Posted on 02/18/2005 6:28:03 AM PST by kristinn
All FReepers and lurkers in good standing are invited to join the D.C. Chapter in our demonstration this evening. Details in the following press release:
DEMONSTRATION IN SUPPORT OF JEFF GANNON
&
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
WHEN: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2005, 6 P.M. TO 8 P.M.
WHERE: THE SIDEWALK BY MONICA’S GATE,
AKA THE NORTHWEST VISITORS ENTRANCE
THE WHITE HOUSE, 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C.
(Washington) The D.C. Chapter of Free Republic, an independent grassroots organization, will be holding a demonstration at the White House this evening in support of former Talon News White House Correspondent Jeff Gannon and the rights of other reporters to do their jobs without fear of being destroyed by the political establishment.
The group will also be bringing attention to several First Amendment-related issues pertaining to the current imbroglio. Among them are the unconstitutional efforts of Democratic congressmen to determine who is a reporter and efforts by the establishment media to shut out Internet-based news sites from having access to government press conferences.
Kristinn Taylor, Co-Leader of the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic, issued the following statement: “It is common knowledge that Jeff Gannon was singled out for personal destruction for the crime of asking a question of the President of the United States at a press conference that was insulting to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“The Clintonista slime machine, led by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta’s Media Matters for America, went into high gear and made an example of Mr. Gannon to any reporter who might dare to challenge Sen. Clinton’s credibility in her anticipated 2008 presidential candidacy.
“What was done to Mr. Gannon was the Clinton impeachement era Ellen Romesch strategy played out for all concerned parties to see. The D.C. Chapter of Free Republic will be out demonstrating for the rights of Mr. Gannon and all other reporters to exercise their rights without fear of personal destruction.”
I think not.
AmericaBLOG’s John Aravosis has discovered previous images of the site through an Internet service which keeps records of sites that have been taken down
It looks like this was the past. Even the one that "outed" him says it.
Give me a break. You JUST joined FR.
The link to my quote in post # 301 is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1343075/posts
Yesterday is past too.
Good Luck! I wish I could be there, but I live in midwest. Love what you guys are able to accomplish out there. Keep up the great conservative work!
And don't forget the double standard with respect to Lott and KKK Byrd.
That's neither the question, the subject of inquiry, nor the answer. It's a deflection of the underlying, basic issue.
Exactly what I was trying to say, but you put it much better!
You were right or substantially right in your characterizations of the past actions of Jeff Gannon. More precisely, your characterizations are sufficiently validated that the rather sordid details, which never interested me in the past, and still don't, are not worth further questioning for purposes of this debate.
Quoting snippets from your 294 and 295 in italics interspersed with my comments:
Bill, you have to use a rational person approach here. . . . do you really think a rational person would go balls to the wall . . . I'll sit out this dance. [emphasis added]
Sorry, but I can't resist saying that nothing in this discussion makes me want to go "balls to the wall" or to dance. :)
You quoted my prior post in which I had said:
In that case, do you think that the Clintonistas and their willing accomplices in the media were right to oust Gannon from the press corps simply for asking a question that deviated from the liberal press group think?
You responded:
That's not the issue or topic of this thread. The question is should this guy be defended. I say no. Whether it's the Clintons that outted him, or Vince Foster himself, they are not the issue. This guy has made himself the issue - just as Bill Clinton made himself the issue with Monica, NOT Ken Starr.
Gannon's past conduct, as opposed to his ability to be a reporter, is NOT worthy of defense, but I respectfully disagree with you about the key issue here.
The important issue is not Gannon's past conduct. Isn't it more important if the old media and new media (liberal blogs) oust a conservative (gasp, hide the women and children) from the White House Press Corps?
Consider the liberal double standard on politicians' private lives. Dem Baltimore Mayor O'Malley is off-limits, but the press sues to get divorce papers from GOP Senate candidate Jack Ryan and then plays up unproven, subsequently dropped, sexual allegations from a bitter divorce. This same double standard will be in play when the liberal media determines who can be a reporter and who cannot.
Relative to Clinton, he was a public official who misbehaved on his job. It's NOT the same as a reporter's past misconduct.
An earlier poster drew the right analogy. Even a prostitute (and I'm not saying that Gannon ever was one) has a right not to be raped. Gannon was, figeratively speaking, "raped" by the media doing this comprehensive background investigation of him, something that they would never do to a liberal reporter. I'm more concerned by the "rape" than the past misconduct of the victim.
