Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

Ticomaya wrote:

PDiddie wrote:
Do your own research if this puzzles you so.

That's answer enough for me.

Too bad. I was really hoping you'd come back with: "I found NOTHING written down that suggests that ANYONE needs any education or training or certification to call themselves a journalist"!

Just think how you could've mocked me, armed with that knowledge...

Alas, since that part of this lluminatiing discussion has concluded, I'll give you some funnies to read:

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

You're giving yourself too much credit, McG, in suggesting he can't stay away from bantoring with you. He doesn't need you. Deal with it.

Hey, what ever you say.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
PDiddie wrote:
Do your own research if this puzzles you so.

That's answer enough for me.

Too bad. I was really hoping you'd come back with: "I found NOTHING written down that suggests that ANYONE needs any education or training or certification to call themselves a journalist"!

Just think how you could've mocked me, armed with that knowledge...

That's is, evidently, how a liberal thinks.

As I recall our discussion, you and your ilk are claiming G/G is not a "real" journalist because he has not followed the fictitious rules you feel apply to that vocation. You apparently believe there is some formal educational requirement before one can be considered a "real" journalist, a la the requirements imposed upon certain professions, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Hell, even truck drivers require a license.

But I do not believe there are any such requirements, and when I ask you to tell me where I can find them, instead of doing the appropriate thing - admit you don't know of any such rules and are simply making this all up as you go along - you suggest I should research that myself.

The fact that neither you nor I can find anything to suggest there are any such rules imposed upon "real" journalists is in no way conclusive of the fact than none exist, but I would submit that it is evidence in support of my proposition, and certainly not supportive of yours.

And thank you for the cartoon mocking the "gayness" of G/G. And here I thought it "wasn't about that." Kudos go to Cyclops for promising not to harp on the fact that G/G is/was gay, and immediately ceasing all posting in this thread. That's certainly one way to keep himself from calling G/G gay..... (None of this is intended to suggest that I didn't laugh at the cartoon, because I certainly did.)

0 Replies

Eh? I didn't cease posting on the thread.

I have something like 5 posts since I wrote that last one to you - and I still haven't mentioned it yet.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

As I recall our discussion, you and your ilk are claiming G/G is not a "real" journalist because he has not followed the fictitious rules you feel apply to that vocation. You apparently believe there is some formal educational requirement before one can be considered a "real" journalist, a la the requirements imposed upon certain professions, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Hell, even truck drivers require a license.

We're not complaining that he 'lacked certification/credentials,' and that's why he's not a real journalist; it's that he lacked publication, and therefore wasn't a real journalist.

When he was admitted to the WH, as a journalist, he didn't work for a journalistic organization. Simple as that. He wasn't publishing freelance articles. He hadn't published anything; the WH was his first beat, and he didn't get in the regular way that EVERY other journalist who gets in for more than ONE day at a time, does.

When he did publish stories, many were exact copies of the press releases of the WH. That's not journalism, it's transcription; an equally important skill, but not one they hand out press passes for.

Can you name any other 'journalist' who has started their career in the WH press room? It doesn't happen.

Besides, it seems as if 'prostitute' is his primary career; after all, he did advertise himself on several web sites... that he operated...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm still trying to figure out why the "gay issue" is an "issue" at all. I see people on this thread who normally would never be caught dead uttering a homophobic word suddenly pointing fingers. The only issue that I find of interest here is that G/G was an obvious shill for the WH press secretary. Whenever the bona fide reporters were starting to get too close for comfort, Scott McClellan, the WH flack, would turn to G/G with a "Go ahead,Jeff," and let Bannon defuse the situation by asking a sycophantic, aw-gee-whiz-mr. president type of question. Is this sort of thing illegal? I doubt it. Is it unethical? I believe so. Is it typical of the Bush WH? You betcha.

As for the shill getting access to the White House press briefing room, that's not actually so very hard to accomplish if you get lucky. The people who work the White House day in and day out have semi-permanent, renwable credentials. But there is a limited number of visitors' press passes available to out-of-town writers and reporters who can adequately identify themselves. You have to get there early as the number is limited. Sometimes a simple business card, identifying you as the editor-publisher of the Lost Goldmine Weekly Star, backed up by a valid driver's license, will suffice. In Gannon's case, of course, he had inside help. I'm sure one of those temp passes was kept in a desk drawer, reserved for him.

