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

I'm not sure what's more sickening; Tico's avatar of endless cigar smoking or the speeds at which he continues to spin this in his favor.

I wonder why homosexuality mattered to neoconservative constituents in the 2004 election, and yet now they are insisting it is a private matter and no big deal? Laughing

h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y

h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y

h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y

It would also seem that a neoconservative's standard of journalistic integrity pretty much amounts to a stinking pile of cow dung.

Very sad indeed...

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

<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.

Sorry freeduck, that's crap. I was replying to Tico who was replying to the sheep cartoon on the previous page. I would ask you to read this entire thread from beginning to end before you keep looking like the fool that you are now.

I hardly "brought it up out of thin air."

Am I going to have to quote the entire thread for you or are you going to have the integrity to do this yourself?

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

I don't know if it's unethical or not. It may be good politics, except for the spending of tax payer's money to boost GW's image. Whatever it is, I think it's good for the press to expose it. Voters have a right to know about these things. I think people should decide for themselves what they think of these practices. I personally think it stinks. I wish some ambitious young reporter would get up off his ass and do his job. Investigating is a basic part of a reporter's job. Or it used to be.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

<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.

Your consideration of that post as "an entire post of well-made points" speaks volumes. I'm not suggesting the entirety of his message was about G/G's homosexuality, but surely you don't deny that ....

Quote:

.... 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. ....

... was written to bring G/G's sexuality into the discussion. It is what it is, as was his posting of the sheep cartoon on the prior page, which McG points out is what he was referring to in his post. If you're going to claim McG is bringing up G/G's sexuality, you might as well say I was when I remarked about the cartoon ..... here. McG has simply and correctly pointed out the inability of some to let go and discuss this issue absent reference to G/G's sexuality.

0 Replies

Lola:

I wholeheartedly agree with ya. It stinks of journalistic hackery, and our national media should be more objective and forceful and holding the Bush administration and their paid shills to the flame.

Political discourse in this country is worse than at any other time in my memory. The fact that such idiots as Ann Coulter are allowed to continually appear on these propogandist hack shows like Hannity and Colmes and/or Joe Scarbarough only speaks to the unbelievable disengenuous nature of the neoconservative right.

It used to not be so vitriolic. Hell, the Reagan administration was NOTHING like this Bush II administration.

I guess that's what happens when the balance of power is firmly in the hands of one party.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
<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.

Sorry freeduck, that's crap. I was replying to Tico who was replying to the sheep cartoon on the previous page. I would ask you to read this entire thread from beginning to end before you keep looking like the fool that you are now.

I hardly "brought it up out of thin air."

Am I going to have to quote the entire thread for you or are you going to have the integrity to do this yourself?

Sorry McG, that's crap. If you were replying to Tico, you ought to have quoted him since his post was several posts back. To me, it certainly looked like it was out of thin air. Even Tico thought you were responding to PDiddie's post above.

I will reiterate that calling him a sleaze does not mean that his homosexuality is the "issue". I think you know this, but you must be frustrated trying to defend something that is indefensible.

I would ask you to read this entire thread beginning to end and tally up who is using the homosexuality as part of their argument and who is not.

I'd be more than happy to quote the entire thread for you if that's what you need to take that ridiculously condescending and paternal tone from your posts.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
.... 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. ....

... was written to bring G/G's sexuality into the discussion. It is what it is, as was his posting of the sheep cartoon on the prior page, which McG points out is what he was referring to in his post. If you're going to claim McG is bringing up G/G's sexuality, you might as well say I was when I remarked about the cartoon ..... here. McG has simply and correctly pointed out the inability of some to let go and discuss this issue absent reference to G/G's sexuality.

I think it is subject to interpretation whether he was bringing his sexual orientation into it or not. Are you saying we're not allowed to mention that he was gay? His past professions included at least one sex-related industry where he would have been paid to do something much like what PDiddie is suggesting. Suggesting he be employed in a capacity commensurate to his experience is not "bringing up his homosexuality".

I'll give you that the cartoon was unnecessary. But do you honestly believe that the problem we have with the Jeff Gannon affair is that he was gay? You guys have latched onto the "liberals are homophobic" argument because it's the only thing you have. And you're hanging on for dear life.

0 Replies

Once again, no matter whose fault it was, we're still not discussing the pertinent facts!!!

Something like 20 pages has been wasted with this back-and-forth about the Gay angle. Forget it and answer some questions from the security angle, conservatives.

Tico:

Quote:

PDiddie thinks G/G is/was not a "real" journalist because he did not meet certain fictitious standards that he has in his head, and you think he was not a "real" journalist because he was not published before. The extension of your theory, of course, means nobody is a real journalist until they've had a story published, but once they are published, they suddenly become a "real" journalist. I find that distinction wholly absurd. I didn't "drop" that point, but find it so spurious that it did not require comment. You want to make an issue out of the fact that G/G didn't have experience before his WH job .. fine .. go ahead .. I've not argued anything around that issue. We understand you feel that to be a huge issue. I don't, but again ... whatever floats your boat.

I think that we can agree that no matter what they may or may not be, there surely are some distinguishing characteristics that justify calling one'self a reporter/journalist. Perhaps it was classical training, perhaps it's a body of independent experience, perhaps it's a news site or company that employs you. G/G had NONE of these. What did he have?

Fact: One has to show evidence that one works for a news site/company/has credentials of some kind (i.e., is a journalist) in order to get even a day pass, let alone a hard pass.

