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

Fictitious standards like honestly, integrity, objectivity, and rational thought?

Those are certainly the standards I would expect from a journalist. But those standards are falling by the wayside these days....

0 Replies

OK, I've said this on another thread which deals with the same subject so I may as well say it again.

The issue of G/G's alleged homosexuality is a non-issue. That he was publicly critical of gays while staying in the closet -- if this is true -- was simply part of his cover as a conservative newsman. It's not worth discussing. In fact, to do so reflects badly on any self-admitted liberal who is not also a homophobe.

The only issue worthy of notice is that Scott McClellan, the WH flack, used an obvious shill to steer news conferences in the direction he wanted them to go. His "Go ahead, Jeff," was code for "These liberal newshounds are asking questions too close for comfort; ask something to defuse the situation." He was planted in the press briefing room by McClellan and company. Is this illegal? I doubt it. Is it in unethical? I believe so. Is it typical of the way the Bush WH is run? You betcha!

I also said elsewhere -- with apologies to all my left-wing friends -- that, in point of fact, it isn't all that difficult to get a one-day press pass to the White House briefings. You don't have to be a Sam Donaldson or Helen Thomas to qualify. In addition to the superstars, who are accredited on an ongoing basis, a number of temporary day passes are available to "qualified" journalists who just happen to be in the vicinity on a given day. If you're lucky, and get there early, you might need nothing more than a business card identifying you as Editor and Publisher of the Pudunk Daily Dirt Digger, backed up by suitable other ID, e.g. a valid driver's license. So that's almost a non-issue, too. I say "almost" because Gannon obviously had far greater access to whatever he wanted than a lowly visitor's pass would warrant.

At issue, really, is the whole concept of using shills and stooges to further the government agenda. This week's New Yorker has an interesting take on this in its "talk of the Town" section. It seems that the government has been paying sizeable honoraria to some conservative columnists (legit columnists) to spout the Bush doctrine. The story alleges, for instance, that syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams received $241,000 to push the No Child Left Behind program.

None of that is actually new, either. USA Today broke the Williams story at least three weeks ago.

My point is that if we're going to point with alarm at something or other, let's stick to issues that are actual issues. Gannon's sexual orientation is not an issue.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

As to everything else, I tend to agree that something is a bit fishy where it comes to his being allowed in based on suspect credentials. As I told Dook, that should be the emphasis here, that a man (not a gay man) was allowed into these press conferences with suspect credentials. You (the anti-Bush crowd) have a point that I for one will grant you on this.

But that has been the emphasis. Note the several pages where Tico tried to argue that there are no credentials one needs to be a journalist and where we tried to make the point that whatever the technicality, he clearly wasn't qualified to be where he was. That was all going very well until we actually did make a pretty case that there are requirements for journalists at which point McG pulled the gay card.

The only reason to bring up his web sites is not to mock him for being gay but to show that he's a sleaze. And also to show that the WH must not have done much research on him when they kept re-issuing his day pass. This thing is pretty cut and dry as far as I can tell. It's clear to most anyone that, at the very least, somebody in the WH was doing him some pretty big favors. We can speculate on whether the reasons were political or sexual, but both are odious.

0 Replies

You must really like that word "rovian" there Dook.

My point all along is that this is, or at least could be, a security issue. Is it a huge security issue? Hard to say.

I guess you will have to go on believing I am dense, because the only hypocrisy in this whole mess is coming from your side, but we could go back and forth on that until doomsday and we won't see a change in opinion on that. So I guess it is best to let it go Dook.

As to the issue of softball questions, I would tend to believe that just about every president has had a reporter repeatedly throw him softball questions, so frankly that is a dead issue as far as I am concerned. I am certain Mr. Clinton had his share of softball questions, same for Bush 1, Carter, Ford, Reagan and all the rest. Do I think that is an issue? Nope, sorry.

Anyway, let's just keep on believing that the other one of us is dense and maybe, just maybe, we will stumble upon some common ground one day.

Nah, too much to hope for. Smile

0 Replies

Thank you, Freeduck. That was precisely my point in Mr. Gannon's hypocrisy in that he WAS also a sleaze. At least Bill Clinton wasn't posing nude on the internet in order to solicit clients. How could Mr. McClellan and Homeland Security, let alone Karl Rove, NOT know Mr. Guckert's past?

So many questions...

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Notice how not one neocon on this thread has mentioned hypocrisy

Um ... did you look at the post immediately prior to your posting this drivel?

What about this post from McGentrix? http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1193150#1193150

I spoke about hypocrisy in this post: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1189128#1189128

0 Replies

I think it's more than a security issue. We need to ask ourselves how proper it is for the party in power to go as far as they've gone in manipulating the news content. I realize they've done nothing illegal, but is it ethical? Certainly this is a question that is bigger than Jeff Gannon, but it is underscored by his presence in the briefing room.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

As to everything else, I tend to agree that something is a bit fishy where it comes to his being allowed in based on suspect credentials. As I told Dook, that should be the emphasis here, that a man (not a gay man) was allowed into these press conferences with suspect credentials. You (the anti-Bush crowd) have a point that I for one will grant you on this.

