gannon and the mainstream press

Toward the end o f this week, the Gannon story started picking up a little steam outside the blogosphere. Most notably, The New York Times started giving it some ink in its op-ed pages. If you haven’t read them yet, there are very good pieces by both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd. Here’s a clip from the Rich piece:

By my count, “Jeff Gannon” is now at least the sixth “journalist” (four of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration’s “marriage” initiatives. The other four have played real newsmen on TV. Before Mr. Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers – the Woodward and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports (“In Washington, I’m Karen Ryan reporting,” went the script) pretending to “sort through the details” of the administration’s Medicare prescription-drug plan in 2004. Such “reports,” some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal “covert propaganda” by the Government Accountability Office…..

It is a brilliant strategy. When the Bush administration isn’t using taxpayers’ money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post discovered that even at an inaugural ball he was assigned “minders” – attractive women who wouldn’t give him their full names – to let the revelers know that Big Brother was watching should they be tempted to say anything remotely off message.

And here’s a clip from the Maureen Dowd piece:

They flipped TV’s in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged “news” video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with “news” articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: “Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense.” The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.

Even the Nixon White House didn’t do anything this creepy. It’s worse than hating the press. It’s an attempt to reinvent it.

Dowd put a personal spin on it too. It appears as though she herself applied for a White House press pass only to be told that the requisite FBI check would take several months… Makes you wonder how someone like Gannon, using an alias, could have been waved though security so many times.

In addition to the New York Times, the Daily Show did a good piece on Gannon and the bloggers that cracked the story a few days ago. There was also a great article on the administration’s manipulation of the press in the Christian Science Monitor.

OK, I have to go to bed now. I just wanted to pass along these old links and ask you to keep an eye out for mainstream coverage in your Sunday papers tomorrow morning. With any luck, it’ll be all over the place.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

96 Comments

  1. john galt
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    There are muliple types of press passes for the WH, What Dowd is talking about is a hard pass which is good indefinitly. What Gannon had was a day pass where you have to stand in line (first-come first-serve) Those are pretty easy to get, Mark might even be able to get one. Dowd is obviously much too important to stand in line.

  2. mark
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    If you really believe that you can just show up at the White House and get in line to interview the president without first going through a background check, you are unbelievably naive. Whether you have a day pass or a hard pass (and, yes, I know the difference), you still need to go through some kind of vetting, and someone was waving Gannon through security… The simple fact of the matter is that if I went down to the White House and tried to get into the pressroom under an alias, I’d be in prison right now. The same was not true for Gannon. He was repeatedly let in and called on.

  3. john galt
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    nope apparently according to this article at editor and publisher

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000799767

    You’re just required to give name, address, and SS#. Since the kerfufle the white house is going to reqiuire stricter background checks on them though. here’s the article text. Also If you want I can check with my sources who do have a hard pass and try to find out exactly what the process is for a day pass, then if you want, you can try to get in a press meeting yourself.

    By Joe Strupp

    Published: February 14, 2005 12:20 PM ET

    NEW YORK Leaders of the White House Correspondents’ Association plan to meet with President Bush’s press secretary tomorrow to discuss tightening the White House press-credentialing process. The meeting follows the recent uproar over James Guckert, a former White House reporter for the GOP-linked Talon News, who had used the name Jeff Gannon and drawn criticism for asking partisan questions.

    Among the potential changes to the credentialing system: tighter restrictions on who can receive daily press passes, such as those Guckert had obtained; and a more active role by the WHCA in approving requests or credentials, which are now handed out solely by the White House Press Office.

    “I can see arguments for a more aggressive credentialing process and for the correspondents playing more of a role,” said Mark Smith, WHCA vice president and a reporter for Associated Press Radio. “And I can see arguments against it.”

    Smith requested the meeting with Press Secretary Scott McClellan after McClellan mentioned last week during a press briefing that he would be open to discussing the process with White House reporters after the recent concerns surrounding Gannon, who resigned from Talon News last Wednesday.

    “I think it is part of their role to address the matter,” McClellan told E&P today, referring to the WHCA. “There are a lot of issues that are good to talk about with the correspondents.”

    Ron Hutcheson, WHCA president and a Knight Ridder reporter, said five members of the WHCA board will meet with McClellan tomorrow. He also said the entire nine-member board will consider the credentialing issue during its regular meeting on Feb. 28.

    “The consensus is that we should go in there [with McClellan] and get all the information we can on this and see if we can’t take what we’ve learned and develop a unified position on the board of what to do about this,” Hutcheson told E&P. “Scott appears to be very open to discussing this. It is a very hard thing to do, to determine who is a journalist and who isn’t.”

    Hutcheson added that perhaps the White House should require that anyone seeking a day pass first obtain a Capitol Hill press pass, which is distributed by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters. “That is the most recognized credential in Washington, and, up there, journalists have already taken on the job of saying who’s in, who’s out,” Hutcheson said.

    Right now, reporters who want a White House “hard pass,” which allows them to enter and leave on an ongoing basis, are required to first obtain a congressional press pass. But those who seek a daily press pass to the White House do not need a congressional pass. Guckert had been denied a congressional pass last year after the standing committee determined that Talon News was not a legitimate news organization.

    Guckert was still able to obtain a daily press pass by applying each day and giving his name, address, and social security number.

    Hucheson said he would not be in favor of the WHCA playing a role similar to the congressional press corps’ in distributing White House press passes. “I don’t want us to be saying as an association who gets in,” he added. “But it is something we should be looking at. The congressional credential is a mark of legitimacy.”

    Hutcheson said he was hesitant to start barring reporters from the White House unfairly. “My overarching view is that we should be advocates for getting people in the briefing room, not keep them out,” he said. “But [the briefings] are an opportunity to get information, not make political statements.”

    As for Guckert, Hutcheson said Talon News’ link to a political party definitely “calls into question his legitimacy as a journalist.” But he also argued that reports that Guckert had helped set up several sex Web sites should have no bearing on his access to the president.

