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

Doubt he only sat in one spot. Doubt he had a nameplate on his chair.

See what I mean? Now it's an avatar "obsession..."

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.

McGentrix, by his latest avatar, once again shows us the true nature of conservative morality.

Scott McClellan has claimed that there was no breakdown in security and no one intervened on Guckert's behalf. However, it has now been discovered that Guckert attended a February 28, 2003 press conference and there asked a question of McClellan's predescessor Ari Fleischer before he had ever written an article, attended the two day journalism seminar, been associated with any kind of news organization at all (Talon News had not yet been created), and while he was still actively advertising his services as a gay prostitute on several Web sites. Journalists have pointed out that it can take months to get the kind of clearance Guckert received. Indeed, the Augusta Free Press reported to Daily Kos [3] (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/19/121442/332) that acquiring one day pass was a two week process for them. The timing might suggest that Talon News was created specifically to give Jeff Gannon a news organization to ostensibly represent while continuing to work at the White House.

FOX News covers Gannon, and actually obliterates him. Hell freezes over. Chickens grow lips.
by John in DC - 3/1/2005 02:11:00 PM

Seriously. FOX's coverage rocked. And they did such a good job covering it that the wingnut at Accuracy in Media, the one who thinks prostitution is simply someone's "sex life," flipped out. I think, perhaps, we've developed the ultimate insult for the mainstream media over the entire l'affaire Gannon: FOX covered it better than you.

Brutal blog has the transcript.

JANE HALL: I just wonder whether a guy whose obviously phrasing left wing questions would've had a press credential for 2 years and was funded by a GOP related group ... It's hard for me to imagine that this could've happened if the bias were on the other foot. So, that is what's partly amusing about it to some people....

JIM PINKERTON: Right, although I think you were unfair calling him 'right-wing' in your intro.

ERIC BURNS: Really?!?

JIM PINKERTON: I do ...

NEIL GABLER: I think you were unfair calling him a 'journalist'.

[Eric Burns & Cal Thomas erupt in chuckles]

JANE HALL: Well, I think he was biased when he called him a 'journalist'....

NEIL GABLER: There are many many journalists - and we know alot of them - who ACT like partisan hacks. This guy WAS a partisan hack. And there's a difference.

CAL THOMAS: I'm not a partisan hack, but I play one on TV. Is that it, right?

NEIL GABLER: Yes. He worked for a GOP operative. He would not have been credentialed and was NOT credentialed by Congress for precisely that reason. Among other things, they have a rule that if you're a lobbiest for an organization, you can not be credentialed. So, this issue here is that this person should have NEVER been credentialed, was not credentialed by Congress, and we know the ... I know there's some Democrats that disingenously are trying to investigate how he got credentialed. We KNOW how he got credentialed -- the White House wanted him there. They wanted him to ask softball questions and ...

ERIC BURNS: What about the guy Jim mentioned asking hardball questions? They certainly didn't want that, did they, Neil?

NEIL GABLER: Well, then he shouldn't even be there. But the point of the fact is I don't know whether or not he got a daily credential every single day as Guckert did. Every day for ... for years ...

JIM PINKERTON: I agree that Guckert/Gannon getting a pass ... I worked in the White House for 6 years and I can tell you that there's somebody, you know, with a false name is ... but the Secret Service ...

NEIL GABLER: On a daily basis.

JIM PINKERTON: [nodding] On a daily basis takes an incredible ammount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House. That I would ...

ERIC BURNS: So it wasn't just that someone overlooked this. It was complicit.

JIM PINKERTON: It was conscious, yes, and some investigation should proceed and we should find that out....

ERIC BURNS: But the point is, Jane, we have a finite ammount of space here and there has to be some distinction ...

JANE HALL: There has to be and I talked to a White House press person who was arguing Jim's point - you don't want to restrict free speech - but there's actually a serious question of security for the President. If you have that kind of a lapse and somebody is intervening, that's a serious issue....

NEIL GABLER: Guckert, by the way, thanks among other people Karl Rove for his insistance, encouragement, and guidance. I think that is very, very interesting.

ERIC BURNS: [dryly] Well, he's a polite fellow ...

Questions the media should be asking Guckert
by John in DC - 3/2/2005 11:38:00 AM

The DKos gang has put together a series of questions the media needs to ask GannonGuckert:
Questions Posed To James D. Guckert by ePluribus Media volunteers

1. Is James D. Guckert your real name or is it, like "Jeff Gannon," another pseudonym? Have you used other pseudonyms in any of your other business ventures?

