away."






You're right. I guess we'll see what big names end up getting presented to Bush this morning...

This morning? The news cycle started three hours ago.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:45 AM
This morning? The news cycle started three hours ago.




http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=127

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:51 AM
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=127

Yes, I saw that earlier.

You believe this will do what?

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 12:55 AM
Make a bold prediction.



C'mon--tell me what happens when Durbin's letter is "delivered."

Taco John
02-25-2005, 12:59 AM
You believe this will do what?



Give a bunch of people something to write about... Which will then give a bunch of people something to write about... Rinse and repeat until all the money that can be wrung out of this thing is...

Taco John
02-25-2005, 01:02 AM
Make a bold prediction.



C'mon--tell me what happens when Durbin's letter is "delivered."




http://www.unifiedftheory.com/psychic.jpg



I see a bunch of wankers at their keyboards in a war with a bunch of other wankers. Bank on it!

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 01:03 AM
Give a bunch of people something to write about... Which will then give a bunch of people something to write about... Rinse and repeat until all the money that can be wrung out of this thing is...

So--nothing. No scandal of any kind of proportion?

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 01:05 AM
I see a bunch of wankers at their keyboards in a war with a bunch of other wankers. Bank on it!

We finally agree.

No big story, just the mouth breathers.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 02:15 AM
We finally agree.

No big story, just the mouth breathers.



Since when did you start disparaging the power of New Media?

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 06:21 AM
The fact that the Standing Committee of Correspondents denied Gannon/Guckert just means they were looking down their noses at him and his fledgling agency. Big deal. Fortunately for him, daily passes at the White House aren't as tough to get.

The fact that you are still insisting Talon was a 'fledgling agency', and not a front for a political organization, and was legit is evidence enough that you are now arguing to save face and not because you really believe it.

So carry on.

patteeu
02-25-2005, 07:39 AM
The fact that you are still insisting Talon was a 'fledgling agency', and not a front for a political organization, and was legit is evidence enough that you are now arguing to save face and not because you really believe it.

So carry on.

It's a "fledgling" agency because it isn't a "long established" agency. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

What specific criteria do you have in mind for an organization to be called a news agency? For me, the fact that they publish news is enough.

I thought that I'd put a stake in your heart last night when you said that you were done arguing with me. I see that you might require a silver bullet or holy water instead.

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 07:46 AM
It's a "fledgling" agency because it isn't a "long established" agency. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

What specific criteria do you have in mind for an organization to be called a news agency? For me, the fact that they publish news is enough.

I thought that I'd put a stake in your heart last night when you said that you were done arguing with me. I see that you might require a silver bullet or holy water instead.


No, it's not hard to understand how you could continue to attribute the term to something that it does not describe. You reject the premise that GOPUSA set up Talon as it's 'news' wing of their political organization and as their front they were able to gain access that would normally be forbidden.

Thus, you can insist this 'agency' was 'fledgling' or just starting out on it's way to legitimacy but the facts don't support your contention. The Talon 'News agency' would never have gotten a hard pass based on previous standards due to their inception being sponsored by GOPUSA...

without one there was no other. Thus, the term 'fledgling news agency' is an utter misnomer because the intent was never NEWS but distribution and dissemination of a political agenda.

Iowanian
02-25-2005, 08:03 AM
Dense used Moveon.org as a Newsagency for the past year.

Talk about a HIPPOcrit.

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 08:06 AM
Dense used Moveon.org as a Newsagency for the past year.

Talk about a HIPPOcrit.


I did? How so?

The truth is, I posted a link in my sig line, to the dailymisleader/moveon.org, a place on their site where they had POLITICAL OPINION in articles and they cited (and linked and attributed) news articles to back up their opinion. Move On.org is/was/has never pretended to be any thing other than a political organization...

unlike 'Talon News'.

Nice try though.

You do bring up an interesting point though, if GOPUSA is a 529 and Talon is their 'media' wing of the organization and there was a connection with someone in the WH then it seems they have broken Federal Campaign finance law. :hmmm: I have to see if GOPUSA is a 529.

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 08:11 AM
Dense used Moveon.org as a Newsagency for the past year.

Talk about a HIPPOcrit.

You do bring up an interesting point though, if GOPUSA is a 527/PAC and Talon is their 'media' wing of the organization and there was a financial connection with someone in the WH then it seems they have broken Federal Campaign finance law. :hmmm: I have to see if GOPUSA is a 527/PAC.