    “Too much is being made out of it,” Hutcheson said. “You should take out the porn connection. That has nothing to do with anything. Playboy has naked women, but they have done some damn good journalism. It is the journalistic endeavor that should be looked at.”

  4. Posted February 20, 2005 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Hey Mark! I was watching CNN this afternoon and they were discussing the Gannon-gate scandal. They talked about the blogosphere’s influcence in breaking stories. They showed a bunch of screen shots…and yours was there! They had your header and then a close up of your Gannon posting.

    Pretty darn cool.

  5. mark
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Dan, I don’t get CNN any more (it’s one of the things I lost when I cut back on cable), but I suspect you’re mistaken. All I did was report what was happening on a few other sites. If they showed images from anywere, they probably would have been from Daily Kos or America Blog. They were the two sites digging up dirt. I was just doing my part to spread the word.

  6. mike
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    John – I can’t believe how many times you call mark out on everything he says. It’s neat to see how quickly he scadaddles away from the subject. Keep up the investigations into the articles that he posts. Everyone here is aware that you are the Fact checker here…Mr. Factchecker. I am starting to notice how Mark is much more careful of what he says. Maybe he is starting to see the light. The hate may be dissipating inside of him as the truth is unvieled before him Mr. Truthunvieler. Brett and steven don’t even dare to dispute you. They have been nuetered. Let the liberal nuetering continue.

  7. brett
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    yes, i’ve been neutered. It was by a bamboo japanese knife, pictured in the freighthouse thread.

    anyway, i think it’s fucking wonderful people ARE making light of gannon’s gay sex, considering he’s been caught working as a tool for an administration with a decidedly anti-gay agenda.

  8. mike
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    an anti-gay agenda? How so? Gays have the same rights as straights?

  9. brett
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    mike- yep. gays have the same rights as straights.

    mark- i was just watching CNN myself, and they’re running a full story on how your site chose to cover gannongate, and was then targeted by a group of right-wing militants seeking to discredit you through trolling. They have several news trucks heading for a neighborhood in Atlanta as we speak to interview the so-called, self-titled leader of the group.

    In the studio, while all this is happening, Jim Jarmusch and Don Knotts have been brought in as ‘character witnesses’. It isn’t looking good.

  10. chris
    Posted February 20, 2005 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr. Galt,

    Thank you for sourcing your cut and posts. Since I am a dumbass democrat please splain to me how Gannon’s name matched up with Guckert’s SS#. And if it didn’t why bother asking for it in the first place?

    Oh wait, chum chumaree chum chumaree chum chum aree the stinkiest of chum I am giving to thee. Or blow me a dis and that’s chummy too.

    Hard pass
    Day pass
    Kiss my ass

  11. mark
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    I’ve only been to the White House once (outside of the regular tours that anyone can take). I went to some kind of function on the lawn. It was 1986 or ’87 and Reagan was there. I believe it was an official welcoming ceremony for Helmut Kohl. At any rate, even though that was 20 years ago, well before 911, I rember having to go through something of a security check in the days prior to the event. I find it hard to believe that the system has become more lax since then.

  12. Ken
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Mark, the website defending the honor of Jeff Guckert is coming along nicely. I am working on a gimmick for that front page picture. I took the nude photo and actually photoshopped clothes on it. That will lend him an air of respectability. Here is the kicker: I made it a roll-over so that if you put your cursor over the image, it reverts back to the nude state. I thought this was important because we should never restrict Mr. Guckert’s right to show his pecker in public. Mr. Galt’s comments show that it is important that we get this site up as quickly as possible. There are people coming out of the woodwork to defend Jeff. The facts he has shown defending Mr. Guckert will provide invaluable content for the site. I love that Mr. Guckert could get a pass everyday by standing in line, just like you or me. That makes him so much more the every-man. I can’t wait to go live with this site!

  13. Tony Buttons
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Interested in connecting the dots? This article might have clues.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=104

  14. Anonymatt
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    This entire story is queer in the archaic sense of the word.

    The issue was low on the media radar before there was a sex angle. Once that was exposed, the media took notice. This is hardly surprising. Media outlets love to play up sex scandals, because they attract more viewers.

    I don’t think Gannon is being singled out because he’s conservative, or gay, or belongs to a non-mainstream media company. (He was in the WH press pool for two years and none of the mainstream reporters felt the need to comment on or expose him.) Gannon is being singled out because he’s a member of the WH press pool that posted nude pictures of himself in public forums. As far as I know, this is a first. I think if anyone else from the WH press pool posted nude photos on the internet, the media would still treat it as a major story because there are nudie pics involved. It wouldn’t matter if the reporter was gay or straight, male or female, conservative or liberal. (It would be an even bigger story if Helen Thomas posted nude photos on an escort service site. Don’t deny it.)

    I’m not sure that the WH colluded with Gannon in regards to his reporting. I think there are more than a few people who support the current WH that would be willing to ask softball questions that promote WH policy, without having to take orders from the WH to do so. They may have helped to get him in every day just because they knew he was a sympathetic voice.

    It seems strange (as john galt says above) that one is only required to provide name, address and SS# to get a day pass to the WH press pool. If this is the case, that should be a major scandal in itself in the day and age of Homeland Security Terror Alerts. The fact that the WH would repeatedly issue a day pass to a reporter for two years sounds weird, especially when the reporter seems to have never applied for a hard pass specifically because he knew he would fail the background check. Has this ever happened to another reporter?

    Purportedly Talon News dropped all of Gannon’s articles from their website when he resigned. ( I cannot confirm this because Talon’s archives are subscription only.) If true, that looks like they’re trying to hide something.

    As has been previously mentioned, it shouldn’t matter that a reporter used to be a prostitute before getting a new career. But Gannon posted profiles on a number of sites soliciting escort services, some of which were still active up until he resigned from Talon. Whether he still did escort work while he was a reporter is unknown, but it’s certainly not impossible.

    I suspect this story will continue to get curiouser and curiouser.

