Posted on 02/19/2005 5:25:40 AM PST by FairOpinion
The following is the transcript of the Friday night CNN interview of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert by Anderson Cooper.
COOPER: There are many questions that have been raised about whether or not -- people raising the specter that you are somehow a White House plant. Are you a White House plant? Were you (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
GANNON: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, how I came to be at the White House is I asked to attend a briefing. I asked the White House Press Office. They gave me a daily pass to get in.
COOPER: This liberal group, Media Matters, which I'm sure you know well about. They have been very critical about you, really looked into this probably closer than just about anybody. They say that essentially, you are not a real reporter. And it's not even a question of being an advocate, that you have directly lifted large segments of your reports directly from White House press releases.
GANNON: All my stories were usually titled "White House Says," "President Bush Wants," and I relied on transcripts from the briefings, I relied on press releases that were sent to the press for the purpose of accurately portraying what the White House believed or wanted.
COOPER: But using the term "reporting" implies some sort of vetting, some sort of research, some sort of -- I mean, that's called faxing or Xeroxing, if you are just lifting transcripts and putting them into an article.
GANNON: If I am communicating to my readers exactly what the White House believes on any certain issue, that's reporting to them an unvarnished, unfiltered version of what they believe.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediainfo.com ...
That's what the press wants. We'll give it to 'em.
But, of course, that isn't at all what they want to do....instead, they want that "rule" applied only to those who are or claim to be conservatives; anything to silence their enemies (those are aren't anti-American).
OTOH, those who are in the limelight championing the conservative cause must know, by now, that their lives, personal and otherwise, will be scrutinized extraordinarily. They best not have questionable skeletons in their closet. Surely any conservative must be ignorant not to know that.
True; but have to admit; had this reporter been an 'adversary' and had asked 'those' kind of questions; there never would have been a story. . .
Would this be a big issue of his press credentials and passes issued were he a conservative reporter in a democratic Whitehouse? Probably not. But since he was from an overly friendly organization with a weak background and a salacious background, then it became news.
Let's say you and I apply for credentials as reporters. Let's see how far we get.
Well...at least investigate whether they're operating under a fake name for a fake news agency.
For sure. . .this is the punitive, collective Left who has discovered 'one of them' - a reporter who shares their constituency'. . .who is playing for the 'other' team.
They won't stand for it. . .and will make sure, there is a price to pay.
Hope Guckert now realizes; that with his own politics aside. . . with friends like he thought he had. . .he will never need enemies.
Thanks.
So, what's up the "reporter formerly known as Gannon" thing?
Also, I have concluded that the question is a valid and insightful question.
"Also, I have concluded that the question is a valid and insightful question."
I agree. No matter who asks that question, that was a perfectly reasonable question.
Gannon was up front with the White House about his name. Fake news agency? As opposed to what? The NYT? ABC? CBS? CNN?
Furthermore, the implication is that his private life should have been investigated, not his name or his news outlet.
Now, I do not approve of Gannon's past activities, but these people are trying to smear the White House with some little-known reporter's personal activities, what, some six years ago? All because Gannon asked a question which was not approved by the DNC's propoganda arm, AKA mainstream media.
Of course, that goes without saying. My point was, imagine the outrage if the White House actually followed through with what these hypocrites seem to be calling for by starting an official program of investigating and approving of any reporter's private life as a condition of access.
The liberals would run to the ACLU. Of course they don't want their pasts examined. But they should be careful in what they claim they wish for....it might just come true.
By claiming this is what the White House should be doing, the loud mouth liberals have given the White House the perfect tool to use in doing just that.
Actually, a "real" reporter should ask newsworthy questions, regardless of whether they "hold anyone's feet to the fire." If done correctly, the reporter would get actual news out to the public rather than propaganda, and with most subjects, the result would be some negative press and some positive press and some neutral for the subject.
The bigger point here, IMO, is that one person was singled out because of his apparent ideology and attacked on a personal level, and when dirt was dug up on him, these people have been attempting to use that dirt to smear the president, who really had no more connection to Gannon than occasionally occupying the same room with him.
They've not succeeded with much of their bomb-throwing recently, but they're still trying. If they can't run Gannon off because of his conservative leaning, they try to find dirt on him in hopes of turning conservatives against him. I think they've pretty well succeeded.
I have to agree with you.
There's not a single thing to defend about the man's behavior in his private life, but what the heck does that have to do with the questions he asked in the press briefings? Should all reporters' private lives be investigated prior to being allowed to cover the White House?
There have been similar scandals among the liberals--David Brock comes quickly to mind, but there have been others. And forget about "journalists"--remember Barney Franks' paramour, who was running a gay call-boy service out of Franks' own house? (Franks, of course, claimed complete ignorance.)
When the liberals do it, it's "someone's personal sex life" and should be "private." Let a conservative step over that particular line, and its all-out mayhem.
I'm not condoning anything, folks, just pointing out the (more than) obvious hypocrisy in this entire sordid mess.
There's just no defending the indefensible.
For all we know this whole Gannon episode was orchestrated by the gay community to embarrass the Repubs and the WH and to discredit Talon News.
I wouldn't put "anything" past them.
Their real objective is to try to tie Gannon and the Plame leak to the White House.
As far as his private life (which, in truth, isn't very private, is it?) he portrayed himself as something he obviously is not: a spokesman for conservative thought, conservative groups (GOPusa/Talon News/and another group), a conservative with conservative values, and a condemner of homosexuality. This is not who he is at all; he's a fraud. Surely he must have known that his type of questioning would provoke inquiry into his background....we have ample examples of this. Does that make it "right" to scrutinize? Right or wrong, that's guaranteed to happen.
There's more going on here than his attempt to conceal his stripes. I don't believe for one minute that he is what he has presented himself to be. It would not surprise me should we learn that he was even a plant.
I remember when the NYT seemed to publish transcripts of everything that came out of Washington. It was hailed as a great public service and helped pin the title of National Paper of Record on the paper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.