2. Were you paid for any of your work for Talon News or GOPUSA? If so, who paid you?

3. How did you begin your association with Bobby Eberle or GOPUSA? Did anyone contact you, or did you volunteer?

4. Have you ever been associated with GOPUSA in any capacity other than as a reporter?

5. In what capacity did you entertain Tony Blair during his visit on July 17, 2003?

6. How did you learn about GOPUSA.com?

7. At one point, you claimed you saw Talon News, liked it and began submitting articles to them. However, Talon News didn't exist until after you were put in the White House by GOPUSA. Do you wish to clarify this contradiction?

8. You claim in your bio that you served in the military. Which branch? Where and when did you serve? Have you worked for the government in any other capacity?

9. Have you ever been a member of a GOP activist group? If so, which one(s)?

10. Were you politically active as a college student or young adult?

11. When did you attend the Leadership Institute's Seminar for Broadcast Journalists?

12. The minutes of the Standing Committee of Correspondents, which accredits journalists to the Senate Press Gallery, makes reference to the fact that you are or were the Executive Director of the "Free Speech Foundation." Registration information for the Free Speech Foundation's web site reveals that the domain is owned by one "J. Daniels," though that information was later changed to list the owner as "I. Christian." Given that your close involvement with the Foundation was something you had no reason to hide from the Standing Committee, why did you use a pseudonym to register the domain name, since "Jeff Gannon," the name by which you were best-known and which would have generated the most positive publicity for the Foundation among your readers and listeners, was itself a pseudonym, thus protecting whatever privacy you used to enjoy?

13. Given the limited number of publications you had been affiliated with (and both publications boast a decidedly conservative slant), coupled with your fairly unknown status among the press corps, how did you arrange the interview with former Ambassador Wilson?

14. As a novice reporter, how did you learn the procedure for obtaining a day pass to the White House?

15. When did you first apply for a hard pass with the White House Press Corps? Did you apply for it or was it arranged through Bobby Eberle/GOPUSA.com?

16. When did you first apply for a daily pass with the White House Press Corps? Did you apply for it or was it arranged through Bobby Eberle/GOPUSA.com?

17. Did any members of the press question you on how it was that you were showing up regularly, but on a day pass rather than on a permanent pass?

18. You posted on an online discussion group that you have been subpoenaed to testify in the Valerie Plame case. In the same online discussion, you posted that you had seen the memo regarding Valerie Plame. Recently, however, you have suggested that you found out about this matter through the WSJ and that you were interviewed but not subpoenaed regarding the Plame case. Why have your recent responses not been consistent with your past statements? What is the truth?

19. Did anyone in the administration ever give you advanced information on any subject? Did they show you with a copy of the CIA Plame document?

20. Have you ever met Karl Rove? When? Where? How many times?

21. How did you come to find out about the Mary Mapes scoop with respect to the CBS/TANG documents?

22. What other parts of the White House have you seen or been in, other than the White House press briefing room? Who was your host on these occasions and what were the purposes of these visits?

23. Have you ever been to the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas and, if so, on what occasion and for what purpose?

24. You've used fabricated quotes, reprinted press releases and extensively cribbed from writers for other news publications such as the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Arcspace.com, and Newsquest, all beneath your own byline. Did your training in journalism include any coursework on ethics?

25. Legitimate journalists subscribe to a code of ethics, what do you think about those who violate or ignore that code?

26. Do you think working journalists should take money from anyone other than the professional news organization or publication that employs them for pieces they write? Did you?

27. Which falsehoods have been spread about you that you would like to dispell right now? For example, will you go on record saying that you were not running an escort service? We feel that this is relevant because of your past articles accusing others of behavior that you now consider "private, personal" information.

28. Since you've begun your own blog, do you think of yourself as a "blogger" or a "journalist"? Do you think of yourself as a "professional?" Since most people accept that a professional is someone who earns his living functioning in a known career field, how are you earning your living as a professional? Could you characterize how much monetary income constitutes "a living" in your opinion?

WH Gaggle Watch: Day One -- REJECTED

As we reported earlier this morning, today marked Day One in Fishbowl D.C.'s quest to cover a White House morning "gaggle." The short version? The day passes aren't exactly easy to get. We were smoothly and professionally rejected access by the White House Press Office in under an hour this morning. The longer version? Read on:



With all of the news about White House credentialing--hard passes vs. day passes, Congress passes vs. White House passes--it became clear that few people, including many White House correspondents themselves, understood exactly the process that allowed their brethren to show up for work each day. Since Fishbowl D.C.'s main goal is to cover the media industry in Washington, we thought that figuring out that process was a natural story.