Michael Michigan
02-25-2005, 08:25 AM
Since when did you start disparaging the power of New Media?

I thought you meant people like you.

My mistake.

patteeu
02-25-2005, 08:41 AM
No, it's not hard to understand how you could continue to attribute the term to something that it does not describe. You reject the premise that GOPUSA set up Talon as it's 'news' wing of their political organization and as their front they were able to gain access that would normally be forbidden.

I don't reject the premise that GOPUSA set up Talon or that either one of them has a political agenda. I reject the premise that this keeps them from being news organizations. You are trying to draw a bright line of convenience in a field of gray.

Thus, you can insist this 'agency' was 'fledgling' or just starting out on it's way to legitimacy but the facts don't support your contention. The Talon 'News agency' would never have gotten a hard pass based on previous standards due to their inception being sponsored by GOPUSA...

How is it that WorldNetDaily was rejected by the Standing Committee based on an argument similar to the one you are making, but then after a couple of years the decision was reversed? Are they any less political now than they were 2 years ago?

Beyond that, we aren't talking about hard passes here as much as you'd like to keep conflating them with the day passes that Gannon/Guckert legitimately carried. To use a sports analogy, it's like getting into the NCAA basketball tournament. You can get in by winning your conference tournament or you can be granted an at-large spot. Just because you don't qualify for the big dance as a result of a conference tournament win, doesn't mean you can't get in as an at large selection. The criteria are different for the two types of participants. Gannon/Guckert didn't win his conference tournament, but until you show otherwise, his at large spot in the briefing room was legit.

without one there was no other. Thus, the term 'fledgling news agency' is an utter misnomer because the intent was never NEWS but distribution and dissemination of a political agenda.

Thanks for sharing your politically-biased opinion, but I'm well aware of what YOU think of the situation. Do you know of a crime that's been committed, because that would be something new. Absent a crime, do you even have anything that links this fledgling news organization to the Bush administration (or the RNC for that matter)? Merely arguing that GOPUSA/Talon had a political bias doesn't move me at all.

patteeu
02-25-2005, 08:43 AM
You do bring up an interesting point though, if GOPUSA is a 529 and Talon is their 'media' wing of the organization and there was a connection with someone in the WH then it seems they have broken Federal Campaign finance law. :hmmm: I have to see if GOPUSA is a 529.

Uh, you'd also have to find some kind of controlling relationship with one of the political parties during a campaign. Good luck on that. Let us know how it turns out.

patteeu
02-25-2005, 08:45 AM
You do bring up an interesting point though, if GOPUSA is a 527/PAC and Talon is their 'media' wing of the organization and there was a financial connection with someone in the WH then it seems they have broken Federal Campaign finance law. :hmmm: I have to see if GOPUSA is a 527/PAC.

A financial relationship isn't enough. You have to find someone in a campaign that directs or coordinates the actions of the 527.

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 10:37 AM
I don't reject the premise that GOPUSA set up Talon or that either one of them has a political agenda. I reject the premise that this keeps them from being news organizations. You are trying to draw a bright line of convenience in a field of gray.



How is it that WorldNetDaily was rejected by the Standing Committee based on an argument similar to the one you are making, but then after a couple of years the decision was reversed? Are they any less political now than they were 2 years ago? WND apparently met the existing standard that was previously set. Yes, they are RWNJ political but they have advertisers and subscribers and they satisfied the requirement of not being DIRECTLY tied to a political organization, unlike your 'fledgling agency'.

Beyond that, we aren't talking about hard passes here as much as you'd like to keep conflating them with the day passes that Gannon/Guckert legitimately carried. To use a sports analogy, it's like getting into the NCAA basketball tournament. You can get in by winning your conference tournament or you can be granted an at-large spot. Just because you don't qualify for the big dance as a result of a conference tournament win, doesn't mean you can't get in as an at large selection. The criteria are different for the two types of participants. Gannon/Guckert didn't win his conference tournament, but until you show otherwise, his at large spot in the briefing room was legit.



Thanks for sharing your politically-biased opinion, but I'm well aware of what YOU think of the situation. Do you know of a crime that's been committed, because that would be something new. Absent a crime, do you even have anything that links this fledgling news organization to the Bush administration (or the RNC for that matter)? Merely arguing that GOPUSA/Talon had a political bias doesn't move me at all.

