Propagandagate takes an interesting turn...

[Chants Evensong]

Relbeek stated:

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.

Again, I have seen no evidence that he was paid by the white house. I have seen no evidence that he was a plant.

But that does not mean I am left undisturbed. As I mentioned earlier, allowing Gannon in on a day pass is disturbing. I also mentioned that exposing the lack of background check on him [and other marginal journalists] in issuing these day passes shows very poor judgment. And it needs to be fixed if this has not been done so already.

[Chants Evensong]

Relbeek sates:

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

Such as?

[Akhbarali]

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.

You keep saying they hired him despite providing no evidence that this ever actually occurred. If he was on the White House payroll, I would find this to be as (or more) disturbing than the other cases. Absent any evidence of that fact, I could really care less about him being a gay prostitute (I mean it is not like he was living in a townhouse being paid for by Bush ) and knowing what reporters make I wouldn't be surprised if half the guys on the White House Press Corps are in fairly deep debt.

Akhbar

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak notes:

Credentials are not skills, Chants.

No, they are not, and Gannon had very little of both. Have I not made myself clear on that somehow?

[Relbeek Einre]

I'm sorry, Akhbar, I cannot believe that the level of collusion obvious between McLellan and Bush, and Guckert, doesn't indicate a quid pro quo relationship. The money may or may not have come from government coffers, but SOMEONE paid this clown, and the White House was in on it.

[Klast Brell]

Relbeek sates:

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

Such as?

Such as the "soup lines" fabrication about Harry Reid, the Jane Fonda fabrication about John Kerry, and every other fabrication and GOP talking point he made at a white house press conference. The Talon News service may had a miniscule readership, but what JG said in those conferences was part of the conference as a whole which was repeated in hundreds of mainstream broadcasts ands articles.

[Relbeek Einre]

Dailykos quoted this article:

http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp

The part quoted thus:

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart--or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.
Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps--and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now.

The "liberal" media is a lie.

[Chants Evensong]

In response to my request for proof than Gannon was the primary source of anything, Klast provides:

Such as the "soup lines" fabrication about Harry Reid, the Jane Fonda fabrication about John Kerry, and every other fabrication and GOP talking point he made at a white house press conference. The Talon News service may had a miniscule readership, but what JG said in those conferences was part of the conference as a whole which was repeated in hundreds of mainstream broadcasts ands articles.

Gannon was not the primary source on the Reid/Soup Lines issue. Limbaugh was. And limbaugh was being saterical. Gannon was not the primary source on this Soup Lines issue.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501270005

Gannon was not the primary source to draw any connection between John Kerry and Jane Fonda. That has been going on for thirty years.

I am looking for proof that Gannon was the primary source of white house disinformation, which is what Relbeek claimed. I have seen none.

I am not looking for evidence that he listened to the radio or read the papers.

[Relbeek Einre]

Uh, I call bullshit there, Chants. We have Rush Limbaugh's bluster as evidence, and that's all.

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh, and for the record, anything Gannon/Guckert said that made it into the mainstream press - like the soup can line - began with him. Nobody traced it back to Limbaugh. He did it. Saying some other kook like Limbaugh said it first is really irrelevant.

[Ddrak]

Gannon was probably not the primary source of anything - I think that much is obvious. He may have been the primary avenue however of getting propoganda into the mainstream media though - a lot of people take reporter's questions as fact.

His primary purpose was to toss propoganda in the form of questions to the person behind the mic when they wanted a break from the real questions being asked. He continually threw softballs and also made other unverifiable comments or attacks on Democrats as part of his questioning.

He was being paid by GOPUSA.com.

Using Chants' favorite site: http://mediamatters.org/items/200501260015 sums up Gannon's shilling pretty well.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

In response to my request for proof than Gannon was the primary source of anything, Klast provides:

Such as the "soup lines" fabrication about Harry Reid, the Jane Fonda fabrication about John Kerry, and every other fabrication and GOP talking point he made at a white house press conference. The Talon News service may had a miniscule readership, but what JG said in those conferences was part of the conference as a whole which was repeated in hundreds of mainstream broadcasts ands articles.

