1
   

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

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:29 pm
Quote:
Cyclops: Did Mr. Smith define a "journalist" in his article? If he did, I missed that part. He does argue that a journalist should have ethics, and while I tend to agree, I do not believe there are any hard rules on that issue.

Lawyers have a list of ethical rules we must follow. If an attorney doesn't follow all of the ethical rules, he/she does not cease being a lawyer as an immediate result. (Of course they can be disbarred, but that's another matter.)


There ARE 'hard rules' on journalistic ethics. When you break them, you get kicked out of the game. G/G was caught breaking them, and he's been kicked out of the game. Surely you can understand this?

But, that doesn't matter, b/c he wasn't a journalist at all when he was admitted to the WH. That's the issue here; how did he get in? Surely you believe the WH doesn't just let ANYONE in to the press conferences; and what about PRESIDENTIAL conferences which he covered? I guarantee they don't let people off of the street in there...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:32 pm
Cyclops wrote:
Yes, I do have that evidence.


It's hard to take you seriously when you claim to have "evidence," then as your evidence, you appear to simply point at the dearth of evidence to counter your position. As further "evidence," you make further statements in support of your position, but without any other support.

I haven't read through your entire post, and must leave my office now. But I'm anxious to see the rest of your case when I return ....
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:44 pm
C'mon, Cyclops, you should know by now that there aren't any "hard rules" regarding the prerequisites for being a good journalist. Not even integrity, honesty and good prose are necessary anymore in reporting the news and asking the kind of objective questions REQUIRED by a free press in order to hold ANY administration accountable for their actions.

With that in mind, Tico seems to feel emboldened in his undying defense of the indefensible.

Wasn't it the liberal press that held Clinton to the flame regarding Monica Lewinsky?

Damn that liberal press!!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:53 pm
Quote:
It's hard to take you seriously when you claim to have "evidence," then as your evidence, you appear to simply point at the dearth of evidence to counter your position. As further "evidence," you make further statements in support of your position, but without any other support.


Fair enough. But even you can see the difficulty in finding you his first article when they all have been pulled from both their traditional online sources.

It may take me a little time to track down a secondary backup of his first articles; but don't you think it's somewhat telling that they all have been pulled, not only from the two sites that have been shut down, but from GOPUSA.com, which isn't shut down and has risen to Gannon's defense? Why defend the man and yet pull his articles?

I'll find the first one I can and let ya know. But, there is no doubt whatsoever that the first time Gannon appeared in the WH press room was before Talon News had even been launched.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 01:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
All right! Actual discussion!

Unlike you, McG, I (and mostly others) have done a great deal of research into this topic. Therefore, I would like to answer your 'answers' very much.

Quote:

How did G/G get access to the WH when he didn't work for a news organization and had no published pieces?

I do not have access to his full resume, but I'll assume that he did it the same way every other person does. Have you done any in depth research into Gannon's past reporting? Do you have any evidence that he was unqualified to gain access to the whitehouse?


Yes, I do have that evidence.

Much of it is hard to present as Gannon's personal website, and his news site, Talon News, have both been removed from the Web. Why? Why would a real reporter/news organization do such a thing? Why are they trying to hide the stories he's written over the last few years? But that's another question.


Gannon's website is now back up. I saw a link to it on here one or two days ago. I am sure that if someone were truly desperate, they could find copies of stories that Gannon has written. I do not beleieve anyone is hiding anything other than to reduce the bandwidth or to halt any false information being distributed.

Quote:
G/G didn't have a single published article when he was given access to the WH. He hadn't attended Journalism School. He didn't even work for a news company - Talon News, his 'news site,' didn't even start up until months after he first was seen in the WH press room, back when Ari Fleischer was press secretary.


What difference does any of that make? My first job required me to make pizza's. I had never worked in a pizza place before, I had no training in the field and I certainly had no experience working in customer service. Does that mean i shouldn't have been hired?

Gannon graduated high school. yes? I assume that means he was literate and could write words. That's all it takes to be a journalist. That and having someone, anyone, to publish those words he wrote down. There are no hard and fast rules.

Quote:
The WH, even when handing out day passes, is supposed to check to see if someone is actually a reporter or not. They either didn't check, or waved him through anyways, knowing that he wasn't a real reporter. This is unsuprising given the admin's record of paying journalists off; we know that they use propaganda. You can't even argue this one, as it is fact.


You are speculating. You have no idea what had or hadn't happened. You have no idea what credentials he had or used.

Quote:
Quote:

How did he get in for years on a 'day pass' in violation of SS and WH policy?



He showed up every morning asking for one.


Your answer, while glib, doesn't fully explain the situation. Not even close.

