On one hand, the MSM is saying (in doing these "digs" within FR): Okay, you bloggers (et al, freepers) you consider yourselves: reporters. And if you are, instead of posting in cyber, instead -- standing in a room full of people and saying "Yes, x journalists have been targeted and shot by US military"; you are going to have to pay the same prices as, Eason Jordan: Be held to the same standard.
That's one part.
Part 2 (and I can't immediately locate the thread): Bruce Bartlett clarifying upon a theme begun by a Poynter person in re the Gannon nom de plume. In essence, using the Gannon case for theory, that anyone with an alias (but with ties to terrorist organizations) can get a day pass and slip into the WHpress room. This article, about pressies being here and posing as mere "peasants with pitchforks" makes that point, to me. That anyone could be anyone they say they are, and who'd know the difference.
Then there's the issue of what are the similarities and differences between a paid professional journalist/reporter/blogger and someone merely blogging, freeping or chatting? And is there a difference between Paid Ones versus Non-Paid ones. Scott McClelland, I read, is asking the press that question: How do you define "reporter"?
This is also exhibited in the NCPAC/O'Malley issue. The mere posting of a political person in a privately owned forum (freerepublic) is cause for Charges from the O'Malley camp. And then by proxy (association) it's attenuation charges against O'Malley's political opponent.
In this case, since FREEP is a privately owned entity and also with public aspects, the pressies infiltrating here are indeed trespassing upon a private domain, no? But here's where it gets murky. It's a private domain but with public access. And, as I see it, MSM is making the point that if FREEP can use even excerpts of MSM published articles, then tit for tat should be also good.
And so, if tit for tat, is the word of the day, then why not let FREEP have access to newsies' editorial rooms? How about access to your inner "chat boards" and "emails"? Fair play is fair play no? MSM is a private domain but with public aspects. However, the people are not allowed to see inside the newsrooms and quote the "banter" going on in newsrooms and post these as "SEE, LOOK AT WHAT HE/SHE SAID"! as evidence of anything. No, freepers go with the facts as published (evidenced) by the MSM. It doesn't appear to me, the MSM is playing very fair in this particular regard. (See my point #3). However, since James Taranto, WSJ, is now citing from the DU posting boards, I suppose one could consider this a more "leveling" affect.
However, there is also another matter: expertise in re the argument about "what is a reporter" in this new age.
Those who are paid "reporters"/columnists generally have years of experience behind them. I respect that. In the same light that I respect my car mechanic and dentist. Someone who builds boats, or runs nurseries to teach me about plants. It's like Rush's line "don't try this at home". Makes me laugh everytime he says that, and because there's a lot depth to his line.
The problem, IMHO, is that we also live in an age where academic fraud is a very serious issue. (This is also a problem for MSMers who use "academic" studies to issue the news.)
Point #3. This leads us to the Jeff Gannon issue. Here is somebody allowed into the "inner circle" and reports from a "not paid by MSM" venue. And the outrage here, is over how he has been treated. In essence, Jeff Gannon was a freeper who was allowed inside, not the MSM newsrooms, but inside the WH press briefings. And for this, he is being horribly and visciously targeted.
Point 4. FR is not a BLOG. However, there are similarities to a blog.
Point #5. Back to Jeff Gannon. Left-wing websites/blogs launched all this concerning Jeff Gannon. Obviously, the "facts" as the lefties saw it were very carefully laid out; but in a see here, see there: the implications are strong; but not necessarily direct. The facts, however, were not carefully checked pre-blog'ed.
What this boils down to is this argument, IMHO:
MSM is saying: anything you post may and can be used against you.
Bloggers are saying: Here's what I saw or heard or read.
Freepers are saying: Here's what's printed or portrayed, this is what I think about it, how does this fact "A" square with Fact "A" in that other article (and with banter thrown inbetween all the discourse. (This is where the similarity between FreeRepublic and Blogging/Websites exists: the banter alongside the facts on the issue being discussed..
Yes, I do think there is bias in the MSM reporting of the news. I see some improvements. But this issue of "what is a reporter" is a good one which needs discussion.