But that has been the emphasis. Note the several pages where Tico tried to argue that there are no credentials one needs to be a journalist and where we tried to make the point that whatever the technicality, he clearly wasn't qualified to be where he was. That was all going very well until we actually did make a pretty case that there are requirements for journalists at which point McG pulled the gay card.

The only reason to bring up his web sites is not to mock him for being gay but to show that he's a sleaze. And also to show that the WH must not have done much research on him when they kept re-issuing his day pass. This thing is pretty cut and dry as far as I can tell. It's clear to most anyone that, at the very least, somebody in the WH was doing him some pretty big favors. We can speculate on whether the reasons were political or sexual, but both are odious.

I don't know what constitutes a "journalist" since I am not one, nor do I know one. Is his background suspect? Yep. Did whoever ran the background checks find out about his background? I don't know. If they did, is being a sleaze with a porno website enough to keep him from getting a day pass? I would hope so, but I don't know. If they didn't know of his background, then someone was highly incompetant in running the check.

But you are right that I think there could be cause for concern here.

0 Replies

Then, CoastalRat, please show us a list of those softball questions in other administrations. I'd be really curious...

Nah, too much to hope for. :wink:

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

As to everything else, I tend to agree that something is a bit fishy where it comes to his being allowed in based on suspect credentials. As I told Dook, that should be the emphasis here, that a man (not a gay man) was allowed into these press conferences with suspect credentials. You (the anti-Bush crowd) have a point that I for one will grant you on this.

But that has been the emphasis. Note the several pages where Tico tried to argue that there are no credentials one needs to be a journalist and where we tried to make the point that whatever the technicality, he clearly wasn't qualified to be where he was. That was all going very well until we actually did make a pretty case that there are requirements for journalists at which point McG pulled the gay card.

The only reason to bring up his web sites is not to mock him for being gay but to show that he's a sleaze. And also to show that the WH must not have done much research on him when they kept re-issuing his day pass. This thing is pretty cut and dry as far as I can tell. It's clear to most anyone that, at the very least, somebody in the WH was doing him some pretty big favors. We can speculate on whether the reasons were political or sexual, but both are odious.

I am appalled. Honestly.

Go to your corner.

0 Replies

Oops. No, Tico. The hypocrisy was in relation to Mr. Gannon and the neocons. But nice try...

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

But that has been the emphasis. Note the several pages where Tico tried to argue that there are no credentials one needs to be a journalist and where we tried to make the point that whatever the technicality, he clearly wasn't qualified to be where he was. That was all going very well until we actually did make a pretty case that there are requirements for journalists ....

Where did you make this case?

FreeDuck wrote:

at which point McG pulled the gay card.

What!!?? You mean Cyclops brought the issue of sexuality back to the table for discussion, don't you?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1193674#1193674

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Oops. No, Tico. The hypocrisy was in relation to Mr. Gannon and the neocons. But nice try...

#10 AND #11.

0 Replies

Did you happen to see who's post Cyclops was quoting?

Maybe you missed the dualing career links.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45347&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=340

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Did you happen to see who's post Cyclops was quoting?

Maybe you missed the dualing career links.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45347&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=340

Yes, I saw who Cyclops was quoting in his post, but it was innacurate to say McG brought the discussion back to sexuality after you posted the career development posts, since it was clearly Cyclops who performed that feat....

0 Replies

Wha huh? The timing was inaccurate (even though PDiddie was making a pretty good case) and due to my faulty memory. Please excuse. But if you look here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45347&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=330 it's pretty obvious that McG brought it up out of thin air.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Wha huh? The timing was inaccurate (even though PDiddie was making a pretty good case) and due to my faulty memory. Please excuse. But if you look here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45347&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=330 it's pretty obvious that McG brought it up out of thin air.

It's evident your standard for "a pretty good case" and mine are worlds apart.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Wha huh? The timing was inaccurate (even though PDiddie was making a pretty good case) and due to my faulty memory. Please excuse. But if you look here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45347&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=330 it's pretty obvious that McG brought it up out of thin air.

It's evident your standard for "a pretty good case" and mine are worlds apart.

You're not going to admit that McG brought it up, are you?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

You're not going to admit that McG brought it up, are you?

<sigh>

McG brought it up right after PDiddie spoke about G/G getting hired by Fox News to rub O'Reilly's back every night with a loofah. The purpose of his bringing "it" up was to point out the fact that some liberal posters on this thread aren't capable of letting it go.

0 Replies

<sigh>

Some right-wing posters can read an entire post of well-made points and find the one line that they can use to pretend the entire message was about something else. PDiddie didn't bring up the homosexuality, McG did.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know