0 Replies

What I cannot understand is how many people think that same sex marriage is a threat to the existence and sanctity of hererosexual marriage. The logic is totally missing. Is homosexual marriage supposed to make we want to divorce my wife, or she me? So stupid.
Moreoever, the desire to proscribe homosexual marriage is a vote for promiscuous, socially unrecognized and superficial homosexual relations.

0 Replies

Quote:

the desire to proscribe homosexual marriage is a vote for promiscuous, socially unrecognized and superficial homosexual relations

hereafter to be refered to as the "Red State Bible Belters"

0 Replies

Or, 'White House Correspondants.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

For a rundown of how other Talon News correspondents did little more than plagarize AP wire reports, look here:

(extensively researched)

http://www.whyareweback.blogspot.com/

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

As I recall our discussion, you and your ilk are claiming G/G is not a "real" journalist because he has not followed the fictitious rules you feel apply to that vocation. You apparently believe there is some formal educational requirement before one can be considered a "real" journalist, a la the requirements imposed upon certain professions, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Hell, even truck drivers require a license.

But I do not believe there are any such requirements, and when I ask you to tell me where I can find them, instead of doing the appropriate thing - admit you don't know of any such rules and are simply making this all up as you go along - you suggest I should research that myself.

The fact that neither you nor I can find anything to suggest there are any such rules imposed upon "real" journalists is in no way conclusive of the fact than none exist, but I would submit that it is evidence in support of my proposition, and certainly not supportive of yours.

I am under no compunction whatsoever, your sneering condescension aside, to "prove" to you that credentials, education, training etc., exist and are mandatory for the field of journalism.

If you can take as faith the existence of a God in Heaven you are certainly capable of accepting that said credentials exist for journalists. Your stubborn refusal to do so suggests a petulant recalcitrance that "proof" is going to be difficult -- more likely, impossible -- to overcome. I stopped playing these "find me proof" games years ago for precisely this reason (these exchanges, for your information, date to the earliest days of online discussion fora of this type, including this one).

There are, likewise, no listings of bonafides you could Google up for the job description of 'astronaut' either, and yet those who would select the men and women to perform this task know precisely what they are looking for in a potential one.

It is as simple as this, and you know it: Try to get a job in the field with a legitimate source without them, and you'll quickly discover what they are. (If you must have some concrete listing then I suggest you might begin by inquiring at the Columbia School of Journalism. And that's all the hint you're going to get from me.)

That Jimmy/Jeff maintained his escort services websites while he was "beginning his career in journalism" is all anyone should need to understand how well his new 'career' was going.

Tell you what, Tico: you find another 'journalist' who also has web pages that offer himself/herself as an escort for hire, complete with nude photos and descriptions similar to "8 inches cut" and "I don't leave marks, I leave impressions", and I'm prepared to take it all back and call Bulldog a journalist. Cool

The real issue (again, and why the thread's title was revised) is the fact that the Talon Newses and the Fox News Channels and the Townhalls and the Newsmaxes and the Armstrong Williamses and all of the rest of the conservative propaganda organs have lowered the standard. In this light, it's no wonder you don't believe that credentials exist for journalists.

And the corporate media -- the ones with the proper bonafides -- have allowed it to happen with their own fawning obsequiousness to those in power. They have only themselves to blame.

Recently C-Span televised a panel discussion on the legacy of Watergate that was held at the University of Texas on February 4th. In addition to examining the role of the press in uncovering the Watergate scandal, the panel, led by Carl Bernstein and including Anthony Lewis and Bob Schieffer, discussed the state of today's media. After denouncing Bill O'Reilly, Crossfire, Geraldo Rivera, and Matt Drudge, Carl Bernstein announced that at bottom it was the public's fault for not playing closer attention to the more traditional news sources, which presumably still qualify as a voice of truth in the wilderness of bloggers and cable TV.