  15. john galt
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    since bush apparently has an anti-gay agenda.. I’d just like to post this quote from today’s nytimes. I’m too lazy to post the link but this is from his secretly recorded conversations… Doesn’t look like Bush has any “hatred” for people who are gay to me…

    Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people.

  16. john galt
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    here’s thelink, lest you scream.. reg is required which is why I didn’t post it orig.

  17. john galt
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    btw, you guys might have missed it during the election, but apparently Dick Cheney has a gay daughter.. I’m sure you guys can find ways to slander her.. seeing how her father is an evil neocon.. and yet still supports her.

  18. brett
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    marriage amendment, John?

    Is that ‘pro-gay’ in your mind?

    …and in your quote above Bush hardly sounds very ‘pro’ to me, considering he references the lifestyle as still being a sin.

  19. mike
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    So Brett, you are going from “he has a decidedly anti-gay agenda” to “he doesn’t sound pro-gay”. That’s a big shift in your attack. And what is the Marriage Amendment Brett? Pretty simple actually. Here it is:

    “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.”

    This does not exclude any state of granting civil unions and any benefits associated with them (all could be equal to Marriage).

    It seems that the president wants the definition of marriage to remain in it’s traditional sense and that is all. Is that bad? Good? Should the federal government impose legislation on state governments? I don’t know. I have a bigger problem with activist judges (on both sides) legislating from the bench. To me that is a more important issue. The constituion will be changed one way or another. Either by an amendment passed by We The People or activist judges. Amendments are very hard to pass for a good reason. The constitution is a damn good piece of paper. No need for a lot of changes. However, we are in a era that allows the court to simply just make laws up just to fit their political leaning. Right now it seems to be coming from the left ad nauseum. Soon it may be from the right. I don’t want them legislating from either side.

  20. brett
    Posted February 21, 2005 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    mike, i honestly think you’re smart enough to know what i’d say in response, so i’m not sure why you keep asking.

    Yes, i think the marriage amendment is bad. I think it’s so bad that I would even say the administration promoting it could be considered ‘anti-gay’.

    The ‘civil union’ laws and rights you mention are absolute bullshit as they stand now, and they’re being rapidly trampled upon even moreso here in michigan because a marriage amendment passed in the last election, resulting in religious groups coming out of the woodwork to challenge same-sex benefits, as they feel they have some guv’ment momentum behind them.

    It’s one step towards a dangerous brink. It would also be the first time, beyond the prohibition of alcohol, that a U.S. constitutional amendment was drafted to CURTAIL our freedoms.

  21. Anonymatt
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    Uh, Mike, the Marriage Amendment allows states to grant civil unions while allowing the Federal Govt to not recognize them. (I’ve seen other but similar wordings to what you posted.)

    I agree that Bush doesn’t seem to have any animus against homosexuality. but he sures plays up to his donors that do.

    It doesn’t matter if he personally is less homophobic than his government work suggests, the results are the same.

  22. mark
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Ken,

    Please keep us posted on the progress that you’re making in your important work. It’s heartening, especially in these days of extreme polarization, to see a man like yourself cross ideological boundaries to help a reporter as he tussles with the liberal media elites. Closeted, self-hating male prostitute plants, after all, deserve free speech too

  23. Ken
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Mark, God bless you, too. I know we are doing the good work in this crazy mixed up world of ours. The good work, indeed!

  24. mike
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Anonymatt – the marriage amendment actually ALLOWS the states to make up whatever civil union benefits they want to. This only pertains to “Marriage”, and not civil unions. Amendment X takes care of that for the states. If the civil union laws are “bullshit” as the eloquent brett states then it’s up to the people of that state to modify them. It’s not up to the courts or the federal government. It’s easy for the left-wing bomb throwers here to blame bush for everything as long as they don’t look into the facts. Of course this is what this site has been up until now. Anonymatt, you are a welcome debater. I look forward to your insight.

  25. JF
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Funny thing to me on this entire Guckert story is that it wont die. The liberal media just wants to keep this story going as long as possible. But when gay prostitutes where using Barney Franks house to operate out of how much did we hear about that? Probably several on this site just found out when reading this. Just keep in mind that the difference is Franks is a liberal democrat like the mainstream media.

    JF

  26. brett
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    the proposed national amendment does nothing in the way of ‘allowing’ anything to happen. It’s restriction, pure and simple. That restriction is simply the latest salvo in a movement that started years ago when most states eliminated civil union rights, and now they’re further rigidifying their individual constitutions so that ‘gay-friendly’ churches can’t get around those existing laws.

    the amendment would be a violation of individual rights, a violation of the separation of church and state,and a dangerous precedent for the sorts of things one can put into the constitution.

    You’re debating the language of a single line of a proposed law while ignoring an entire movement which it symbolizes.

  27. chris
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I agree that Bush is not anti-gay. As some of his best appointees are gay. Jheez. I mean the irony is that this entire administration seems so totally gay to me. I just wish they weren’t so self-hating gays.

    You know, “The eagle has flown” is like totally, you know…code.

  28. Posted February 22, 2005 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Um… His “secretly recorded conversations”? Did he learn nothing from Nixon? I didn’t follow the link so I suppose there might be more to the article than you provided (nothing nefarious implied

  29. JF
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Mike,

    Your right! I see your point now. You pegged it perfectly.

    JF

  30. brett
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    I found the ‘firing gays’ line strange for two reasons, one being that he never actually says he’d hire them in the first place, and two being that it would seem like an employee doing a shitty job SHOULD be fired, regardless of orientation.

    Hopefully they will release the full audio on Kazaa eventually, so that home mixers everywhere can sync it up over tracks of Aphex Twin.

  31. Anonymatt
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Mike,

    The amendment may allow states to have whatever civil unions they want, but would those be recognized by the federal govt or other states’ govts? If not, they really wouldn’t be too useful unless you never leave your state of residency. And if the FMA as you describe it is passed, then the only type of union recognized federally and by the other states would be marriage, which would then be limited to a man and a woman only. So the only type of union available for homosexuals would be second class compared to what heterosexuals could have.