EVERY OTHER person who reports from the WH press room on a daily basis gets vetted for a hard pass. There is NO other regular reporter that gets in with a day pass.

The WH press room day pass is designed for out-of-town reporters or specialty reporters to have access to the press room. It is NOT designated for returning reporters; they have to get VETTED by the SS in order to get a hard pass.

G/G was never vetted for a hard pass, despite the fact that he showed up daily, just like the other reporters who were given hard passes. He wasn't an out-of-towner.

Why was G/G not vetted for a hard pass? It's the SS's job to do such things for returning reporters, yet they did not. It is quite obvious that someone was letting him in without following the proper channels, which is a serious security breach.


Show me where it says that.

Quote:
Quote:

How was G/G involved with the Thune campaign so closely in their smear of Daschle?


He has a nose for news.


Really? It wasn't a district that he covered regularly. He didn't even live in the area or report on it regularly. How did he get started?

It turns out that he, like many other 'independent' bloggers, were getting paid by the Thune campaign. Another clear example of propaganda.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/02/18/gannon/


I do not now, nor will I ever subscribe to Salon. Please quote it if you wish to have me read it.

Quote:
Quote:

How did G/G receieve secret, confidential information about the Valerie Plame outing? Why hasn't he been called before Fitzgerald to talk about how he got this memo; one that he actually DID write an article about, as opposed to the reporters facing jail time who didn't even write any articles?

Source for this? I haven't seen the evidence about this beyond allegations.


Gannon not only wrote several posts at Freerepublic.com claiming to have seen the memos personally, he did an interview with Joe Wilson in which he claimed to have a COPY of the memo. Either he was lying, or he had access to secret documents which he shouldn't have had. Google either one, there's plenty out there on it.


You have written extensively on A2K. Does that mean everything you have written is true? You could be an Iraqi insurgent for all I know trying to spread propaganda and anti-American sentiments.

Who cares what anyone writes on the internet.

I have no issue with him being a liar.

Quote:
Quote:

How did G/G get paid? Where did the money come from? What is the relationship between G/G and Bruce Eberle? Between Eberle and Karl Rove? We know the ties are there due to the direct-mail connection.


Probably by the word like most reporters. paid for by the people publishing what he wrote about. Maybe Eberle was his friend from college. There is no connection between Eberle and Rove other that professional connections that may arise from their common interests and jobs.


Virtually every reporter in the world is transparent about who is paying them. There is no indication whatsoever if Talon News paid Gannon, if GOPUSA paid Gannon, and where THEIR money comes from - it's not as if either is a subscription-based service. Therefore, it is not at all clear where the money came from. Given that the Admin. has been caught red-handed paying journalists, this is a valid question.


Get a copy of his 1040. That should answer all your questions for you. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
I've bolded the second part, because you have no way at all of knowing whether or not that is true. None at all. There exists a large possibility that there is a connection between them, and what you call 'common interests and jobs' can mean a hell of a lot when one is the highest-powered political advisor in the country and the other is a propaganda artist.


So, you are using the fact that you have no proof there is a connection as evidence that there may have been? HUH?

Quote:
You have failed to satisfactorily answer any of my questions, other than to display that you really don't know any of the history of the scandal. I suggest you do some background reading before attempting to answer points; I know it's harder than just accusing people of being homophobic, but it makes your case, yaknow, stronger...

Cycloptichorn


I seriously doubt I can ever satisfactorily answer your questions because you have already made up the answers and refuse to listen to any other explanation.

As far as your little patronization, read below what George has to say about that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:08 pm
You're the last person who should ever accuse someone else of patronization, McG, seriously.

Let's see... if you had actually gone to Gannon's website, you'd see that there are NO archives of his former stories on there. None. Why is that, if he is so proud of having wrote them? You honestly think his stories were removed from the Web to save bandwidth? On text??!!?!? That's an idiotic answer.

You claim that b/c people get on-the-job training, that's a justification for letting someone who isn't a journalist into the WH. This is perhaps the worst analogy in the history of analogies, as the WH isn't a junior beat or some joe job that any idiot can do; it's a difficult assignment to land. Gannon had no experience. A better analogy would be you claiming to have been made a Sous Chef your first day on the job, which we all know doesn't happen - without help.

As for your refusal to go to Salon, don't even bother; just google 'Thune gannon' and you'll find plenty of articles. Though I'm sure you won't read them either, as if it isn't blatantly republican, it isn't a source, to you guys.

I asked the question, what is the connection between Eberle and Rove? A question, mind you. You claimed that there WAS no connection. YOU are the one who claimed to know that there was NO connection between the two: feel free to show how you knew this, rather than attack me for asking a question about a POSSIBLE connection.

Quote:
I have no issue with him being a liar.