Gannon was not the primary source on the Reid/Soup Lines issue. Limbaugh was. And limbaugh was being saterical. Gannon was not the primary source on this Soup Lines issue.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501270005

Gannon was not the primary source to draw any connection between John Kerry and Jane Fonda. That has been going on for thirty years.

I am looking for proof that Gannon was the primary source of white house disinformation, which is what Relbeek claimed. I have seen none.

I am not looking for evidence that he listened to the radio or read the papers.

Don't be obtuse. By making those statements at the press conferences and briefings JG was quoted all over the mainstream media for months and months. When the media reports on what was stated at the press conference JG is the primary source of his own statements at that press conference. (god that’s a tortured sentence)

[SicTimMitchell]

Again, Chants, why was he called on AT ALL?

I'm not saying he was called on disproportionately compared to, say, all the White House correspondents listed here -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... dents.html -- although considering his "credentials" and these folks', the argument seems utterly valid.

How did the White House KNOW he was a shill, who'd lob not just softball questions, but actual attacks against the Democrats as well?

[SicTimMitchell]

P.S.,

Your link was useless. The names of the questioners aren't provided.

[Akhbarali]

>>>>Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?>>>>>>

I laugh every time I read this "question". Maybe it didn't sound as laughable live as it does in print.

There are two angles on "paid advocacy" and "stacking the deck at a press conference" (which despite Relbeek's feelings there is no indication that this guy was paid by anyone but private activists/entreprenuers). There is the embarrassment angle and the alarming angle.

Gannongate has a high embarrassment factor as the entire episode looks ham-fisted and pathetic. They even have a gay prostitue in the mix which makes for a high comedic factor as well. I just don't find it very alarming. Unlike other posters here, I don't see these types of questions asked at press conferences as seriously legitimizing the statements. My assumption is that people that follow political press conferences are actually bright enough to understand what is happening when a softball like this is lobbed. It is primarily to provide a breather and help them get "back on message". That is true at any politician's press conference and happens more than I think some people here understand. We're not Brits., we don't expect our politicians to take extended rhetorical beatings on a regular basis.

On the other hand, the paid advocacy issue is far more alarming than it is embarrassing. It makes a mockery of the proper interaction between media and government in a democracy. They used tax payer money to pay for blatant partisan political advocacy masquarading as objective journalism. And unlike the press conference this is the type of deception that I do NOT expect from politician's and/or governement appointees. I also might be more concerned about this because I am a huge consumer of print (and internet) media but basically don't watch TV. I felt like they lied to me on this one.

Summing up. Using govt funds to pay people that are pretending to be objective journalists in order to shill a partisan agenda is abhorent because it is damages our democracy. That offends and worries me deeply and IMO heads should roll over the matter (specifically the highest ranking official that signed off on those contracts). Giving a gay prostitute press credentials and then calling on him for softballs when things are getting ugly is embarrasing and, if taken to an extreme, would render all Bush's press conferences worthless, but it is relatively transparent and benign. I just can't get that worked up about the matter. Frankly, I find what the Governor of Maryland is doing to the two Baltimore Sun employees far more troubling than Gannongate but still not as troubling as the Williams/McManus/Gallagher affair. I am a little surprised a thread has not popped up on that one especially with the recent court decision backing up the Governor.

Akhbar

[Akhbarali]

How did the White House KNOW he was a shill, who'd lob not just softball questions, but actual attacks against the Democrats as well?

Because he told them in advance or they figured it out after asking him a couple questions (probably the former).

Does anyone know what percentage of reporters attending get to ask a question at each press conference (on average)?