    If anyone sponsoring the FMA (as you described it) also advocate that civil unions be recognized by other states and the fed, please let me know.

    I’m glad you appreciate my insight, but I haven’t posted many comments here because I don’t have the time to devote to an activity that’s not very important to me. I work on a computer all day (where I am too busy to post comments on blogs while I work, and don’t want to waste my lunchtime) so when I come home I don’t have too much incentive to spend more time on the computer (I have no spouse and kids to avoid).

    You know the old (non-PC) saying about arguing on the internet being like running in the Special Olympics…

    p.s. I don’t think I’ve ever posted any insults here, except a few directed at Mark concerning non-political issues. they were genuinely rude and insulting by design.

  32. mark
    Posted February 22, 2005 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    I know you love me, Matt.

  33. Anonymatt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Mark, you’ve broken the code of my pseudonym and posted my real name online. You fiend! (Note to readers: previous insults I’ve posted to Mark were much nastier.)

    I’ll be charitable and assume that Mike hasn’t responded to my question because I told him I wouldn’t be posting a lot. Even though he did manage to post a comment on the “It’s getting gay in here” last night that implied that if people don’t respond to your posts, it’s because they have no answer, and also have wet their beds and gotten their panties in a wad.

    He also failed to address my comments on the “bring in the scumbags.”

    I, of course, agree that making fun of Mark is easier and more enjoyable than engaging in political debate.

  34. Ken
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    I think everyone can agree that when you bring bed wetting into the political debate that it’s a record sized flame bait troll turd. It may be the largest one that Mr. Bell has laid in both size and odor.

  35. mark
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Don’t feel bad, Matt. I’ve left two questions for Mike in the USA Next anti-AARP thread which he hasn’t answered.

    Maybe he’ll have John Galt come out today and distract us.

  36. JF
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    AnonyMATT,

    When you ask the question to Mike “but would those be recognized by the federal govt or other states’ govts?” It made me think a bit. I am of the belief that if two loving people want to be married that is fine with me, no matter their sex. I have to admit I am not to versed in this subject but would like to know concerns regarding federal or state recognition. What are the benefits a couple receives if recognized by different states or the federal government? Why is that such a big deal? What am I missing on this (seriously)?

    JF

  37. chris
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr. Galt,

    In the process of searching for CNN archives I came across this:

    http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$31588

    Please put this in your pipe and smoke on it. Why would you even be arguing about the ease of getting a day pass ia mystery to me. Unless of course you were Mr. Guckert’s guest.

  38. Posted February 23, 2005 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v19/zames/ribbon-based-economy.jpg

  39. mike
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Ken – Do I know you? Nobody has used my last name except for you. You have used it twice now. I guess, besides my address, it’s one of the last personal items that haven’t been posted up here by the lefties once their echo chamber was shattered.Do you mind telling me your last name (and real first name if you are using an alias), address (at least the city), a picture would be good also?? That way I could look you up so next time I’m in the vicinity I can invite you out for a talk. I am sure that you would have a good time. Of course if you live close to Mark, I should be seeing you soon if you actually hang out with him. Going forward, I would prefer that you just call me a name like “Mike the troll” or use my first name but leave out any more personal info. This may be too much to ask but even Mr. Maynard has said enough with the personal information being posted. This happens to be one of the few things that I agree with him about. Mark knows a lot about me and if you want to, just ask him and he can tell you privately. There is no need for it here in my opinion. And again, for the last time, I am not John Gault. Mark’s “Web Master” can verify that I am sure.
    And Mark, I will eventually answer your AARP questions -very busy at work and should have time during the weekend, and while eating steak and shake fries during lunch (now). It does get quite monotonous and boring here without me. I mean except for ken adding value to the thread.

  40. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    so chris, someone at the Augusta Free Press “online” had a problem getting a day pass and this is your hard hitting refutation of my comments? It took them a couple of phone calls over two weeks? Well I’m sure Gannon probably had the same problem at first but I would assume that once you get approved the first time you go on a regulars list probably don’t have a background check every time (this was going on for over a year). Still don’t get the big deal though.

  41. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Ken,
    do you mean this Mike Bell?

    http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=bellmi01

  42. mike
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    John – How dare you bring up my past. It’s just like what they are doing to Gannon. I thought we were closer. Now it’s looks as though I too have a Doug Wead.

  43. Ken
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Mike (it will be Mike from now on), I was just being formal, you know, like the Wall Street Journal. Your name was used at some point. I think it was Jarod in one of his early comments or Mark’s Mom.

  44. mike
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    I appreciate it ken. I will get back to trolling now..well..later tonight anyway.

  45. JF
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    I think it was Marks Mom. I don’t even know that Mike person. Thanks to John I will go look him up now.

    Jerod

  46. JF
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    John and Mike,

    WDOD!!! Just let me know.

  47. mike
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Jerod – I bet on Brett before the night is out. DDD

  48. Katie
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    If you really are this Mike Bell it would answer a few questions as to why you are so angry. Being fired after only two years in the major leagues must be a big blow to one’s ego.

  49. Anonymatt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Katie,
    I know Mike and I don’t think anything is capable of damaging his ego.

    I’ll be back with a reply to JF’s question.

  50. Anonymatt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Lemme just point out that I went to school with Mark, Mike, and JF, if anyone cares about that sort of thing.

    I have no idea concerning the person posting under the name john galt, though. (But I absolutely, positively will NOT ask that cliched 4 word question from Atlas Shrugged.)

    OK, time to get serious…

  51. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    well he didn’t get fired, he got injured (have a little more sensitivity for the disabled please). Mike and JF IWHATRS!, WDD. Brett would hate it if you pointed out HKSDK. Anonymatt please don’t mention that book on this forum, if most of the regulars were to read it, it could create an existential crisis for them (maybe I’ll start posting as Camus – or just the stranger). Anyways ggftg for now.