Judith Miller's cheerleading coverage of Bush's march to war in the New York Times? The unwillingness on the part of either network or print media to ask tough questions and engage in investigative reporting in the runup to, and the aftermath of, a war waged on false pretenses? Bob Novak's collusion in the Valerie Plame affair? Little of those embarrassing events was mentioned by the traditional media titans.

And that sad set of consequences still fails to justify the reprehensible conduct of people like Gannon/Guckert, his enablers in the White House, and his apologists like you.

Gannon's no journalist and never will be. Fox News might, though, consider hiring him to rub Bill O'Reilly's back with a loofah every night after The Factor.

This needs to be the end of this digression.

0 Replies

Tico, think of it like this...

He's a gay prostitute. That means he can never be anything else. It doesn't matter what else this guy does in life, because he went against the liberal media, he will always be a gay prostitute. He dared to try to better himself, even going so far as obtaining a pseudnym to hide his past, yet he is/was a gay prostitue.

But, it's not about that... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Tico, think of it like this...

He's a gay prostitute. That means he can never be anything else. It doesn't matter what else this guy does in life, because he went against the liberal media, he will always be a gay prostitute. He dared to try to better himself, even going so far as obtaining a pseudnym to hide his past, yet he is/was a gay prostitue.

But, it's not about that...

What number was "victimization"? I think it was #7...

0 Replies

McG writes

Quote:

Tico, think of it like this...

He's a gay prostitute. That means he can never be anything else. It doesn't matter what else this guy does in life, because he went against the liberal media, he will always be a gay prostitute. He dared to try to better himself, even going so far as obtaining a pseudnym to hide his past, yet he is/was a gay prostitue.

He used a pseudonym to HIDE HIS PAST but the WH security let him in anyway? I guess it only proves the WH is incompetent.

I am sure McG defended Jayson Blair when the NYTimes fired him. Didn't you McG? After all. If one plagiarer is a good reporter doesn't that mean all of them are?
McG, if you want to argue that plagiarizing is good journalistic ethics. OK. Feel free. Yep, Jeff was a great journalist with good journalistic instincts. STEAL everything you can and never write anything original. When ever a main stream media outlet finds a reporter that plagiarized they either suspend them, put them on probation or fire them. The RW rants about journalists that have been found out to do that are pretty notorious and lots of evidence on the net. Go look it up. I assume you can use a search engine.

Don't pretend you don't know that journalism has standards. That just proves how silly your side of the argument is.

0 Replies

Quote:

But I do not believe there are any such requirements, and when I ask you to tell me where I can find them, instead of doing the appropriate thing - admit you don't know of any such rules and are simply making this all up as you go along - you suggest I should research that myself.

This, if I may point out, is a fine example of a #2. From now on, PDid, you can just say, #2 and not waste too much time with complicated arguments. Just keep it simple. That way everybody will be able to understand.

0 Replies

parados, you obviously have reading comprehension issues.

I have not defended Gannon as being a journalist, much less a good journalist. I have defended the fact that the Whitehouse did not "plant" Gannon into his position.

I have also pointed out the continued hypocrisy of some of our liberal members when it comes to the issues of homosexuality and the typical liberal "openess and acceptance" of them.

So, please refrain from these sophmoric attempts to pin me down for something I have not said or done.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

parados, you obviously have reading comprehension issues.

I have not defended Gannon as being a journalist, much less a good journalist. I have defended the fact that the Whitehouse did not "plant" Gannon into his position.

I have also pointed out the continued hypocrisy of some of our liberal members when it comes to the issues of homosexuality and the typical liberal "openess and acceptance" of them.

So, please refrain from these sophmoric attempts to pin me down for something I have not said or done.

#1

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
parados, you obviously have reading comprehension issues.

I have not defended Gannon as being a journalist, much less a good journalist. I have defended the fact that the Whitehouse did not "plant" Gannon into his position.

I have also pointed out the continued hypocrisy of some of our liberal members when it comes to the issues of homosexuality and the typical liberal "openess and acceptance" of them.

So, please refrain from these sophmoric attempts to pin me down for something I have not said or done.