Question 1: How did Guckert get admitted, having none of this?

Question 2: How did Guckert get in on a 'day pass' for over two years? This clearly violates the spirit of the hard pass(why investigate some people extremely thoroughly and others not at all?), and surely would have been noticed by the Secret Service(who we pay for such things) who let him into the WH.

Question 3: How did Guckert get a pass to Presidential News Conferences? Surely he wasn't cleared to sit within spitting distance of the President...

Question 4: How did Bush come to call upon Guckert? We all know that Bush doesn't answer non-prepared questions. There's about a zero chance that he would have randomly picked Guckert, out of dozens of reporters, given that Guckert was such an obvious shill for his administration. So what gives?

I'd really like someone to answer those questions, and quit arguing over 'who started it' like children.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You're right, Cyclo. My apologies to everyone for the digression. I started out trying to say that we HAD been discussing the issues more than the homosexuality and ended up derailing the thread into a stupid discussion about it.

McG, I'm sorry that I misunderstood your post to be in response to the one above it. Tico, well, nevermind.

0 Replies

Freeduck.......no apologies. Everyone is as guilty as the next here. Let's just get back on track, please.

Now, where were we?

Guckert was there to play soft ball and derail the questions when they got too tough. Obviously. This entire administration is smoke and mirrors. It's all run by oil and big business money, the ideologues, John Birchers and the fanatical religious control freaks. Many of them fit into all those categories at once. When will the public finally get smart and decide they've had enough?

That's right Dookie.........the media. Where are they?

0 Replies

after watching the Wolf Blitzer interview with Jeff/Jim I found it difficult to tell who was the worst, Wolf or Jeff/Jim.

0 Replies

The questions are:

1.Why did Jeff Gannon get a day pass for 2 years?

a.) The day pass was designed for out of town journalists in town for a few days. It was not for WH reporters there for 2 years.
b.) If bloggers could easily find out a nefarious and possible illegal past for Gannon why couldn't the FBI? Was the Secret Service ordered to ignore the information in the FBI security clearance review?

2. Given the "news organization" that Gannon worked for why was he even considered a journalist by the WH?

Talon News has shut down their online operation based on the scrutiny of them. Not a very good "news service" if people going to their site causes them to have to shut it down. The scrutiny seems to have shown that Talon News had no journalistic ethics at all; plagiarization was rampant in their reporting, no attempt was made to follow any of the standards required for good reporting.

3. Did Gannon have access to secret memos like he claimed? If yes, who gave him that access and did it violate the law?

0 Replies

Tico is running a con job, and he's following the typical modern rightwing pattern in this...no matter whatever is going on or who has done what, insist loudly that you are the victim.

We'll note how frequently Tico in the past has defended homosexuals who post naked pictures of themselves on the web and hire out their body parts...these political threads are jam-packed with such Tico posts and it is a principle thing for Tico...nothing so crass as political affiliation marks his moral aghastitude.

It's a diversion...ignore it. But note how commonly this technique is now used by the right. Gannon/Guckert tried it with the classic "they attack me for my christianity". We knew? Perhaps if he'd covered his dong with a cruxifix in those pictures we'd have had a clue.

The issue is a government shill gaining unprecedented and inappropriate access to the White House press room, and how security and protocol norms were set aside in order to put a shill in such a position.

0 Replies

And by the by...Jeffy/Jim the 'journalist' has his site back up and running...do take a look. Victimhood ripened past bursting.

Quote:

I'm baaaaaaack! If you thought I was going to slink away - then you don't know much about me. Someone still has to battle the Left and now that I've emerged from the crucible, I'm stronger than before.

http://www.jeffgannon.com/

0 Replies

Unfortunately euphemistic quote from Gannon/Guckert's statement of policy:

"My faith and my ideology are rock solid."

That's not all -- he's intending to stick it to you.

0 Replies

(Gannon/Guckert has been exposed in more ways than one).

0 Replies

dyslexia says:

Quote:

after watching the Wolf Blitzer interview with Jeff/Jim I found it difficult to tell who was the worst, Wolf or Jeff/Jim.

I hear you. It's hard to tell who's worse in the national media these days. It's safe to say that journalism as we knew it sometime ago in a galaxy far, far away, is dead.

It isn't journalism anymore. It's propoganda. It's promoting an agenda.

Now it's up to the bloggers to perhaps bring some honesty and integrity back in reporting the truth.

0 Replies

Thanks for the link to the Gannon Blog. Looks like he's going hard for the sympathy / victim slant.

Evidently, he doesn't get it,either. It's about the integrity of the news, being able to trust that it is the truth, and being able to trust that reasonable research was put into the reporting to have confidence in its truthfulness. Without that, we have nothing as a democracy. Without trust in the news we never really know what IS going on with our government.

Sounds like exactly where Bush & Co. want the populace.

0 Replies

I saw his site back up. I'll write more on what a maroon this guy is later today - off to lunch with the G/F's parents now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

To show how silly and desperate Gannon/Gunkheart (sic) is, the site was briefly for sale on E Bay. Guess he got no bidders. Can't imagine why. Tooting his faith when he is, in fact, a male prostitute is Marie Antoinette politics, or maybe it's more like Lady Godiva.

Bloggers can be helpful to or hinder journalistic intergrity because the main beef is accuracy in reporting. Bloggers can post anything, like Bush is actually and alien and if your peel back the skin you'll find a reptilian face. OOOppps -- that could be true!

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know