  52. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    I have asked one of my newsie contacts to find out exactly what it takes to get a day pass. She said she’d tried to get an answer for me from someone who has a congressional pass. I of course don’t feel comfortable posting anyone’s real name on this site (unless I get an ok from them) so If she gets a response, I will certainly understand if you completely disregard the answer. ggftg!

  53. Anonymatt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    JF-

    Now I will try to answer your question. I’m not really well versed in the subject, but I believe I can explain what I was talking about and give examples.

    Marriage, in the legal sense, automatically confers many benefits to the couple. Two that come to mind are the granting of “Next of Kin” status, and spousal survivor benefits from SS or private pensions.

    There is some kind of law that says that a marriage in one state is automatically recognized in the other 49. I forget whether this is a law about marriage, or state’s contracts in general. I think I first heard about it when the case that would have legalized gay marriages in Hawaii was still being considered. There were efforts in some states to pass laws that said the state would not recognize other’s states’ marriages if they were not between a man and a woman. I believe there were some similar efforts last year during the gay marriage rush in Mass., New Paltz, San Fran, et. al. So that’s how I learned about it.

    OK, that’s the background. Here’s a hypothetical:
    Let’s say that the FMA is passed (in the form Mike describes). One state, let’s say New Jersey, creates civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage, but the civil unions are not legally recognized by the other states. A gay NJ couple named Adam and Steve have been partners for 10 years and get a civil union. Steve comes from Ohio, and his family never approved of his homosexuality or Adam. One day Steve goes to Ohio to visit his family, Adam doesn’t accompany him because Steve’s family never liked him. During the visit, Steve gets hit by a car and is hospitalized. Adam rushes to Ohio, but because Ohio doesn’t recognize the civil unions of NJ, Adam does not have “next of kin” status with Steve. Legally, Adam is not related to Steve so “next of kin” status defaults to Steve’s family. Steve’s family bars Adam from visiting Steve, and Adam has no legal recourse.

    Or let’s suppose Patty and Selma are a lesbian couple with a civil union in NJ. With the help of David Crosby and a turkey baster, Selma gets pregnant and has a baby named Lisa. For 8 years, Patty and Selma raise Lisa, and Lisa considers them her parents. They all go on a camping vacation in Montana. Patty goes off to fish one morning and while she’s gone, a grizzly bear attacks the camp, killing Selma and injuring Lisa. Legally, Montana only recognizes Selma as a parent. Patty has no legal right to visit Lisa in the hospital.

    OK, those are just anecdotes, but I think they might explain the kind of stuff I was talking about. There actually have been cases similar to Adam and Steve’s in which the parents of one partner use their next of kin status to keep the partners separate against their wishes for months or years at a time. (I’m not aware of the grizzly attack scenario ever occurring, though.)

    Basically, all the rights configured on a married couple in the state in which they got married are still valid in all the other states. If they weren’t, a couple would have to get married in all 50 states in order to have the same rights throughout the country.

    I hope that explains why I’m concerned about whether other states would be required to recognize the civil unions of other states.

    I haven’t looked into the issue in great detail because I have thought it more practical that I find someone that I would actually like to marry before I fight for my right to do so.

  54. Anonymatt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    john galt,

    If the other left-leaning posters here read Atlas Shrugged, they would probably find it cartoonish and boring as I did, rather than have an existential crisis. I read it over 10 years ago, so I forget a lot of details. Everyone who believes in, or comes to believe in, Randian principles is noble, while those who aren’t are all craven underhanded cowards. The part I found really unrealistic was when all the Randian characters got fed up with society and dropped out. Amazingly, they were able to find a secret, hidden Happy Valley to hide from everybody. The valley had a copper deposit for the copper mine guy (Francisco something?) to develop, had enough raw materials to be able make Rearden steel (correct name?), Dagny can create a railroad, etc. What a lucky coincidence that this valley contains all necessary natural resources! I must admit that I was never able to get through “your” 50 page speech, it was so dense and boring. Atlas Shrugged never seemed more than a work of fiction to me, not an epiphany-generating guide to life.

    It was good to be exposed to Ayn’s viewpoint, even though I wasn’t convinced of its validity. I just wish I had tried one of her shorter books.

  55. chris
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    OH MY GOD!! THE Mike Bell of the Atlanta Braves? I bow down to your greatness, if I remember correctly you were really hot.

    I mean nothing is sexier than a self educated man with a sports injury. Kind of like Magnum PI. Oh wait, I mean a straight Magnum.

    So what are you doing now? Working at your father in law’s used car lot?

  56. chris
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    John Galt,

    Please name me one other WH press pass holder having comparable credentials (nonentity news agency and a college “history” from a nonexistant college-I’ll even throw out the sex for money thing) who has not only had consistant access to the Bush press breifings but also has asked a comparable number of statements posed as questions of Bush. And I will declare you a winner and never make a gannon post or respond to your comments again. Or conversely, after every one of your posts I can follow it up with, “I know this man and he speaks the truth”.

  57. Dick Cheney\'s Extending Taint
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Adam and Steven.

    Steve… please.

  58. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    I will keep you informed, I still think this whole Gannon thing is stupid, I really don’t see how he “manipulated” the media. Its not like he’s Dan Rather on the CBS evening news (well 60 min) flogging a fake story. I’ll admit there were probably some favors had (it is DC you know).. I’ll post a Day-pass explanation when (if) I get one, my sources at “a MAJOR news outlet” (see I was about to name it, but am worried that web-master steven will post lots of personal stuff) say this is sorta industry info (as you will find if you google white house day pass as I did). Nevertheless, I will follow up and post the status (prob tommorrow).

  59. Anonymatt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    DCET-

    To truly make your point, you should have posted as Richard Cheney\’s Extended Taint.

  60. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Ok one other thought, about the Dowd pass taking that long… She has a book out that is very critical of the administration, plus she has misquoted the president on numerous occasions to make her case. I wonder why they don’t want to let a known “fake journalist” into the breifings.. Where was she when Hillary was firing the travel staff?