Well, you can keep arguing whatever the fugg you want, in the meantime the adminstration is reviewing the policy regarding admitting reporters/POLITICAL OPERATIVES like JJGG (per the WSJ) and even administration friendly news entities are decrying that a political organization can create a 'news' front for their political activites.

The fact of the matter is 'Talon News' did not exist outside of or without GOPUSA. Until you can prove it did, you are barking up the wrong tree and their 'fledging agency' is but a figment of yours (and their) imagination...

http://petcenter.southernstates.com/dogs/champs/images/glennwilliamsdog.jpg

the Talking Can
02-25-2005, 11:16 AM
people are still arguing that Talon News was a real news organization and not simply a website thrown up by GOPusa to disseminate propaganda?

good lord...what next, an argument about whether or not the earth is flat?

what's the word for "playing dumb raised to the 100th power"?

Taco John
02-25-2005, 11:35 AM
I thought you meant people like you.

My mistake.



No. I meant wankers like you.

It was your mistake.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 11:36 AM
what's the word for "playing dumb raised to the 100th power"?



Right now it's pronounced "patteeu"

patteeu
02-25-2005, 01:09 PM
Well, you can keep arguing whatever the fugg you want, in the meantime the adminstration is reviewing the policy regarding admitting reporters/POLITICAL OPERATIVES like JJGG (per the WSJ) and even administration friendly news entities are decrying that a political organization can create a 'news' front for their political activites.

The fact of the matter is 'Talon News' did not exist outside of or without GOPUSA. Until you can prove it did, you are barking up the wrong tree and their 'fledging agency' is but a figment of yours (and their) imagination...

http://petcenter.southernstates.com/dogs/champs/images/glennwilliamsdog.jpg

1. Just to make sure there is no confusion, the big red text you put in the quote box was NOT "originally posted by patteeu." I realize that you know this, but I don't want anyone else mistaking that for my take.

2. So what? David Corn, far left columnist and Washington editor of the radical leftist mag, The Nation, argues against such changes. Have you set your sights so low on this scandal that a minor change in the daily pass process is what you will consider a victory? Haha.

3. The fact of the matter is that Talon News published hundreds (maybe thousands) of news articles and none of them have been shown to be fabricated AFAIK. Undisputed news outlets like the NYTimes and TNR can't make the same claim. Both GOPUSA and Talon News appear to be efforts to get fledgeling news organizations off the ground. The fact that they are related is of no consequence. Until you can prove that these operations were operated by the White House or a foreign government, I'm not impressed with your hollow, politically-motivated objections.

patteeu
02-25-2005, 01:12 PM
Right now it's pronounced "patteeu"

Is that French? :p

patteeu
02-25-2005, 01:14 PM
people are still arguing that Talon News was a real news organization and not simply a website thrown up by GOPusa to disseminate propaganda?

If it's government sponsored propaganda then maybe you've uncovered something. If it's agenda-driven news, then your selective outrage is unimpressive and I'm afraid you've got nothing. So far, it looks like you've got nothing.

memyselfI
02-25-2005, 02:09 PM
1. Just to make sure there is no confusion, the big red text you put in the quote box was NOT "originally posted by patteeu." I realize that you know this, but I don't want anyone else mistaking that for my take.

2. So what? David Corn, far left columnist and Washington editor of the radical leftist mag, The Nation, argues against such changes. Have you set your sights so low on this scandal that a minor change in the daily pass process is what you will consider a victory? Haha.

3. The fact of the matter is that Talon News published hundreds (maybe thousands) of news articles and none of them have been shown to be fabricated AFAIK. Undisputed news outlets like the NYTimes and TNR can't make the same claim. Both GOPUSA and Talon News appear to be efforts to get fledgeling news organizations off the ground. The fact that they are related is of no consequence. Until you can prove that these operations were operated by the White House or a foreign government, I'm not impressed with your hollow, politically-motivated objections.

Point 3. Actually, the articles that have been published by 'Talon News' have been shown to have been plagiarized in large portions from various news outlets (including Fox News) and more interestingly from WH/GOP press releases.

Point 2. David Corn is talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying JJGG is being vilified and simultaneously saying an investigation should go forward. Yes, Corn has a point about JJGG personal life being violated BUT he seemingly loses sight of the fact that JJGG HIMSELF put his naked pictures on the internet, offered his sexual services, and changed his name to avoid having his past become an issue.