We started planning last week while President Bush was in Europe, enlisting the help of MediaBistro's editor-in-chief and talking with several White House correspondents about how the process for admittance should (in theory) work. According to everyone with whom we talked, MediaBistro, Fishbowl D.C.'s parent, should meet the criteria for a day pass to cover the White House: It is (a) independent and nonpartisan, (b) regularly published, and (c) primarily supported by subscribers or advertising.

Certainly, having read the articles last week in the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, as well as this review of a forthcoming history of the Washington press corps, we figured we were at least as "real" as many of the more colorful characters who have admitted to the briefing room.

While several correspondents offered to help get Fishbowl a day pass, it seemed a more appropriate experiment to try without any special access: Exactly how easy is it for an average no-name journalist with no special connections to get access to the White House?

We had been told that the more time you give the Press Office to get clearance, the easier it is, so we started yesterday laying the groundwork. We called four times seeking admittance. After the first call to the Press Office, we spent the rest of the afternoon dealing with the Media Affairs Office. (By way of explanation, the Press Office handles the regular White House press corps, and Media Affairs handles internet and local press.)

We first spoke with a very perky intern whose name we didn't catch but who helpfully took down our name, publication, Social Security Number and date of birth. She promised a spokesperson would return the call promptly. Three more calls to the Media Affairs office over the course of the day, up until 6:10 p.m. last night, yielded nothing. Each time we explained what publication we represented and that we wanted to cover the morning gaggle. John, Jenny, and Caroline--the three equally helpful and perky interns with whom we spoke--all promised a call back from an unnamed spokesperson. They said they weren't allowed to give out his name. Finally during the last call last night, we begged to speak with anyone who wasn't an intern. Unfortunately for us, Caroline said, "everyone is in a meeting."

Now we once did press work ourselves, and have some experience in not returning press calls, so we weren't initially put off by the lack of response. Indeed we've heard from both reporters who cover the White House and former Bush press aides that not returning phone calls is pretty much standard operating procedure. Today we decided to try the more direct approach and just show up.

We put on a tie and suit, and with a reporter's notebook in hand, we looked very much the part of a real journalist. At 8:33 a.m. this morning, we showed up at the north gate on Pennsylvania Avenue, where the press enter every morning. (We confirmed today with James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert that this was the same gate he used every morning to enter.) After explaining to the uniformed Secret Service agent at the gate that we were there to cover the morning gaggle, we got buzzed up to the guard house. After presenting a driver's license, we waited while the officer checked against the people cleared for the day. Perhaps not surprisingly, Media Affairs hadn't put our name on the list.

The officer had us call the Press Office from a nearby phone and once again give them our personal information: Name, publication, SSN, DOB. The intern answering the phone promised that as soon as the woman who dealt with clearances showed up, they'd get back to us.

Meanwhile, we leaned on the fence outside the guard house and read John Steinbeck's "Travels with Charley: In Search of America." A steady trickle of reporters passed by, and we spent several minutes chatting with an old friend, AP's Nedra Pickler, as she went in for the day. After about twenty minutes, another officer came out of the guard house and explained that he had just talked with the Press Office: Fishbowl D.C. had officially been denied access for the day. No further reason. He presented us with the Media Affairs phone number scribbled on a napkin. We thanked him and departed.

Everything today was very smooth and very professional. Now we'll start trying to get in to tomorrow's gaggle.

The scoreboard thus far:

Fishbowl: 0
White House: 1
Today's Humiliation Factor: Low

Day Two

After striking out in person yesterday morning, we turned back to working the phones.

Midday we made the first call of the day: We spoke with intern Caroline and politely gave all of the same information we've given before. Since the Press Office at least had been nice enough to reject access rather than simply not returning calls, we asked whether we should try to go through them again. Caroline informed us that all day passes have to go through Media Affairs. She promised someone would get back to us.

On the second call, mid-afternoon yesterday, intern Jenny seemed to get sort of annoyed when reminded we spoke on Monday. We asked for Caroline but it turns out she was away from her desk, and all of the non-interns were (again) in a meeting. Thus Jenny was stuck answering all of the same questions again. We asked when the meeting might break up and when we might expect to hear back from someone, and she said testily, "I don't have that information, sir." You can say one thing about Jenny and Caroline: They're polite to a fault.

We spoke with Jenny a third time just after 5 p.m. yesterday when we called, and she seemed even more annoyed this time. However, we did get some more information out of her. The most amusing aspect of the call? We asked her who the head of the Media Affairs office was, and Jenny said she's unable to release that information-despite not only the names but their salaries being publicly available. We did ask whether speaking to Ken Lisaius, who's listed as the deputy director of the office, would do any good, but Jenny explained that he wasn't the spokesperson with whom we needed to speak. (She did seem a little impressed we knew a name. Point for us!)