I see a lot of this asssertion in this thread..."You do acknowledge that we'd do this evil thing..."
Does anyone else smell a rhetorical manipulation? Gee, and you've been here since 1999.
Brock was a homosexual writer that conservatives read and enjoyed years ago with full knowledge that he was homosexual. I have no problem voting for a homosexual, or reading what they write if it is interesting. I have no problem with a homosexual being a reporter. I would have a problem with a homosexual scoutmaster, certain unchaperoned positions of trust, and I have a problem with trying to remake marriage according to homosexual whim.
I believe you are promoting something here, along with others whose writings read a little like "talking points"--.
Bill, I'm not familiar with the Howard Kurtz piece today. I'll read that later. But regarding your statement above, don't you think accusations about his homosexual behavior would be an interest to his readers - the people he 'touches' doing his day job - given his writings about the subject?
Here Gannon's misconduct does related directly to his job.
I hope there is nothing more to this story than Guckert being a prostitute. I also know the Repubs want this to go away....it's a huge distraction from what needs to be done.
BTW, if this were a rally to support the rights of those who wish to earn a living as a hooker....I'd be right there supporting changing those laws.
(The Kurtz piece seems to confirm the essence of many of your allegations about Gannon's past behavior.)
You've raised a good point.
Please tell me what Gannon wrote on about homosexuality in his articles. If he wrote negatively about it, it might make him a hypocrite, but would not appear to have caused him to shade his stories and be subject to a conflict of interest.
Suppose a reporter had a drunk driving conviction in the past and continued to drink and drive. If the reporter wrote negatively about drunk driving (i.e., how bad it is, how many injuries and deaths), the reporter would be a hypocrite, but would not apparently be shading his stories. On the other hand, if he wrote that drunk-driving laws were too stringent, he would certainly have a conflict of interest.
(The serious problem in old media journalism today is the large number of gay reporters who report on gay issues in a very biased fashion and are actually cheerleaders for the radical gay agenda, gay marriage, etc.)
Certainly, if Gannon had a conflict of interest (such as writing pro-gay rights stories even as he contributed to gay rights groups), his employer had a right to fire him. If he was a hypocrite and it came out in a way to embarass his employer and hurt their credibility, the employer could likewise fire him.
However, the targetting of him for asking a conservative question is what is most objectionable to me. Do you think the the media was wrong to target him because he asked a conservative question?
I just love it when we lower ourselves to their standards. Gives me chills. .
I don't know what he wrote. Up until his 15 minutes of fame, I paid him or Talon News no attention. I would imagine he wrote in the negative about homosexuality. Honestly Bill, I'm quite surprised at the depth you've gone to attempt to justify Gannon's existence.
But that's different.
Obviously, a comprehensive background check would not be needed to find any web info tied to his Gannon name.
You may be right that the media stories were not from a comprehensive background check IF all this could have been found simply by googling his Jeff Gannon name and his real name and IF it was simple to tie the real and Gannon names together. However, as I understand it, the gay web info was not tied to his Jeff Gannon nom de plume. And I don't know if the gay stuff was tied directly to his real name.
Of course, you're right that he had an "untidy private life." The conduct was not anything that I would excuse or justify. And it was out there, waiting to be found. So, yes, he is responsible for the openess of the info as well as his own prior conduct.
Maybe you would be so kind as to illuminate who first exposed his real name, how they got it, and then who made the connection with the garbage on the web? Was the garbage on the web listed under his real name? The answers to those questions should illuminate the extent to which the "background check" was "comprehensive"
Wasn't the Boston Globe was one of the leaders, if not the first, to launch a significant attack on Gannon? Am I wrong in thinking that they revealed his real name? That in turn led to connections to the stuff on the web, which connections required some significant effort, UNLESS the stuff was listed under his real name. Do you know if it was?
Re: the Chicago Tribune, their editorial staff is, no doubt, separate from the rest of the paper like the situation at the Wall Street Journal. The Journal's editorial page is probably the gold standard of conservative opinion in this country, but it's wholly independent reporting staff are incredibly liberal much of the timee. Also, the Chicago Tribune was, IIRC, not the only media company suing to go on a fishing expedition into Jack Ryan's private life.
LOL.
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.