  61. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    Ok really the last thought of the night (some of us posters actually “work”)… If Mark’s whole problem is softball questions, then why the hell isn’t Larry King a target of this readership? Have you ever seen him ask an even moderatly ballsy question? He gets people on his show because they know they will not be confronted with reality. Please show me one hard-hitting King interview (yes I know hes done like 1000 but they are all puffballs, of course he is a “respected” journalist). Unlike Gannon, who BTW is Gay.

  62. john galt
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    Yes, anonymatt. Atlas was rather unrealistic, and I don’t think Rand was that great of a writer (there were some pretty boring speaches in there). I consider her the opposite of marx (she did flee russia during the revolution). Was the book entirely believable, no. I don’t think Rand correctly understood the totallity of human nature, where the shortest path is preferred. I do respect her views though, that each one of us is responsible for our own lives and that to depend on others for our survival is akin to slavery. Rand wrote about the triumph of the the individual over those who would seek to enslave him. It stands in stark contrast to the Clintonista mantra “that it takes a village”. Rand respected the individual and believed each man (woman) should stand for themseleves, that strength, making the greater core of society stonger.

  63. mike
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Gannon is gay? This changes everything. I didn’t know he was gay.If he is gay, then I take mark’s side. No Gays should be allowed a press pass under any circumstances.

    Katie – Matt is right about my ego. Of course I wasn’t fired but Mark can write up an article about me later.

    Chris – They aren’t USED cars and I did happen to graduate from a fairly respectable university. And I am still hot but guys telling me I’m hot really doesn’t do it for me so tone it down a bit and stay on topic.

    BTW – Who is John Gault?

  64. Dick Cheney's Extending Taint
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Good catch, Anonymatt. Only Richard Cheney would know that. (Unless he was a poser who stole the joke from David Sedaris.)

  65. chris
    Posted February 23, 2005 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Mike, Dude, you are so rude. You have been informed on two previous threads that I am a woman. But I find it intriguing that you keep referring to me as a man esp when I said you were hot. I thought you and your pseudonym had no problem with man on man love.

    Wasn’t Ms. Dowd denied a press pass out of a fear of an assasination attempt. But wouldn’t she be more likely to off Dick, I mean Richard?

    Finally, you two, I mean one, keep saying why does Gannon matter. Well I for one give, why doesn’t he matter?

  66. mike
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    okay chris – I apologize. I knew you were all woman the first time you posted. Nobody can hide hormones, even in one’s writing. I was just trying to press your buttons. I also don’t care about man on man love although I find woman on woman much more appealing. Of course there is woman on man on woman which then gets kinda cool. 3 men? -nope, don’t like it, wouldn’t watch but I would sell the film on the free market (not to teens) if it would make me a quick buck. Now I really must remind you that I am not John Gault. He is much smarter than I, don’t you think? I haven’t followed the Dowd story much because as John says, she is very willing to misquote and spin a story just to fit her needs – moreso than most. I explained to a coworker today why I don’t think Gannon matters all that much. Now if this was a story back before the internet, before 24/7 news, by God, before the BLOGS, then I think it would matter. But in today’s age even Dan Rather and Eason Jordan can’t get away with their fake journalism and outright lies. It doesn’t work. If the administration was behind it then I can only say that it was dumb. But to blow this story up and make it sound like this guy was actually going to sway public opinion is just silly. The media, because of the openess, ease and just plain speed of communication nowadays between people like you and me, just cannot continue to slant their stories the way they want. Oh they can do it for a while but the truth surfaces much too quickly for them to weave their web of deception. Hence the fall of the big three and the liberal bias that used to dominate this country. You gotto tell the truth. That’s why I am here…I am not going to nod my head yes and post the exact same homogeneous message as your fellow brothers and sisters on this site. You need me here and need you guys to keep me honest. I’ve told you before, if you want to start winning elections you have to learn the other side of things. The echo chamber is all peachy but you need more votes. You have to give people a reason to like you and your ideas. But first you have to come up with some ideas. Do me a favor and go the next month without saying one negative about the bush administration – while at the same time voicing what your way of handling the topic of debate would be. See how much harder it is to do. It will only strengthen your argument 10 fold. Hell, people may not even know what side you lean politically. I don’t practice that technique here because I am too much of an arrogant ass and I sometimes just want to get a reaction – boredom most likely. I think I ran out of places to surf at night so why not inflame some people. Hey, if what you say isn’t going to be contraversial, then why say it(except for ‘I love you’)? But back to one of my many tangents… It’s very tough to argua a point and not criticize the opposite position. But if you can pull if off, your point almost always shows validity to the person that you are debating. And if you happen to be debating a fence sitter of even a conservative you may have just earned a point or two. If the next liberal that that fence sitter runs into is a lib with the same tactic and a few added points of interest, you may have a convert and thus a vote. I have to say that most of my friends are liberal. Mark is actually my friend. And we piss each other off continuously. I can’t speak for him but when we don’t throw bombs, and he says something and lays it out and is passionate about it and doesn’t have to even mention the opposing point of view, it sticks with me. It wins him points (do not tell him this). Bottom line is if it works on me – mr right wing pro bush troll – then it most certainly works on lesser right wing war mongers who want to destroy the environment while driving hummers to their personal investor’s private all white male cocktail party in which the servants are poor black disenfranchised males whose only other job oppotunity is joining the military only to serve in an unjust war for oil in which they will most likely get killed and whose spouses will get a measly $7000 death payout only if they are of the opposite sex. Now I am only rambling because I just took my back medication which I don’t really need but gets me out of my depressed state because without it I couldn’t handle my devastation of being fired after only two years in the big leagues in which I really never got to display my god given talent of hitting a baseball with a bat (although mark should really re-tell his story about how I hit him in the neck with a batted ball from across the gymnasium whilst he helped me practice …yes mark pitched balls to me one day and I thanked him by dropping him like a rock with one well placed line drive…and I couldn’t stop laughing because of the sheer odds at really doing it…that’s when I knew I was destined to be a big leaguer….it is also his source of hatred of all jocks). Anyway, I don’t remember what this post was supposed to be about, but those are my thoughts…I am glad I am friends with mark. It is worth it. Did anyone read this whole thing?