Expressing some frustration with two days of stonewalls, we asked to hold while she tried to track someone down since everyone was (yet again) in a meeting, but Jenny politely told us she couldn't tie up the line. (Aside: You'd think that for something like the White House they'd be willing to splurge on having enough phone lines.) We finally asked, "Do you have any suggestions on how we could get cleared in?" "I'll see what I can do," she ended the conversation. We're still waiting to hear back.

The last time we called yesterday, we thought we'd employ a little trickery: Call late and hope that someone other than the interns were answering the phones by then. Unfortunately, perky Caroline headed us off at the pass: the mysterious spokesperson we needed was finally out of his marathon meeting but now he had already left the office. Damn. The plus side? We knew we were making progress because Caroline at least recognized Fishbowl this time. She seemed more amused than annoyed, thankfully.

This morning, rather than waste another $2.70 trip to the White House, we thought we'd call once before leaving the apartment. Hence the call to the Press Office and hence the quick transfer to Media Affairs intern John. John! Good golly! We hadn't spoken with him since Monday. It was great to hear his voice again (He actually sounds a good bit younger than Caroline and Jenny.). He told us our mystery spokesperson was out of the office. At least he's not stuck in another meeting...

So no gaggle today. Perhaps tomorrow?

The scoreboard as it stands:

Fishbowl: 0
White House: 2

Phone Calls: 10 (includes two calls to the Press Office to check on the gaggle time)
Trips to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: 1

Humiliation Factor: Low
Frustration Factor: Medium (Rising)

We were really hoping that we'd be able to say today: "Third time's the charm!" as we waltzed into the White House briefing room today. Perhaps the first two days were just a test and they wanted to be sure we REALLY wanted to go to a briefing.

Nope. No such luck. It's even worse today because it appears the Media Affairs has just stopped answering the phone when we call.

A brief recap of the last three days of our quest to get a one day press pass to cover a White House briefing:

Fishbowl: 0
White House: 3

Total Phone Calls Placed: 17
Total Phone Calls Returned: 0
Total Non-Interns We've Spoken With: 0
Trips to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: 1

Humiliation Factor: Low
Frustration Factor: High

Full report after the jump. (Day One is here, and Day Two is here.)



John, Caroline, and Jenny (or is it Jon, Jeni, and Carolyn?) are the three people who answer the phone in Media Affairs. We spent most of yesterday talking with intern John.

He answered the initial query yesterday morning, and then the second time we called late morning and the third time early afternoon. The third call, after greetings, we made chit-chat for a moment before we blundered into secret territory: We asked how long he'd been there, but he abruptly cut the conversation short: "I'm not supposed to answer any questions. I'm just an intern." We mumbled something about just trying to be friendly, and he said, "I understand that, sir." He happily said he'd pass our message along.

Two phone calls late afternoon yielded nothing but an answering machine, but on our fifth call yesterday Jenny picked up.

We exchanged pleasantries. She laughed cutely when we wished her a "Happy Wednesday." Now, for the first time, after 5 p.m. on the third day of trying to talk to someone ANYONE who wasn't an intern, we resorted to begging: "We'd really, really like to speak to someone." She seemed almost sympathetic. We agreed to hold for a moment while she looked around. Alas, our mystery spokesperson had stepped away from his desk. She apologized and promised she'd place our message right on top of his desk. Again, always polite.

Before we hung up, we asked Jenny to say hi to Caroline, whom we hadn't gotten to speak with all day.

Our final call of the day also went to an answering machine, and our call this morning did too. Do they perhaps have Caller ID in the Media Affairs office and know to ignore our calls? Ugg. That'd be a whole new level of frustration.

So where do we go from here? It's obvious that the phone calls aren't working. Maybe we're going to have to a try a different tack...

I think it's amusing that anyone expects to "prove" anything by failing to get a day pass at this juncture. Might prove something (not sure what) to the choir, but to few others. Might also give Keith O. fodder for some snide remarks, as has been pointed out.

Transcript of Gannon Segment on Fox News Watch
After burning much of the midnight oil recording a portion of Fox News Watch as well as a good part of this afternoon transcribing it, here's what they had to say about "GannonGate" this passed Saturday ...


FOX NEWS WATCH -- Gannon Segment Transcript
Aired 2/26/2005

ERIC BURNS: The dust has settled, some time has passed, and the daily press credential will be issued no more. So, it's time to look back at the amazing adventures of Jim Guckert -- AKA Jeff Gannon -- a right wing political operative who dreamed of being a $200 a night gay escort. Everyone should have a dream ... [dryly]

[Chuckles from the panel]

Here is Guckert being interviewed on NBC's Today Show Thursday telling reporter Campbell Brown about how he got into all those White House press conferences ...