It's not like the guy was closeted and he was outed because of someone's carelessness. He was already out, his life and his nakedness known to the world, the only thing that changed him was his fake name. That becomes relevent because it ties to how did the guy get past the SS with a history like his and representing a front for a political organization.

the Talking Can
02-25-2005, 03:12 PM
3. The fact of the matter is that Talon News published hundreds (maybe thousands) of news articles and none of them have been shown to be fabricated AFAIK. Undisputed news outlets like the NYTimes and TNR can't make the same claim. Both GOPUSA and Talon News appear to be efforts to get fledgeling news organizations off the ground. The fact that they are related is of no consequence. Until you can prove that these operations were operated by the White House or a foreign government, I'm not impressed with your hollow, politically-motivated objections.

First, what you've said is untrue. I don't know what else to say. He plagerized straight from Republican press releases. This is documented. This is reported. There was no "news."

Second, GOPusa is not a news organization...seriously, I have to assume from now on that you're kidding. This thread is evidence to the DUMBEST CONVERSATION EVER....every question you've asked has been answered and reported: there is no ambiguity about what GOPusa is, who owns it, what its purpose was, or what Talon News did.

We've reached a zero point of absurdity. You have broken new ground on this board that I though belonged only to wolfman.

We have discovered that there is an end to rational discussion.

Taco John
02-25-2005, 03:17 PM
The bottom line is that even though there is a lot of inappropriateness demonstrated here, unless principled republicans decide to make some hay, this thing will stay parked in moonbatland. The democrats just don't have the political capital that it takes to move this thing.

Of course, all bets are off if something new develops and the major news picks it up, but this many days without any real headlines, and only 5 Democrats signing the inquiry for investigation... What a nutless party.

patteeu
02-26-2005, 08:22 AM
Point 2. David Corn is talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying JJGG is being vilified and simultaneously saying an investigation should go forward. Yes, Corn has a point about JJGG personal life being violated BUT he seemingly loses sight of the fact that JJGG HIMSELF put his naked pictures on the internet, offered his sexual services, and changed his name to avoid having his past become an issue.

It's not like the guy was closeted and he was outed because of someone's carelessness. He was already out, his life and his nakedness known to the world, the only thing that changed him was his fake name. That becomes relevent because it ties to how did the guy get past the SS with a history like his and representing a front for a political organization.

Where did your liberal sensibilities go? Corn isn't being critical because he thinks Gannon/Guckert has been outted. He's being critical of the idea that it matters or that it should have prevented him from joining the WH press corps.

I take it from your post though, that you are in favor of the SS denying security clearances to gays or at least to gays who are willing to pose nude on the internet and offer escort services. Fred Phelps would be proud. Let the witchhunt's begin, eh?

memyselfI
02-26-2005, 08:28 AM
Where did your liberal sensibilities go? Corn isn't being critical because he thinks Gannon/Guckert has been outted. He's being critical of the idea that it matters or that it should have prevented him from joining the WH press corps.

I take it from your post though, that you are in favor of the SS denying security clearances to gays or at least to gays who are willing to pose nude on the internet and offer escort services. Fred Phelps would be proud. Let the witchhunt's begin, eh?

Again for the 5 millionth time. This is not about JJGG's GAYNESS it's about his HOOKERNESS. He was breaking the law and thus cannot be trusted. He was not 'escorting' people to Disney World...

Let's turn this 'witch hunt' around...shall we. What if a woman had lied about her past when she had naked pictures on the internet and offered her services for pay on the internet. Do you think SS would be inclined to offer her security clearance so she could get access to the president as a front for a political organization? Do you think the RW would be rallying to her defense????

No and no. So this attempt to try to make this about JJGG being GAY is merely a convenient distraction from his law breaking activities that the RWNJs would normally be in a complete meltdown over.

patteeu
02-26-2005, 08:53 AM
Point 3. Actually, the articles that have been published by 'Talon News' have been shown to have been plagiarized in large portions from various news outlets (including Fox News) and more interestingly from WH/GOP press releases.

First, what you've said is untrue. I don't know what else to say. He plagerized straight from Republican press releases. This is documented. This is reported. There was no "news."

Talking Can, you are wrong. Everything I said was true. Your accusation of "plagiarism" is not a refutation of what I said although I take issue with that as well.

