Brock Demands McClellan Revoke WH Credentials of Talon News Reporter/RIGHTALK Host Jeff Gannon

Media Mutters | 1-31-05 | Bob J

[Bob J]

Letter from David Brock to Scott McClellan January 31, 2005

Scott McClellan Press Secretary The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. McClellan:

I am writing to ask you to consider revoking the White House press credentials apparently granted to Jeff Gannon of Talon News. Mr. Gannon and Talon News appear to be political activists rather than actual journalists, and as such should not be presented to the public as an independent news agency.

Consider:

Talon News is virtually indistinguishable from an organization called GOPUSA, which describes itself as "dedicated to promoting conservative ideals." Both are run by Bobby Eberle, and websites for both entities are registered to Mr. Eberle at his home address. The contact information listed for Talon News includes Mr. Eberle's GOPUSA.com email address. The staff of Talon News and GOPUSA is comprised almost entirely of Republican activists with no journalism experience whatsoever. For example, Mr. Eberle is president of GOPUSA and also serves as editor in chief of Talon News, but his biography lists no journalism experience. He did, however, serve as a delegate to the 2000 Republican National Convention, and has held numerous other Republican Party posts in the past. Other Talon News and GOPUSA staff include county Republican Party chairs, delegates to state Republican conventions, and other Republican officials. Posts by Messrs. Eberle and Gannon on the online forum Free Republic make clear that the two men are partisan activists, not journalists. Mr. Gannon, for example, used Free Republic to try to organize partisan political activities designed to embarrass and discredit Senator John Kerry during last year's presidential campaign. Mr. Gannon's conduct during your briefings, as well as presidential press conferences, further suggests that his true role is that of a partisan operative rather than an independent journalist. His questions reliably criticize Democrats and praise President Bush, often containing false assertions, such as his question last week -- based on Rush Limbaugh's radio program -- that incorrectly asserted that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid "was talking about soup lines."

Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin noted in a March 10, 2004, column that Mr. Gannon frequently asks "softballs" during White House press briefings, adding:

And press secretary McClellan seems to appreciate it.

Yesterday, for instance, McClellan was getting hammered with questions about the 9/11 commission and the possible inappropriate juxtaposition of a visit to a 9/11 memorial with a fundraiser on Thursday.

It was getting ugly. "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response," McClellan said in response to a jibe.

Then he saw daylight:

"Go ahead, Jeff."

Mr. Gannon wrote in a post on FreeRepublic.com that you are apparently aware of what he will ask you at briefings; in response to a comment about your reaction to a question he asked, Mr. Gannon wrote: "It's hard to say with Scott but he usually knows what he's going to get from me."

Given all of this, it seems that Mr. Gannon serves not as a reporter during press briefings but as a useful lifeline for you to rely on when you get in trouble.

In light of recent revelations about the Bush administration's relationship with conservative writers Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus, as well as about the administration's repeated use of fake video "news" reports to promote policies, the public is understandably concerned that the White House seems to be trying to manipulate public opinion using fake "news." Given that Talon News seems to be little more than a partisan political organization and given that, based on what Mr. Gannon has written, you apparently know what he will ask during your briefings, Mr. Gannon's continued participation in White House press briefings would seem to exacerbate those concerns.

The public has a right to expect that when you hold press briefings, the reporters are real and the questions are not staged beforehand. They have a right not to be deceived into thinking they are seeing and hearing reporters ask honest questions when they are really seeing a staged performance by partisan operatives.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gannon's propaganda doesn't end at the conclusion of White House briefings. His "articles" are frequently little more than reprints of White House press releases and fact sheets, as Media Matters for America has demonstrated. I understand that your office issues press releases with the hope that reporters quote them. But surely you understand that when Mr. Gannon's "articles" lift heavily from President Bush's statements without directly disclosing that the words are the president's, not Mr. Gannon's, he is working not as a journalist but as an agent of the White House.

Mr. McClellan, the public needs to be confident that your briefings and the president's press conferences are honest, open dialogues with real reporters. Now more than ever, the public needs to be certain that the White House isn't using fake "journalists" to manipulate public opinion. Revoking Mr. Gannon's credentials would be a good first step in that direction.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance or if you would like further information. I have attached some materials about Mr. Gannon we have produced that may be helpful.

Sincerely,

David Brock President and CEO Media Matters for America

[Larry381]

David Brock sounds like a candidate for my brand new deliberalator:

*a suitcase size device that applies a slight to moderate ionic electrical charge to your basic liberal leftist causing most to be stunned back to reality and coherence.

_{*best used when the subject is in the middle of a policy speech.}

side effects:

eye bulging

mouth frothing

incontinence

heavy giggling

[Brian Allen]

David Brock, eh?

["Now I have told you I am a liar, you will -- FRom this moment forward -- believe all I say."]

Yep.

David Brock: Living proof Liberalism is a mental illness. This piece but further evidence that Psychopathological Projection Syndrome is its defining symptom!

[ConservativeMajority]

Gannon writes about "Touching American Journalism's Third Rail"

http://www.jeffgannon.com/Rise%20of%20the%20New%20Media/touching_american_journalism.htm

[Peach]

Thanks for that link; I'd have missed it otherwise.

