Propagandagate takes an interesting turn...

[Embar Angylwrath]

You know, you had me until your last line.

So you're gonna throw out the legitmacy of the argument based on a one-liner troll?

Incredible.

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak, you can beleive what you wits tell you to beleive. But you should know that the Kos weblog now has some serious reservations regarding the Gannon/Plame link. The Kos weblog is, of course, the epicenter of Gannongate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/15/92117/5166

In light of those facts, I'm inclined to discount Guckert's personal claims to having seen the leaked memo. Which, in turn, means that the most explosive part of the Guckert story may not even exist. How and why he got into the WH press room are questions that still need to be answered, but it sure looks like Guckert didn't have access to classified intelligence memos other than by reading about them in the Wall Street Journal.

Gannongate is a dog.

[Ddrak]

The Plame link was always the most tenuous - after all it was just Gannon's word that he saw it. That's not really the interesting bit anyway, at least as far as newsworthyness goes. I think the whole "White House employs gay hooker for Prez's softballs" is far more attention grabbing.

Dd

[Akhbarali]

Although the Gannon story is more salacious, I find the issue government paid politcal advocacy to be far more troubling. Both demonstrate a blurring of the line between the independent media and government but the latter seems more deceptive and potentially dangerous if taken farther. Stacking the deck a little at a Press Conferences is hardly unique to the current administration.


Akhbar

[Relbeek Einre]

That's true, Akhbar, but past administrations have been less blatant about it.

It's the buying and paying for these media shills - particularly with government dollars - that scares the hell out of me, and Gannon, there, is one of four known thus far.

[Akhbarali]

That's true, Akhbar, but past administrations have been less blatant about it.

It's the buying and paying for these media shills - particularly with government dollars - that scares the hell out of me, and Gannon, there, is one of four known thus far.

Are you claiming they paid Gannon with Govt funds to advocate political positions (as the four known statement seems to indicate)? I only know of payments to Williams, McManus and Gallagher. I haven't followed Gannongate very closely because (at worst) it looked like nothing more than what I described in my earlier post, stacking the deck at a Press Conference with someone that would toss softball questions at W. Govt. money being directed towards political advocacy is very troubling. Giving Press credentials to some faux journalist that happens to ask really soft (and stupid) questions is more amusing than disturbing at least to me.


Akhbar

[Relbeek Einre]

Ah - my bad. I am certain he was paid off, but whether it was with Gov't dollars is yet to be determined.

[Ddrak]

Actually, the "previous administrations" line isn't that great a defense. It's like justifying torture with "the terrorists do it".

I criticize the current administration because they are in power right now. When someone else is in power I promise to criticize them equally.

Dd

[Akhbarali]

Agreed. I am not using that as a defense as much as I am making a statement of fact. Fundamentally, I just don't see stacking the deck at a Press Conference to be a big deal, certainly not anywhere near as serious as using Govt. funds to pay for advocacy. I would also concede that these are subjective matters and the purists on journalistic integrity (my reporter brother for one) argue that they are equally troubling. I am not a purist though just a pragmatist and the opportunity for abuse seems much greater in the Williams/McManus/Gallagher examples than Gannongate.

Ganongate does allow reporters to use the words "gay sex" and "in the Bush White House" in the same article though so its appeal is obvious from a journalistic standpoint.

Akhbar

[SicTimMitchell]

The real question is why, out of all the journalists at White House press conferences, this guy was repeatedly called on.

(Not just by Bush, but by press secretary McClellan before him.)

[Relbeek Einre]

Exactly, Bang, it shows collusion between the White House and this gay prostitute.

I like this scandal, it has everything. Bribery, coverups, gay sex, gross hypocrisy, traitorous conduct, disinformation, and a smirking chimp. (NOTE: NOT RSAK)

[Akhbarali]

The real question is why, out of all the journalists at White House press conferences, this guy was repeatedly called on.

(Not just by Bush, but by press secretary McClellan before him.)

Because he was a plant that was asking ridiculous softball questions. That is the worst possible interpretation of these events and it still isn't nearly as troubling to me as the paid advocacy issue. I basically expect this kind of nonsense and as a news consumer have become relatively adept at filtering out these obvious shills.

Akhbar

[Chants Evensong]

If you have evidence to show that Jeff Gannon was called on disproportionately when compared to other reporters, I would be interested in seeing it.

Here is a website that might help get you started:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/

Here is a left-leaning article touching on this issue:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501260015

In his March 10, 2004, column, Froomkin indicated that Gannon has served as a useful lifeline for McClellan amid hostile questioning from less compliant reporters:

So, Gannon, in Froomkin's opinion, has been called on from time to time usually after McLellan already received several questions from other reporters. I do not doubt Froomin's opinion. Seeking out a friendly face in the crowd is nothing new in press conferences.

But this does not mean Gannon was called on disproportionately. It kind of shows the opposite. Gannon tends to get his turn only after other, more hostile reporters, get theirs'.

Conflating Gannon with Armstrong et al is like trying to pound a sqaure peg in a round hole. And it is really more sad than anything else. He was initially targeted because some people dind't like the political tone of his questions. It now turns out he was a relative nobody gay conservative with a dubiously credentialed press pass whose website was read by dozens of people a day. He milked the light of the Plame Flame, but his connection to this controversy really stemmed from a few passages he cribbed from a WSJ article. And now Leftist bloggers are dancing around the victory fire proudly displaying Gannon's chipmunk carcass.

How pathetic. How sad.

[Relbeek Einre]

So the White House hired a gay prostitute in deep debt as a plant to ask softball questions and this doesn't trouble you guys. OK.

[Ddrak]

Chants is playing the silly troll. Calling Gannon "dubiously credentialed" is like saying Osama Bin Laden has a "possible dislike" of America.

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

I have seen no evidence that Gannon was ever hired by the White House, ever recieved money from the White House, from anyone inside the White House or any other entity connected to the White House.

[JamiesanTGrauerwolf]

Maybe the whole gay prostitue thing is just a hobby for him.

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak wrote:

Chants is playing the silly troll. Calling Gannon "dubiously credentialed" is like saying Osama Bin Laden has a "possible dislike" of America.

I guess I should have also added that he cribbed from other sources and noted the lack of influence his articles actually had. That would have dispelled any notion that I am minimizing Gannon's obvious lack of jounalistic skills.

Oh wait, I did add those things.

Jamison wryly noted:

Maybe the whole gay prostitue thing is just a hobby for him.

No. I think he was pretty serious about it.

[Ddrak]

Credentials are not skills, Chants.

[Relbeek Einre]

I guess I should have also added that he cribbed from other sources and noted the lack of influence his articles actually had.

Yet he seems to have been the primary source on a couple pieces of disinformation that made their way into the "mainstream" media.