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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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 have no issue with him being a liar.

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?

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?

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.

'News' Video Extols Gov.'s Plan
Critics say the state used taxpayer money to promote a proposal to alter meal break rules, which could benefit Schwarzenegger donors.

By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer


SACRAMENTO ?- Using taxpayer money, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has sent television stations statewide a mock news story extolling a proposal that would benefit political boosters in the business community by ending mandatory lunch breaks for many hourly workers.

The tape looks like a news report and is narrated by a former television reporter who now works for the state. But unlike an actual news report, it does not provide views critical of the proposed changes. Democrats have denounced it as propaganda. Snippets aired on as many as 18 stations earlier this month, the administration said.

The tape opens with text suggesting introductory comments to be read by a news anchor: "If approved, the changes would clear up uncertainty in the business community and create a better working environment throughout the state."

The video shows construction workers, waitresses, nurses, farmworkers and a forklift operator at their jobs, and includes interviews with a farmer and a restaurant manager. The narrator says the proposal would permit workers to "eat when they are hungry, and not when the government tells them."

The tape makes no mention that organized labor opposes the changes, or that workers would have a harder time suing employers over missed meal breaks.

The video "is clearly propaganda," said Assembly Labor Committee Chairman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood). The tape is "completely one-sided."

He and others cited a law barring the Department of General Services ?- which made the tape at the behest of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ?- from engaging in propaganda. "Radio and other communications facilities owned or operated by the state and subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of General Services shall not be used for political, sectarian, or propaganda purposes," the law says.

The administration released the video earlier this month, as it opened hearings on whether California should modify a meal break rule imposed during the administration of former Gov. Gray Davis. That rule gives workers the right to an extra hour of pay if employers don't give them half-hour breaks within the first five hours of a shift.

Jose Millan, deputy secretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, is presiding over the hearings and appears in the video speaking favorably about the proposal ?- prompting Koretz to charge that the hearings amount to a "kangaroo court."

"I don't see it as propaganda," Millan said, adding that he is remaining fair and open-minded. "All I did was explain our intent and whether it is true we're trying to take away the right of the employee to have a meal period…. We're trying to allow the worker to eat or rest when they're hungry or tired."

Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director, defended the so-called video news release, saying it is "just like any other press release, only it's on video."

He noted that lawmakers who are criticizing the tape "also issue press releases."

Legislators commonly use state equipment to give taped interviews to staffers whose job is to help them publicize their views. There is no prohibition against that.

And Democratic lawmakers said politicians are expected to have opinions, while an agency contemplating a new regulation should strive to remain impartial.

Administration documents say the video cost $1,262. Rick Rice, undersecretary of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, said the money was well spent; parts of the video reached 1.6 million Californians.

A service hired by the state to monitor broadcasts of the video provided estimates of each airing's "publicity value."

The service said KTLA-TV Channel 5's mention of the issue on its 6 a.m. news show reached as many as 106,984 people and was worth $4,843 in publicity, though the station used its own footage. KTLA-TV, like the Los Angeles Times, is owned by Tribune Co. A mention on KNBC-TV Channel 4's 7 a.m. news show reached 226,943 people, worth $10,273.

Rice said the video was intended to counter opposition led by labor. Insisting the video is not propaganda, Rice added: "What they are complaining about is that the message is not being filtered by them, but is going directly into the living rooms of their constituents."

Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) said the cost of the video is beside the point: "Whether they spent $1 or $100,000 on propaganda, they may have crossed the legal line."

Dunn vowed to investigate the matter in upcoming budget hearings.

On the tape, Millan says the new rule would ensure that employees have "the flexibility to determine whether or not they want to eat earlier or later, or skip lunch altogether in order to run personal errands and get off work earlier."

Millan also explains the rule change in Spanish. A Spanish-language television station in the Bay Area aired some of his comments.

In an interview, Millan said he was surprised at being attacked for appearing in the video. He said he was merely "responding to questions" posed by the state employee who was interviewing him for the tape. Millan, a former labor commissioner, helped lead the effort to shut down sweatshops in the 1990s.

Millan said that once the hearings conclude in March, he and other administration officials will review testimony and issue a formal proposal to alter the Davis-era measure.

He said the meal break change is part of an attempt to overhaul archaic rules "written for a workplace that no longer exists." The Office of Administrative Law is responsible for writing the final rule, which would not require legislative approval.

The administration proposes to limit litigation by reducing to one year the period for which businesses can be sued for failing to grant meal breaks. As it is, employees and their lawyers can file claims for unpaid wages going back four years.

Also, the responsibility for ensuring that workers take breaks would shift from employers to employees. The administration says the change would give workers flexibility.

On the tape, the narrator says the Davis administration's rule "resulted in much confusion, penalties and even litigation."

"Consequently employees are often forced to take lunch breaks when they don't want them," the narrator says.

At another point, the narrator says that "workers with special conditions such as medical conditions, child-care issues or caring for elderly parents would have flexibility with their work schedules."

Lawyers have filed numerous suits on workers' behalf, claiming that employers have flouted the lunch break rule. Defendants range from Wal-Mart and Home Depot to several restaurant chains. Some businesses have settled cases by paying multimillion-dollar settlements.

Mimi's Cafe, a restaurant chain, is a defendant in one such suit. San Diego attorney Michael D. Singer, who represents the workers, said the chain could be liable for damages of as much as $10 million to several thousand past and present employees.

The Schwarzenegger administration video includes comments from a Mimi's executive extolling the proposal. The tape makes no mention that the chain is embroiled in litigation over the lunch break rule.

Singer called the video "partisan propaganda by the administration, which is supporting its friends and contributors in the business community."

Stephen Kepler, a lawyer representing Mimi's, said he was unaware that an executive appeared in the video. He said the chain is "not against employees taking breaks but are in favor of employees having the choice of when to take them."

Mimi's is a member of the California Restaurant Assn., which donated $21,000 to one of Schwarzenegger's campaign funds last year and provided food for his 2003 inauguration. The restaurant association, the California Chamber of Commerce and other major business groups are backing the Schwarzenegger proposal.

Tammy Myers, spokeswoman for Bob Evans Farms Inc., the Ohio-based parent of the Mimi's chain, said the California Restaurant Assn. "referred the governor's office to Mimi's … so that is how we came to be in that [release]."

The Republican governor appears to be taking a cue from President Bush's administration, which produced videos that looked like news reports touting new Medicare regulations ?- and incurred criticism for doing so last year from congressional Democrats.