Given your political affiliation, this is hardly surprising.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:12 pm
Oh yeah, I remember know. When you can't support your argument, resort to personal attacks. That's your MO, right Cycloptichorn?

Rolling Eyes

I'm going to humor you though because it's important that you see you are wrong.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:34 pm
Let me ask you a question though Cyc. Are you suggesting that Gannon was some how responsible for Thune's defeat of Tom Daschle?

After repeatedly attacking his credibility?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:34 pm
Go right ahead and humor me, then. You might want to try actually responding to a point with something other than a short sentence if you wish to do so.

There's no shame in admitting that you haven't done the neccessary research to hold up your end of the conversation, yaknow.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:41 pm
Quote:
Let me ask you a question though Cyc. Are you suggesting that Gannon was some how responsible for Thune's defeat of Tom Daschle?

After repeatedly attacking his credibility?


Gannon worked closely with the Thune campaign to smear Daschle. The tactics they used were quite effective, if underhanded. You can find more about it by using Google, there are a wide variety of sources available discussing it, and as it's impossible to tell which websites you won't look at because they are 'biased,' I'll let you pick your own.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 02:57 pm
Then he was competent, or at least competent enough to upset a cherished leader in the Deomcratic party? I think that would more than qualify him to hold a journalists card, wouldn't you?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:29 pm
What it comes down to for me is that Gannon is an avowed christian. That alone is enough to smear him under the steam roller of liberal blogs til he oozes like the republican lard used to crisp up the freedom fries.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:35 pm
No, it is in fact immaterial; as he didn't have any of that experience when he was admitted to the WH.

You can't say that experiences he picked up along the way gave him the right to be somewhere that he didn't have the right to be in the first place. It's circular logic.

My argument has never been that Gannon shouldn't be in the WH press room b/c he's a poor writer (though it is true; hunt down one of his articles and make your own judgement). My argument is that he didn't have any of the neccessary things one typically needs to be admitted to the WH: previous publication, journalistic credentials, or employment with a journalistic company. He had none of those, and was admitted anyways, on a day pass, in violation of WH policy, for two years...

Nice try though.

There are really only two options with this guy:

Either A, the SS knew that he had active prostitution sites on the internet, and didn't think that violating the law and using a fake name was a reason to keep someone out of the WH, or

B, the SS didn't know. They failed miserably in vetting the guy, or, they didn't realize that someone was circumventing the Hard Pass Vetting system that was specifically designed to extensively search the background of those who come into the WH on a regular basis, just like G/G did.

I personally don't believe the SS messed this one up, but it is a possibility; we'll just have to wait and see how they spin this one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:41 pm
You keep referring to the list of neccessary things one typically needs. Can I find that on whitehouse.gov?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:46 pm
So, your contention is that anyone can walk in off of the street into the WH press room?

Obviously we know that this isn't true. Someone does the vetting, and you know it. No matter what matrix was used for deciding who is and isn't a reporter, this guy wouldn't have made it.

This whole angle of argument you've taken is just plain stupid... b/c you don't have any way to defend the guy, you've taken to stating that 'since you don't know what the EXACT rules are about who the WH considers a journalist and who they don't, then none of your argument is valid.' Which is, of course, a logical fallacy as well as being untrue.

You can do better than this, I'm sure.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:50 pm
Obviously, you are wrong because he did. He obviously met whatever credentials they needed and was admitted into various press conferences. Why is this so hard to understand?

Why do yoou insist on this charade that someone in the whitehouse must have snuck him in or that he was a plant?

I doubt we will ever know the whole story until the book comes out.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:03 pm
Quote:
Obviously, you are wrong because he did. He obviously met whatever credentials they needed and was admitted into various press conferences. Why is this so hard to understand?


Lol, why is it so hard for you to understand that he was let in for other reasons than normal reporters? And that explains very nicely why he didn't have to go through the same proccesses as other reporters that are in the WH. But, you don't think that's a possibility at all.

Why is it that you wouldn't believe they'd let the guy in to be a shill? You know, for a fact, that the admin pays people to promote propaganda. What makes you think they wouldn't do something like this?

Quote:
Why do yoou insist on this charade that someone in the whitehouse must have snuck him in or that he was a plant?


Hmm, let's see, a huge body of evidence leads to this conclusion.

Fact: There is not a single reporter that is let into the WH on a regular basis that gets in on a daily pass, instead of a hard pass, like Gannon. Not one. There are many reports of websites being turned down for day passes as well, so it's not as if they just hand the damn things out to whoever.

Fact: There is not a single reporter in the WH press room that uses a fake name other than Gannon. His claim about changing his name b/c 'Guckert is hard to pronounce' is bullsh*t; why did he assume a first name as well?