  67. Anonymatt
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Mike, I gave up after the first few lines.

    For the record, I’m not a Dowd fan. She was highly critical of the Clintons during the 90s and her writing is often weird or goofy.

    What was Eason Jordan’s fake story? I know that his recent comments and CNN’s trying not to rock the boat when Saddam was in power have deservedly generated a lot of criticism.

  68. mike
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Eason’s recent one was that US troops were intentionally shooting journalists. Of course he back away from the comments when asked for proof. No tapes have been released of the speech either.

  69. JF
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Good article explaining several things to the open minded reader. I find the day pass versus the permanent pass (ommitted by Dowd) interesting. Unfortunately it does not cover Barney Franks but I am sure the dems are getting around to prosecuting him soon just like Gannon/Guckert.

    I doubt any of you will read this let alone respond as it has too many facts for you to handle.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050224.shtml

  70. chris
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Yet more evidence that Mike truly is Mr. Galt (see Atlas Shrugged, and Galt’s 30 odd page rant). If he is not Galt, then they have a relationship where the former is economically dependent on the other.

    I can’t tell if this is fun anymore.

    Why?. The whole pro-Bush thing is just beyond anything previously experienced. It is truly awesome. If someone is pro-Bush on this site, there is nothing anyone on this site or ANYWHERE, that will get said person to change their mind. I mean my 63 yo father WENT to Iraq last summer for the Army COE to help rebuild Iraq, had his convoy fired upon while it drove past Fallujah back to Baghdad, had one of the security detail shot and killed in the process, and oddly he still supports Bush. Of course, his paycheck is dependent on the administration…wait maybe that’s it. Back to male prostitution.

    Because, if they truly are a Bush supporter, they had to already have had to jump through so many hoops of disconnect there may be no way of getting them back or even their ability of finding their own way back.

    There is a new book out that suggests 1 in 25 Americans are sociopaths. That said, I wonder what the ratio of Americans are that voted for Bush

  71. JF
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Mike,

    DODA! She did it too.

    JF

  72. mike
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    JF – I just got done reading the article and then came here and saw your link. I was actually just going to use snipets for fear that the CloseMinders (CMs from now on in our codetalk) wouldn’t even bother reading it. And just as I thought, Chris doesn’t have the knowledge or will to convert anybody to her side. I would say that’s the norm here. WHNT.

    great article by Ann though -damn she’s good. the next lib will respond with the usual DDD.

  73. mark
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    DDD?

    I’m guessing “Daring Defense of Democracy.”

    Am I right?

  74. mike
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    No.

  75. JF
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Close

  76. mike
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Chris we could say the same about you as far as jumping through hoops yet we don’t. If it is too hard for you to try my advice, I understand. Libs are good at saying what won’t work and giving excuses. It’s easier to do. So your dad was shot at by terrorists out to kill innocent people and ODDLY he still supports Bush? Sounds like you have a proud American on your hands there. I am sure he could make money elsewhere, what a shame you even use that as an excuse.

  77. chris
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Oh, this is good, you mock my father. I’m done, you win. I feel like Mo Rocca at the GOP convention. Go Bush Yeah Yeah…whatever. One last thing Mike, have you thought of joining the military? You have all the attributes. I hear they’re truly down to a few good men.

  78. chris
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get the make money elsewhere thing. But you know what it really doesn’t matter.

    Mark, could you please tell us about your hybrid? We are considering the purchase of one. Also, have you considered solar panels at all?

  79. mark
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I’ll start a new thread on hybrids. It’s probably about time that I raved about my Civic again. As for solar panels, I don’t have any, but I was just a friends house last weekend checking out his. Maybe I could get him to post something here.

  80. JF
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Chris,

    I am not one to usually defend Mike but if you read his post more carefully with a little less emotion you will see that he praises your father and mocks you. He calls your father a proud American. Nothing better than that in my opinion.

    JF

  81. brett
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    “IWHATRS!, WDD. DDD. DOD? Brett would hate it if you pointed out HKSDK. “

    no, actually, brett would love it if you began speaking to eachother exclusively in code, as you would then be 1) more easily ignored and 2) more accurately behaving like the “lil’ orphan annie decoder ring-having” juveniles you obviously are.

    I’ve skimmed this thread to try and see what the actual issue is, and I’ll be damned if i can find it. Is this your idea of a healthy debate? What are you even talking about anymore?

    Mike, I loved your drug-induced, stream-of-unconsciousness rant. I read it three times. I printed it out and am having it expensively framed and matted- doormatted, that is. From now on, everytime you try to make a serious point I believe I’ll bring up the quote:

    “I also don’t care about man on man love although I find woman on woman much more appealing. Of course there is woman on man on woman which then gets kinda cool. 3 men? -nope, don’t like it, wouldn’t watch but I would sell the film on the free market (not to teens) if it would make me a quick buck.”
    -Mike Bell, February 24, 2005

    And, by the way, I think Ayn Rand is a great author, if you happen to be an emotionally repressed junior high student that hates their parents. These types eat up Camus by the shovel-load as well.

  82. mike
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    chris – seetle down. JF is right. I was mocking you for not even realizing that your father is a proud American. Maybe you don’t know what one looks like – in that case, go visit him, he’s your dad.

    Brett – glad you like the qoute. I didn’t realize you were still in junior high. When you get older, you will understand your parents a lot better. Once you start a family and have some kids, the hate will gradually dissipate. Right now you just have a lot of teen angst and why not, all teens go through this. You will grow out of it in no time. Oh yeah, we already agreed not to use my last name in the posts. See, I never told anyone what it was so I figured it could stay private. I don’t want to end up liek the coptic family in jersey you know. What’s your last name so we are even?