#1

#11

(#11 =

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/bs.gif

)

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
As I recall our discussion, you and your ilk are claiming G/G is not a "real" journalist because he has not followed the fictitious rules you feel apply to that vocation. You apparently believe there is some formal educational requirement before one can be considered a "real" journalist, a la the requirements imposed upon certain professions, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Hell, even truck drivers require a license.

But I do not believe there are any such requirements, and when I ask you to tell me where I can find them, instead of doing the appropriate thing - admit you don't know of any such rules and are simply making this all up as you go along - you suggest I should research that myself.

The fact that neither you nor I can find anything to suggest there are any such rules imposed upon "real" journalists is in no way conclusive of the fact than none exist, but I would submit that it is evidence in support of my proposition, and certainly not supportive of yours.

I am under no compunction whatsoever, your sneering condescension aside, to "prove" to you that credentials, education, training etc., exist and are mandatory for the field of journalism.

If you can take as faith the existence of a God in Heaven you are certainly capable of accepting that said credentials exist for journalists. Your stubborn refusal to do so suggests a petulant recalcitrance that "proof" is going to be difficult -- more likely, impossible -- to overcome. I stopped playing these "find me proof" games years ago for precisely this reason (these exchanges, for your information, date to the earliest days of online discussion fora of this type, including this one).

"Sneering condescension"? You haven't seen that, my friend.

You're only motivation to prove there are any credentials required to be a journalist, and in the absence of same you aren't a "real" journalist, is if you would care to prove the point you were trying to make earlier. Your allusion to God in Heaven, and that His existence cannot be proven, leads me to believe you would like for me to accept upon faith your premise, and that you apparently similarly accept upon faith that there are credentials required in order to be a "real" journalist. If that is the way you want to operate, so be it. We shall proceed knowing you believe on the basis in faith alone, that there are some imaginary rules that dictate when a journalist is a "real" journalist or not. Your colleague in this thread, Cyclops, has decided the reason G/G is/was not a "real" journalist is not because he isn't/wasn't credentialed, but that he wasn't "published." Which is interesting because in two paragraphs later he admits that G/G published stories, but he feels they were substandard stories, and evidently believes that unless the stories meet a certain criteria he has established in his head, that precludes one from being a "real" journalist. Do you agree with Cyclops' new set of rules? It's enthralling to watch as these rules evolve.

PDiddie wrote:

There are, likewise, no listings of bonafides you could Google up for the job description of 'astronaut' either, and yet those who would select the men and women to perform this task know precisely what they are looking for in a potential one.

Okay, and that tends to prove MY point. There are things that one looks for when you hire an astronaut/journalist. Are you saying you know what the list is composed of, or feel qualified in deciding whether a particular individual meets the qualifications to be an astronaut? Or do you rely on the folks that select and hire astronauts? Does the fact that an astronaut is hired signify that he/she met the qualifications to be an astronaut? G/G was hired to be a journalist. Are you suggesting that he was hired to be a journalist and did not meet the standards set forth by his employer? As you say, those who would select the men and women to perform this task know precisely what they are looking for in a potential one.

PDiddie wrote:

The real issue (again, and why the thread's title was revised) is the fact that the Talon Newses and the Fox News Channels and the Townhalls and the Newsmaxes and the Armstrong Williamses and all of the rest of the conservative propaganda organs have lowered the standard. In this light, it's no wonder you don't believe that credentials exist for journalists.

But that's not at all why this thread's title was revised. It was revised because I pointed out to Cyclops the hypocrisy of his insistence that it was "not about that," in reference to G/G being gay. I pointed out all the references to G/G being gay, and that the theme of this thread started with the former title ("... and gay porn") and he decided to change it.

PDiddie wrote:

This needs to be the end of this digression.

Where you end your digression lies entirely with you.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

There are, likewise, no listings of bonafides you could Google up for the job description of 'astronaut' either, and yet those who would select the men and women to perform this task know precisely what they are looking for in a potential one.

This needs to be the end of this digression.

http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/jobsinfo/astronaut.html

0 Replies

Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know