Akhbar

[Ddrak]

This thread Akhbar? http://www.brellrants.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5795

And I think US politicians (well, all politicians) should be fed unending streams of rhetorical beatings. It's good for them. If you don't repeatedly beat them into rhetorical pulp they start to think they are actually above the common folk instead of their true position of common contempt.

Of course I may just think that because I was brought up with the Aussie system, which is very similar to the British system but without so much political correctness over the top.

Dd

[Chants Evensong]

Ddrak, I would agree that Gannon was a plant and a shill for GOPUSA, except the terms "plant" and "shill" suggest some degree of deciept, and neither Gannon, Talon News, and GOPUSA hid their affiliations with each other or thier openly conservative views. GOPUSA is not affiliated with the Republican party, as far as I can tell. I am looking

From Klast:

Don't be obtuse. By making those statements at the press conferences and briefings JG was quoted all over the mainstream media for months and months. When the media reports on what was stated at the press conference JG is the primary source of his own statements at that press conference. (god that’s a tortured sentence)

From Relbeek:

Oh, and for the record, anything Gannon/Guckert said that made it into the mainstream press - like the soup can line - began with him. Nobody traced it back to Limbaugh. He did it. Saying some other kook like Limbaugh said it first is really irrelevant.

Well, I dispute your characterization that JG was quoted for months and months over these issues because, for one, the Soup Line quote originated a couple of weeks ago. I do however, agree that when reporters make the news for making political speeches in the press room, they are abusing the privilege of conferred by thier press pass. And Gannon did that. And so do so many other more mainstream journalists.. Helen Thomas became notorious for her liberal Bush hating speachifying in the press room.

But we are looking for evidence that Gannon is a Bush plant, a shill. That's why Relbeek [albeit with no evidence] claimed that he was the "primary source of disinformation." If we had evidence that he was the primary source of anything, there would be some evidence that the White House was feeding him information. Not a lot, but some. But he was not even the primary source of any worthy news item anywhere, at any time.

Making speeches in the press room parroting information already released to the mainstream media does not show he was "fed disinformation." It makes him into the conservative equivalent of a Helen Thomas, deplorable as that is.

@Relbeek only. The evidence regarding the Soup Line comment may tell you Gannon is a Bush plant and a shill. It tells me that he listens to the radio. To each his own.

[Chants Evensong]

Bangzoom asked:

Again, Chants, why was he called on AT ALL?

He got a press pass, went to the breifing room, and raised his hand.

But the real question is why what he there at all, isn't it? Which implicates a fairly complex policy question: who is a legitimate journalist and who is not?

You know, after reading about how easy it was to get a daily press pass, I wrote up a funny little post about how we at Brellrants.net should make our own news service and send you over to get a daily pass to the Whitehouse as our correspondent. But that post experienced one of those invalid session errors.

[Akhbarali]

Nah Ddrak, the one you linked is a slam dunk as you state on the thread.

I would link the story I am refering to if I wasn't so damn lazy (and I think both the Wash Post and Baltimore Sun are pay internet news services). Basically the Governor of MD has barred ALL state employees from speaking to two Baltimore Sun employees because he thinks their coverage is baised and the initial court ruling backed him up. Given that they are citizens of the State of MD as well as journalists, I find it amazing that the Guv can completely blacklist them from access to the buearacracy (not just the politico's, everyone). It is headed to the 4th Circuit (a notoriously conservative court) on appeal and might make its way to the Supreme Court eventually. It is surprising to me how little play it is getting outside the Baltimore-Washington print media even though numerous major news agencies and advocay groups signed friend of the court briefs on behalf of the Sun.

Because the position they are taking is completely out in the open and does not involve lying or deception (not to mention it might even be legal) I do not view it as troubling as the paid advocacy issue. That said, I find it far more concern than the gay "softball" league down at the White House Pres Corps.

BTW, I strongly agree regarding regular rhetorical beatings for politicians. I said it was not expected in the US, that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see it personally.

Akhbar