D.C. Chapter to Hold Demonstration in Support of Jeff Gannon and the First Amendment, 2/18/05

Friday, February 18, 2005 | Kristinn

[TBP]

Guys...

While I certainly share your concerns about the targeting of independent journalists who dare to break from the party line, "Jeff Gannon" (i.e. James Guckert) is hardly the guy to use as a rallying point for this issue.

Gannon got a White House press pass under a fake name for a site that had only been publishing for five days when he got the pass. His site is an extension of the partisan site www.gopusa.com

Whiel we may agree with Gannon, if a liberal used a fake name to get a White House press pass representing a newly-created (at the time) news outlet that was part of a partisan Democrat site, we'd be here crucifying the peson, and rightly so.

Are we going to engatge in the same kind of double-standard we always accuse liberal of having?

[sinkspur]

Whiel we may agree with Gannon, if a liberal used a fake name to get a White House press pass representing a newly-created (at the time) news outlet that was part of a partisan Democrat site, we'd be here crucifying the peson, and rightly so.

Actually, he used his real name (Guckert) to get his press pass, but then used his phony name to file stories.

There is absolutely no doubt that, had this happened during the Clinton administration with a liberal-friendly journalist, we would have roasted the guy alive.

We should be running away from Gannon/Guckert as fast as we can.

[ClintonBeGone]

Hardly analogous to this case, where Gannon's "secret life" had nothing at all to do with his presence in the White House briefing room.

We have no idea if that's true.

[Dan from Michigan]

I hate piling on, but there's an old saying we need to remember. "Pick our battles".

A more effective thing to do IMO is to go after Helen Thomas for her (lack of) objectivity and to attack the double standard.

I don't see anything positive as a result of defending this guy, or even the perception of defending this guy.

[lugsoul]

If having something with your name on it posted on the internet qualifies one as a "reporter", then everyone here is as much a "reporter" as "Jeff Gannon."

Find me an article that he actually researched, as opposed to cutting and pasting press briefings, and you may be able to make a lame argument that he is a "reporter." But if having his stuff posted on the internet is all that is required to obtain that title, I'm sure you'd agree that having his photo and solicitations posted on the internet qualifies him to receive the title "male prostitute."

[lugsoul]

"Please call this off, kristinn. There is still time to do so."

The voice of reason.

[kevkrom]

We have no idea if that's true.

Well, considering that there's absolute zero evidence (feverish rantings by DUmmies and Kos don't count as evidence) that it isn't true, I hope you'll forgive me for assuming that it is. If the evidence situation changes, then I'll be open to changing my opinion. Until then, the cases have nothing in common.

I will also note, as an aside, that the main thrust of comments at FR about McGreevy wasn't that he was having a gay extra-marital affair, but that he used that affair to distract from the corruption and influence-peddling issues that were starting to come to the surface. McGreevy played the "gay card" to avoid criticism for abuse of power...

[linn37]

I did a web search and Mr. Gannon has some serious sexual issues. I'm not condoning the media attacking him for it but I see no reason to rally around a person who is a pervert. I would like to know too why he was allowed in the White house to ask questions. I take it the Press does'nt have to pass any background checks.

[dirtboy]

When CBS News and CNN were targeted in recent months, it was because of their professional behavior--and that's what we focused on.

And Gannon asked a question that turned out to contain a bogus quote attributed to Harry Reid. He didn't do his fact-checking - and we harp on CBS and countless other media outlets for that.

I do agree Gannon was the target of slimy liberals with double standards - but we all know those exist. Regarding the First Amendment, Gannon screwed up by not doing his homework. I know that the lib media wants to block conservative blog access to government officials - but when that battle comes, it needs to be behind someone with rock-solid journalistic integrity, which Gannon does not possess...

[kevkrom]

Just a quick Google search on the phrase "by Jeff Gannon" shows the following links to articles that are more than just cutting and pasting press briefings:

White House Decries ACLU Assault on Christmas

Daschle Stumps at Dem Convention [Google cache]

Wilson Talks about Niger Mission; Blasts Bush Foreign Policy [exclusive interview with Wilson]

[lugsoul]

That's tasty stuff you got there, kevkrom - more than half of the first article is reprinting material from an activist web site. And the "exclusive" Joe Wilson interview - hmmm, wasn't he all over every press outlet that would listen to him? - shows "Gannon's" extensive political knowledge. I like where he refers to the "so-called neocons" - apparently, he has just missed the part where the neoconservatives coined that name for themselves, and many of their leading lights regularly use that name for themselves. Or perhaps he has just been reading some of the idiot posts on here that claim that "neocon" is a slur made up by leftists - posts obviously written by people who have never heard of Irving Kristol.

Yep, you've proved it. "Jeff Gannon" is a "reporter." And I am an astronaut.

[gidget7]

However, the dirt dug up would discount anyone in the MSM as well.




Not so, in fact haven't you ever read about all the sleaze in the nations major newspaper's in this country??? Try looking into the biggest, the NYT and it's affiliate Boston Globe, it will blow your mind. And these people, unfortunately steer a lot of people in this country.

For the record, no one has shown me convincing proof that any of the stuff the supposed found on Gannon was in fact true. We all know the lefts ability and eager willingness to smear and set up people they target. I say he isn't guilty of anything until we know for sure. But that's just my opinion.

[lugsoul]

"no one has shown me convincing proof that any of the stuff the supposed found on Gannon was in fact true"

Maybe I'm just not blindly partisan enough for FR, but is no one else struck by the fact that "Gannon" has not denied it is him on the sites? Or that he is/was a male escort?

[mountaineer]

Because he's a gay prostitute who asked a pretty question.

And uses an alias. Who doesn't?

[gidget7]

He retained a lawyer, who told him not to.

In this day and age, I just find it real suspect that all this pops up. When this guy goes for his first press pass, he declared both his pen name and his given name. It just seems to me, the first thing the White House would do is a google type search, in checking this guy out. Would not these pictures etc, have turned up then?

I just can't escape this nagging doubt that I know what the Clintons and their ilk are capable of. Isn't it possible, Gannon saw what he was up against and got a lawyer? We know Shrillery tried to take down other websites and silence it's reporters. I don't know, I just have a gut feeling about all this, it reeks like the maneuvers pulled in MA by our so called congressmen.

[DJ MacWoW]

Choose your battles. There's too many to fight to waste time on something like this.

Sure. DU, Daily KOS And American Blog are so truthful that we should just let this slide.

Welcome to FR?

[lugsoul]

Nice excuse, but - if you are not a male prostitute, there is no reason for your lawyer to advise you to avoid stating that you are not a male prostitute.

Also, his lawyer apparently did not advise him not to claim - falsely - that the web sites were never active.

Hint: not everything can be explained away by suspicion of nefarious activity by the Clintons or their cronies. And sometimes people who claim to be conservative do really stupid things.