I see moonbats like the two of you using the word "plagiarized," I find it on activist websites like DailyKos and MediaMatters, and I see it on other internet message boards, but strangely I haven't seen it used by anything close to an objective observer. *edit* I'm not suggesting that finding an objective source would make this accustation true. Instead I'm arguing that the absense of this word on objective websites leads one to think that it's use is just another partisan exageration or mischaracterization. */edit*

I'm not in the news business, so I don't know how accepted it is, but lifting text from a press release is hardly an unusual practice. Publicists write press releases hoping that they will be used verbatim. I think it's lazy, I'll go so far as to criticise it as bad form, but I don't consider it plagiarism in the same way copying someone else's term paper would be plagiarism.

I do understand that Gannon's work has been shown to contain very similar phrasing to news articles published by other reporters. Does this rise to the level of plagiarism? I don't know. All I know is that I haven't seen any specific complaints from people/organizations that have supposedly had their work "plagiarized."

Second, GOPusa is not a news organization...seriously, I have to assume from now on that you're kidding. This thread is evidence to the DUMBEST CONVERSATION EVER....every question you've asked has been answered and reported: there is no ambiguity about what GOPusa is, who owns it, what its purpose was, or what Talon News did.

We've reached a zero point of absurdity. You have broken new ground on this board that I though belonged only to wolfman.

We have discovered that there is an end to rational discussion.

Brilliant strategy. You realize you are out of ammunition so you just loudly declare that you've won the war? LMAO

Most questions I've raised has been met with opinion and supporting opinion. Some haven't been met at all. Strip away the biased characterizations and there isn't much of anything left. People can disagree on the quality of the news operation represented by Gannon/Guckert and Talon, but I don't really want the WH making those kinds of judgements.

I'm in favor of not holding a guy's alleged salacious past against him unless there is a compelling reason to do so (e.g. he presents a threat to the President). I'm in favor of keeping the WH as accessible to a broadly diverse press representation as possible. I'm in favor of allowing fledgeling news agencies to take their shot at becoming important news agencies instead of protecting the former monopoly of the mainstream media from upstarts. I'm in favor of bloggers as a check on the MSM. I'm in favor of the MSM as a check on the bloggers. I'm not in favor of moonbats who are willing to exaggerate and spin in order to take down the president that they despise.

patteeu
02-26-2005, 09:22 AM
Again for the 5 millionth time. This is not about JJGG's GAYNESS it's about his HOOKERNESS. He was breaking the law and thus cannot be trusted. He was not 'escorting' people to Disney World...

One of the questions that went unanswered (either in this thread or one of the others) was whether your side is now coming out in favor of extensive background checks to ban any reporter who has a history of illegal drug use, DUI, petty theft, domestic violence, or any number of other illegal activities? If trustworthiness is the holy grail for you, should we ban reporters who have a history that includes cheating on a spouse, lying on a tax form, paying bills late, etc? This is a really bad idea.

Personally, I'm not bothered by prostitution, so it's just about as hard for me to get worked up about this as it is for me to get worked up about gayness. If Talon doesn't want this type of thing reflecting on it, then they should be free to fire their reporter. If the guy isn't a threat to the President, then it doesn't reflect badly on the WH at all, IMO. I don't believe the prostitution angle really bothers you either (except for the fact that it's a convenient avenue of attack against a conservative).

Let's turn this 'witch hunt' around...shall we. What if a woman had lied about her past when she had naked pictures on the internet and offered her services for pay on the internet. Do you think SS would be inclined to offer her security clearance so she could get access to the president as a front for a political organization? Do you think the RW would be rallying to her defense????

If she reported with a conservative bias, then yes I do. If she was a hard core leftist, then many on the RW would probably be doing the same thing you are doing. I wouldn't be though.

No and no. So this attempt to try to make this about JJGG being GAY is merely a convenient distraction from his law breaking activities that the RWNJs would normally be in a complete meltdown over.

In my suggestion that you want a witchhunt, I allowed for both the possibility that it was about "gay" and the alternative possiblity that it was about "escort." You and I both know that if everything alleged about his websites is true that escort most likely means prostitute (or at least wannabe prostitute). Which means that I'm not trying to distract from anything (except that I use the word from the website and you take the extra step and characterize it as prostitution). It also means that I'm right about you wanting a witchhunt.