Flap over White House press corps is far from over -- (If the Main-Stream-Media can help it)

Kansas City Star ^ | Mon, Feb. 28, 2005 | DICK POLMAN

[Coldwater Creek]

Bad Bad George!!!!!!!

[Brilliant]

Who the heck cares about Gannon? ALL journalists and reporters are lying scum.

[BonnieJ]

None of them mind a bit that Helen or David Gregory or all the rest of them have a very obviously slanted and often vicious agenda and are plants from the DNC, or sure appear to be.

[Piquaboy]

This is typical for the stuff the Red Star puts out.

[hgro]

If all of the leftwingers were banned from the press conference, Gannon would be the only one there.

[SoFloFreeper]

Give me a break. Ann Coulter's column put it best regarding the "Gannon Gate" story. A succinct response all on one page. The mainstream press can, in their heroine Tereza Heinz-Kerry's words, "Shove it".

[An Old Marine]

Yawn...

OK what else have you clowns got?

[MisterRepublican]

Yep, the Bush administration was trying to "manipulate the media" by taking a few questions at White House press briefings from a journalist that nobody had ever heard of, writing for a website that few people read.

Jeff Gannon of Talon News was more powerful than Rather at CBS, Brokaw at NBC and Jennings at ABC.

Who knew?

[eyespysomething]

Gannon was employed by a GOP biggie from Texas, Eberle. When he approached the WH for credentialing, they probably figured that Eberle wouldn't hire someone not on the up and up, so they let him have his day passes. Little did they know that Eberle didn't do any type of background check on Gannon.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with him covering the WH. I think people need to be careful wanting to limit who gets to cover our government for us. Personally, if they aren't a threat to the President or WH, let them in to the press conferences to cover it. Isn't that what the 1st amendment is about? I mean, by the standards they are trying to impose, no one who won't criticize the government shouldn't be allowed in the press corps?

More access to the government, regardless of your political leanings.

But Gannon got in for so long without his past being brought up, or even found out I'm sure, because the Bush WH trusted Eberle, I'm sure. Sort of like they trusted Wead also.

[SoFloFreeper]

BTW, is "Dick Polman" this columnist's real name? If so, no wonder he's overly-interested in this supposed "news scandal".

[beyond the sea]

perhaps Gannon's lack of subtlety is proof that he is an aberration.

Sounds right to me.

(Karl Rove would have been smarter!)

;-)

[KC_Conspirator]

Todd Gitlin, a liberal media analyst at Columbia University, sees the Gannon case in dark terms: "It's a psychological thing. Gannon was there, either as a plant or on his own, to deliver the larger message, to convince people that the liberal side is the losing side, that the country doesn't need the mainstream media, and that the administration message is the wave of the future."

Liberals are just incensed over this Gannon thingy. Its small and trite. Furthermore, there are a bunch of lefty bloggers that get into the WH press meetings as well.

I would also bet that Todd Gitlin, hate America leftist, has nothing to say about Eason Jordan.

[upchuck]

And some political analysts who monitor President Bush's relations with the media insist that Gannon (who, referring to Democrats, recently asked Bush, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?") should not be viewed as an isolated case. Rather, they contend that Gannon is symptomatic of a broader White House strategy to undermine the traditional media by disseminating the Bush message in creative new ways.

IMHO, his question makes perfect sense. The RATS have indeed "divorced themselves from reality."

And I don't think President Bush and his administration is trying to "undermine" the traditional media. Rather, they are competing with it.

And clearly, the LSM is pissed! Gotta love it!!

[SoFloFreeper]

And some political analysts...[say there is a] White House strategy to undermine the traditional media by disseminating the Bush message in creative new ways.

YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! This is a great idea, and I HOPE that is the case!

"Undermine the traditional media"="Tell the truth".

[johnb838]

"Jeff was the kind of person who saw the briefings as an opportunity to air his point of view. Looking back (at the Clinton era), I can't think of any analogous person on the Democratic side.

HAHAHAHAHA! I had to stop there.

[End Times Sentinel]

I've learned a lot from this incident, and think that we can reach out to the liberal establishment in the spirit of good will and find common ground.

 

Surely, we can all admit that partisanship and homosexuality are the two unforgivable sins in journalism.

 

Wretched gargoyle, Helen Thomas seems a very obvious next target.  The open partisanship is beyond question, but I strongly suspect she's a lesbian as well.  Oh, I know what you're all thinking "Owl, she has a face that would turn a wombat to stone." or "She was married to that fella with the advanced Alzheimer's and dementia, doesn't that count for something?" but the marriage was clearly a beard.

 

We should work with the liberals to pick up on some tips for gay baiting, and then viciously turn on her like a rabid pack of hell-hounds!  Expose her for the pervert she is, air all her dirty laundry and don't be shy about making things up!

 

We can build a bridge from left to right on the bones of the faggots.

Owl_Eagle

"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in.  I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"

-Hillary Clinton

(Yes, she really said that

Peggy Noonan

The Case Against Hillary Clinton, pg 55)

[rface]

it looks like no less than 12 other paper are running this Knight-Ridder article......the MSM wants this story to live on.

[G.Mason]

There is simply not enough time in a day to list the blatently hypocritical musings of Polman in this propaganda piece, so I won't. ;)

[sydbas]

Did the MSM ever get this upset over Rathergate? I think not.