And Bruce Bartlett is correct in an aspect: Terrorists were able to get across our borders, obtain illegal ID, hijack planes, and murder 3,000 (est) people.
But I don't think it particularly applies to Jeff Gannon's case. Terrorists, liberals, democrats have made clear they "hate the president" "wish him dead", ad nauseum, so I'm pretty confident about the background criminal checks that the WH makes in issuing those daily or permanent press passes. And they knew his real name. And Jeff Gannon used a "Twain" and so what?
Is it possible this is all stemming from past resentments from those in the liberal coalitions against conservative bloggers/websites? The publicizing of "aggregious offenders" in MSM or MSM articles or non-MSM articles email addresses? or phone numbers? Could be. This could all be the MSM's way of payback, by quoting posters in here and then "doing digging" to find out their "Guckert" (Guckart?)
I do think there is a strong liberal bias in what gets reported. But if they are suggesting that places like blogs and freep have to have an inner-newsroom, then the MSM is indeed pushing a line which is anti-freedom of speech. Or does the MSM consider "banter" in a private cyber venue as running in parallel to "slander"? IF the MSM isn't even going to consider the lefty bloggers in the same light (Gannon issue); then why hold other political id groups to a different standard. MSM calls itself "objective" reporting. It clearly isn't. Even with a token conservative on board for the occasional print or portrayal..
This here is a big rub, IMHO. alongside the more fascinating "we must have a formal investigation into this specific "gannon" issue" vis a vis Slaughter and Lautenberg. And based on what? Dubious facts? And the politicians in this matter are by extension to be given full "seriousness" and "respect" in the news? How is this believable or credible?
You have gelled some interesting thoughts together, but we need to extract conclusions from them, and decide on course of action that will help our people -- and hurt theirs.
Side note: Television reporters have always used 'on-air' names, but not always for the purpose of personal privacy. (Quite a few of them DO, however...usually the females.) It's just that news directors don't find 'Eyewitness News with Junie Hausenfraus and Bart Doolittle' very promotable.
And so, if tit for tat, is the word of the day, then why not let FREEP have access to newsies' editorial rooms? How about access to your inner "chat boards" and "emails"? -- –LOL.
But this issue of "what is a reporter" is a good one which needs discussion. -—yep, this needs to be redefined.
****
I watch all the nightly political shows, so I get sources sometimes confused. But last night one of the lefties on one of the shows was bemoaning the report that the veteran reporter, Sarah McClendon, before her death, had been banned for three months from W.H. briefings for asking the wrong question. Oh well.
;-)
Another excellent dismantling of what appears to be developing as Old Media / New Media war, and diagraming the layers of the battlefield. You know this is a war, because the poison pen people have called big daddy government to make it stop!!
I'm not comparing this medium with children, but rather its impact on those who 'were' in charge of asking the questions. So what has also resulted is Shock and Denial, Anger and Retribution, which will eventually defeat them. They see no place at the table for a message they can not control, and isn't that JUST LIKE the Democrat party today, and who is NOT welcome in their tent.
The President took *one* question from Gannon. Was it covered with a bit of partisan sniping, yes... the *other side* does it within the question, while Gannon prefaced his question with it. 'Mr. President, how are you going to be able to reach out to ...?' You know what, I wanted to know the answer to that too. Since MSM can not and will not pose a question that is on most of our minds, someone has to. And the President basically gave us the answer.. he'll keep trying but go straight to the people when he must. And that's exactly what he's doing.
Gannon did this. Helped get a message from the President to us all. If the press won't tell it to you straight, then I'll come to you. Good job Gannon.
I think we should request the WH make more room in the pressers for other voices. Balance things out.
More than possible, highly likely. They've been exposed on numerous occasions as highly biased to the left, even to the deteriment of our country...they withhold information they otherwise wouldn't if that information would hurt the liberal agenda; they publish information that they otherwise wouldn't if it would hurt the liberal agenda; if it hurst the conservative agenda, they publish information, knowing full way that they haven't verified their sources or know that their sources have an ax to grind, making it glaringly obivious they are using an otherwise questionable source....as we saw in the Rathergate episode, for instance.