[conservative blonde]

Boo Hoo, Brock is a fool.

[kevkrom]

Mr. Gannon wrote in a post on FreeRepublic.com that you are apparently aware of what he will ask you at briefings; in response to a comment about your reaction to a question he asked, Mr. Gannon wrote: "It's hard to say with Scott but he usually knows what he's going to get from me."

What a queer way to take a quote out of context. Brock constructs a fairy tale out of an innocent comment to whip up some controversy.

Seriously, the same could be said about, since the old hag has already been mentioned, Helen Thomas. Scott knows what he'll get out of her as well (usually the far-left's daily talking point). That doesn't mean she provides questions in advance. Ditto for most of the other biased press in the room (which, by the way, is all of them).

[Mo1]

This coming from Brock and is complete joke

I wonder what skeletons the pure Mr. Brock has hiding in his closet

[The Shrew]

Let's be honest here. Gannon is not a journalist. He has no history of journalism. Unlike the other press agents in that room, (regardless of their personal affiliation) he didn't work his way up through the ranks. (i.e. student paper, local rag, major paper etc.) He just showed up at the WH with a press credential from Talon News (which none of us has ever heard of until about a week ago, no?). His questions are not meant to illicit previously undisclosed information.

What with the Armstrong Williams scandal, the WH would be wise to avoid even the slightest appearance of shillery. Because let's face it, Gannon is a shill in the truest sense.

The last thing you are attempting to do in this post is be honest. You provide no evidence in your blanket assertions. Maybe you've never heard of Talon News (since you just joined FR yesterday!), but many of us have. I had the distinct pleasure to sit with Jeff over a year ago and watch him interview various conservative pundits - David Horowitz, Grover Norquist among others - and he did a thoroughly credible job. His columns are equally credible.

Where is the "journalist" licensing board? Where does one go to get to be a certified journalist? Why should we cede that title to only those on the left with a specific agenda to demonize and destroy the right? Do you really think the WH just hands out credentials? Go for it. When you get your White House Press Credential you come back here and tell us all about it big boy.

Shill! Now you're projecting Newby!

TS

[Republic]

So it is ok for Davie to be a left wing journalist but NOT ok for Jeff to be a right wing 'journalist in progress'

How....intolerant!

My guess.....Jeff rebuffed a come on from Davie and Davie just can't handle the truth.

[Petronski]

There is nothing wrong with partisan hackery. It has its place. A White House press conference just isn't that place.

You're off your gob. The WH Press Room is the center of the partisan hackery universe. The Press Secretary is a spin artist and the reporters (ALL of them) are partisan hacks of one flavor or another.

Step away from the keyboard, Aunt Pittypat.

[ConservativeGadfly]

Seattle, I've got a newsflash for you -- and I can give you a newsflash because I do have a BA in communications/broadcast journalism with a minor in Literature/writing -- journalism isn't taught anymore in J schools. Lots of theory, not a lot of practical application.

The old school rules simply do not exist as the lines between op/ed column and front page news story have all but evaporated.

I know Jeff Gannon. I've broadcasted on RIGHTALK with Jeff Gannon. He is a very thorough reporter, absolutely fair and professional. He does his homework.

Next, you will tell me that Joe Conason is the ideal reporter -- fair to a fault. Or any one of a thousand reporters out there who denigrate any and all things conservative. But they are ok in your book? Ever visit Brent Bozell's Media Research Center website?

What is most amusing is that if, in fact, Gannon is not a "real", "certified", "licensed", "blood oathed" reporter in your estimation, then why are your panties in a twist? If he is a nobody, then why do you care what he thinks? Cause he got a question in the Presidential press conference? Or the question that folks talked about ad infinitem afterwards.

Just curious as to why my buddy Jeff has you concerned.

[The Shrew]

Do you have any mirrors at your house?

How lawyerly of you - trash someone's reputation, Gannon, by calling him a partisan hack and shill - and then wish someone who calls you on it the best.

You're all closing argument with no presentation of evidence or facts. Why should anyone care what you think? You are the one making the assertions. Back them up. Do you know what degree Gannon has? Do you know anything about him? Why don't you plunge into those two year old archives and demonstrate by cut/paste/link that you are correct?

I would gladly compare Gannon's articles, interviews and journalism credentials with say, Eason Jordan of CNN. Wasn't a guy named Dan Rather a White House Press Corps alum? If you think that he wasn't a partisan hack during his attacks on President Nixon, President GHW Bush you're not dealing with reality.

Beside's Gannon asserts that he is a A conservative journalist embedded with the liberal Washington press corps. So, why are your panties in a twist?

TS

[The Shrew]

Sorry, link didn't work. This one should: A conservative journalist embedded with the liberal Washington press corps

TS

[DBeers]

"Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work - you've said you are going to reach out to these people - how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Is this really a worthwhile question for our President?

I see nothing wrong with the question. He simply states the reality -democrats are lost, morally bankrupt and politically impotent -in their stupor, all they do is whine...

[DBeers]

If not, you are tremendous hypocrite. Which is it?

It is neither -the liberals are not relevant; therefore, neither is their meme or framing... To the victor go the spoils...

You have heard of unconditional surrender?