Fact: There is not a single reporter let into the WH on a regular basis who isn't first cleared for a Capitol Hill press pass, other than Gannon. G/G actually applied for a press pass under his real name, was denied, and then took up a psuedonym to get into the WH.

Fact: There is not a single reporter other than Gannon in the WH press room who didn't have a single written article before working there.

Fact: There is not a single reporter other than Gannon in the WH press room that doesn't work for a news organization of some kind; and we're talking about news, not partisan websites like GOPUSA. They certainly don't let reporters from MediaMatters or Moveon.org in.

Fact: There is not a single reporter other than Gannon in the WH press room who comes on a regular basis, yet isn't given a regular pass.

Fact: There is not a single reporter other than Gannon in the WH press room who consistently asked such slanted questions towards the administration. There is a clear pattern of McLellan calling on G/G when he got into trouble with other questions.

Fact: Gannon owns, ran, and operated prostitution web sites. This isn't a supposition. It is a clear violation of US law. This should have easily been caught by the SS, and you are claiming it wasn't? It's important to note that these sites were bought by Gannon, produced for him by a web designer, filled with pictures of HIM and testimonies about his prowess, and still active and running up until a month ago. This wasn't Gannon's past we're talking about, it was his present.

Fact: Gannon has taken all of his articles offline. Why do this? Your 'saving bandwidth' excuse is laughable. It's quite obvious that he was trying to hide something. There is no other explanation for why they would remove his articles from 3 different websites...

That's a lot of facts that all point in the direction of someone on the inside letting this guy in. Now, there are a lot more leads (Plame Memo, Dan Rather case, Thune-Daschle angle) that have yet to be ran down. But they will.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:07 pm
It's obvious that McGentrix cannot read the looks on both McClellan's face and Bush's when he asked his softball questions. It was basically one of relief; the kind of relief similar to how one would look after passing an enormous amount of gas.

It seems as though whatever credentials the White House needed for Gannon ain't much. Maureen Dowd has more credentials on her little finger than Gannon's entire journalistic career, and it took her months before she could enter the press room.

As a matter of fact, the only credentials of Gannon's ilk would seem to involve knowing someone intimately in the White House.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:11 pm
And, to top it all off, the guy is a complete idiot (not that that fact ever kept anyone out of the WH, as I'm sure we can all agree).

He actually linked to this story as a defense of him. Obviously, he didn't read the whole thing:

Quote:
Shall we discuss the irrepressible "Jeff Gannon"? "Gannon" is the fake reporter who sat in on dozens of White House press briefings and pleased the president's press person by asking questions that made the administration look good. He got away with it until he crossed the line by asking this question of President Bush: "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" The "people" to whom he referred were Senate Democrats.

Even with that red flag thrown in their direction, the ever-alert White House presslings didn't give "Gannon" (whose real name is James Guckert) more than a passing smirk, but a battery of bloggers smelled a rat and, long story short, blew the whistle on him. Turns out he represented a red, white and blue Web site called GOPUSA, which might make a normal person suspicious of his loyalties, and he made his living, or supplemented it, by selling his services as a male escort, whose main attribute seems to be something about "8-inches-cut," whatever that means.

The White House claims it just can't understand how a bozo like Guckert got daily press passes whenever he asked for them, but get them he did. You don't suppose, do you, that Karl Rove, better known as "Bush's brain," was behind Guckert, do you? Or vice versa.

How weird do a series of events have to get before they're truly investigated? In the case of Robert Novak, the columnist who on July 14, 2003, revealed the identity of a CIA operative, the FBI "investigation" into who told Novak is still in progress. So far the primary effect of that investigation has been a judicial effort to get a couple of reporters to tell what they know by threatening them with jail if they don't.

That kind of abuse didn't work when tried massively on Susan McDougal, Bill Clinton's friend, and it's not likely to work on news reporters who relish martyrdom.

If the Clinton White House had allowed a twerp like James Guckert into its news conferences, using an alias, do you suppose Congress, like Atlas, would have merely shrugged?

Of course not. But in spite of pleas by outraged Democrats, the Republicans in Congress are seeing to it that the Guckert-Gannon outrage is made to disappear from the public consciousness. And the press, of course, is, for the most part, compliant.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/02/28/hsorensen.DTL

Tool.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:28 pm
Turns out, the Governator is in on the propaganda as well.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-video28feb28,1,4296585.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Quote:


Blatant news manipulation. Where are we, Russia?

I talked to my grandfather today about this stuff on the phone. He's 88 years old but still follows the news regularly (we got him the internet last year, and he loves it; though it's hard on his eyes someimes). He was incensed about all this stuff. Told me that this kind of crap was why we fought the Communists for so many years... because they lied to their own people...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 10:47:59