  83. brett
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    mike, sorry to confuse you. I suppose i should have been more clear. What i had meant to say was that Anal Rind only appeals to those who either are in Junior high, or haven’t matured past that point emotionally. You know the type, I’m sure. Libertarians, Social Darwinists, Capitalists, bullies, and anyone who’s generally very selfish. Try looking in the mirror.

    As for my last name, Mark and a few people here already know it, and, like yourself, I certainly run a risk of having them publish it should I start harassing everyone in sight and behaving like a pompous jerk.

  84. chris
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Mark, I am sorry that I missed your discussions of hybrids. I would be curious to find out how many panels your friend used, wha the outlay was, and how much E is produced vs. how much he uses. We’re considering this too. Although, as you know brownstones have very little roof area.

  85. mark
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Chris, if you do a site search on either “honda” or “hybrid” you should get some of my old posts. I’ve had the car for almost two years now and I haven’t really had any problems with it. I’d recommend them to anyone… As for my friend’s solar system, all I know is that he’s able to run four circuits off it reliably, which isn’t too bad given how sunless Michigan is… I’ll see if he’ll post something.

  86. Anonymatt
    Posted February 24, 2005 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    JF-

    I’m not sure why you’ve been going on like Barney Frank’s scandal is a secret. Yes, I have heard of it. (For the record, I am also aware that Sen. Byrd was once in the KKK.)

    I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason we are hearing about Gannon but not Frank is that Gannon’s story broke a few weeks ago while Frank’s happened 15+ years ago. Are you upset that no one seems to be covering the fall of the Berlin Wall these days?

    Since you brought it up, I thought I’d refresh my memory about the scandal. After it came out, Frank had to answer to the House Ethics Committee and was reprimanded. His constituents chose to reelect him. Maybe you think he deserved harsher punishment, but he didn’t just get away with it.

    I’m not sure who has ethical oversight of the White House, but I wouldn’t mind a similar investigation.

    As far as I know, the gay prostitute involved did not later go on to a career in journalism. That certainly would be relevant to the Gannon case, for sure.

  87. JF
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Matt,

    Valid points. The issue hear in my mind is that the media can choose to attack and ruin one persons life for “throwing softball questions” to the president (not that NYT or Reuters have never done that for CLinton). While others that support their party have a get out of jail free card. You have one reporter that covered a false story in his zealousness to get the Bush’s and they will praise him next week while Gannon fears for his families safety (nice). Such a double standard. The fact that people cannot see this double standard in the media is beyone comprehension.

    This story was first about the press-pass which Dowd blatantly lied about so when that failed all of a sudden they attack his sexual background. Sickening.

  88. Anonymatt
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    JF-

    If Gannon’s life was ruined because people accurately reported that he posted lots of nude photos and advertized himself as a gay escort on the internet, then he really has only himself to blame. As I’ve said before, it would be a big story if any other WH reporter did the same, no matter what their politics, gender, or sexual orientation are.

    And as far as I know, we only have Gannon’s word that he has been threatened, I haven’t seen any evidence. As you could probably guess, I don’t value his word much.

    It seems to me that you think that if the media report on a current story that reflects badly on Republicans, they must also bring up similar cases from the past that reflect badly on Democrats, or else it’s liberal media bias. I disagree with that.

  89. Anonymatt
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Forgot to mention that I won’t defend Dowd, I don’t like her writing either. She’s been criticized for her crappy journalism for years by people on both sides.

  90. JF
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Matt,

    At best this is a story of minor interest. Not some sort of huge scandal as some one to make it. The only reason the Dems and mainstream media are keeping it alive is because they have nothing to talk about (except for Michael Jackson). They are trolling for a story.

  91. brett
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I don’t know what’s being covered on TV news, but the gannon story does NOT appear to even be in the top ten items of online & print media outlets, so I don’t agree that there is nothing else being talked about.

    It seems like Mike, JF, Galt, etc’s primary point of contention (or i would say ‘paranoia’) here is that the media is controlled by a liberal conspiracy, which it is not. It is controlled by very wealthy corporations, and its content is determined by your beloved ‘market forces’.

  92. wormhole
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    unk–market forces bad. fire bad.

  93. Anonymatt
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    JF-
    There are still many angles I’d like to see investigated, like Gannon’s involvement with the Plame Affair. Sometimes he claimed to have heard that Valerie Plame recommended Amb. Wilson for the Niger trip in a secret CIA document, but lately he’s saying he saw that cliam in a WSJ article that came out before his interview with Wilson in which Gannon brought up that document. Purportedly the document in question places a certain CIA agent at the meeting (to decide who to send to Niger) who could not have been present, so the doc in question is suspected to be a forgery, so whoever might have passed it along to Gannon as authentic may have been breaking the law. He also recently said he wasn’t subpoenaed in the Plame case, while apparently he claimed he was in a post on Free Republic in 2003. The prosecutor in the Plame case has kept remarkably quiet during the investigation (considering Washington’s usual penchant for leaks), so we probably won’t know exactly what happened until he completes the investigation.

    besides the initial splash a couple weeks ago, I haven’t heard much from the MSM about it (they prefer Jackson). I have been kept informed by left-leaning websites (like this one) that have been playing it up continuously since then, though. but this is MM.com, not MSM.com.

  94. JF
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Matt,

    Separate note. Where are you living these days? Just curious.

    J

  95. Anonymatt
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    I’ve been in the same Brooklyn apt since 10/95.

    Concerning Gannon, let’s just say I think it may turn out to be of more importance than you currently do. We’ll have to wait and see whether I’m wrong or right. I admit it could be the former.

  96. Doug Skinner
    Posted February 25, 2005 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    I must admit that, even though I lean to the dreaded left, I’ve had little interest in the Gannon business. It seems as if a man with a silly website hired this silly character to ask partisan questions at press conferences under a phony name. That seems like bad judgment all around, but not illegal; the idea eventually collapsed under its own silliness. If the administration was bankrolling this peculiar experiment in journalism, that would be different. And if Gannon is indeed implicated in the Plame case, that would be another story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Vinnie Header