[CLIP From NBC INTERVIEW]

GANNON: I asked to come. They allowed me to come. And apparently there isn't a very high threshold as far as somebody's personal life to gain access.

[END OF CLIP]

ERIC BURNS: Jane, what is this story really about? Is it about how anybody can get into the White House for a press conference? I mean, he was a journalist. Was it about his personal life? Could you explain it to me?

JANE HALL: Well, I think the hypocracy and concern of, you know ... They're alot of different issues here. Here's a guy that is called on alot as the group Media Matters - a liberal group - has pointed out. I mean, I just wonder whether a guy whose obviously phrasing left wing questions would've had a press credential for 2 years and was funded by a GOP related group ... It's hard for me to imagine that this could've happened if the bias were on the other foot. So, that is what's partly amusing about it to some people.


ERIC BURNS: But, Let me give you an example of one those questions he had asked. He said to the president at one point reffering to Democrats, 'How are you going to work with people who have divorced themselves from reality?' So, he did give a clue, Jim, that he certainly wasn't a partial journalist.


JIM PINKERTON: Right, although I think you were unfair calling him 'right-wing' in your intro.

ERIC BURNS: Really?!?

JIM PINKERTON: I do ...

NEIL GABLER: I think you were unfair calling him a 'journalist'.

[Eric Burns & Cal Thomas erupt in chuckles]

JANE HALL: Well, I think he was biased when he called him a 'journalist'

JIM PINKERTON: I can't help it because I think right-wing/left-wing are clearly perjoratives.

ERIC BURNS: I didn't mean it as a perjorative. I meant it as a ideological position.

JIM PINKERTON: [Stammering] I know, but ... but ... the proper term would be 'conservative'.

JANE HALL: And our term would be 'progressive'...

ERIC BURNS: Are there alot of other things that I do that you don't want me to use?!? [Sarcastically]

JIM PINKERTON: [Smirking] Well, after the show ... you know

[Chuckles all around]

JIM PINKERTON: Well, let me help Jane in this business about ...

JANE HALL: [To Jim] Don't pat me when you're condescending me, please ...

JIM PINKERTON: Who gets in the press corp? There's a fellow named Russell Macomber who writes for Corporate Crime Reporter who's been there for 4 years asking questions about the USS Liberty and if the Israelis are part of some conspiracy, whether the US committed war crimes in Iraq ... I mean, he is a left-wing Naderite by background and for ...

NEIL GABLER: 'Left-wing' or 'progresssive'?

[Chuckles all around]

JIM PINKERTON: Okay! I'll say it. I feel like insulting him! But for ...

[Neil Gabler gaffaws]

JIM PINKERTON: But for four years, and nobody in the White House press corp
compained about him.

JANE HALL: But the fact is ...

JIM PINKERTON: Gannon/Guckert gets in there and all of a sudden it's different. I think that is literally a double-standard.

JANE HALL: He was ... He was clearly posing questions that fed into their storyline about democrats divorced from reality and souplines. Rush Limbaugh even said, 'Gee, that was a line I used!' He used it as a White House reporter allegedly. It's different.

CAL THOMAS: Well, if we want to talk about softball questions, even credentialed reporters over the years have tossed even the most UNBELIEVABLE softballs. For example, there was the late Sarah McClendon who once said to Bill Clinton in the midst of that whole Monika Lewinsky thing, 'Sir, will you tell us why you think people have been so mean to you? Is it a conspiracy? Is it a plan? They treat you worse than they treat Abe Lincoln!'

ERIC BURNS: So, is that what this is about then, Neil? Is this about the softball questions because of the political orientation of the person ...

NEIL GABLER: Absolutely not.

ERIC BURNS: What is it, then?

NEIL GABLER: There are many many journalists - and we know alot of them - who ACT like partisan hacks. This guy WAS a partisan hack. And there's a difference.

CAL THOMAS: I'm not a partisan hack, but I play one on TV. Is that it, right?

NEIL GABLER: Yes. He worked for a GOP operative. He would not have been credentialed and was NOT credentialed by Congress for precisely that reason. Among other things, they have a rule that if you're a lobbiest for an organization, you can not be credentialed. So, this issue here is that this person should have NEVER been credentialed, was not credentialed by Congress, and we know the ... I know there's some Democrats that disingenously are trying to investigate how he got credentialed. We KNOW how he got credentialed -- the White House wanted him there. They wanted him to ask softball questions and ...

ERIC BURNS: What about the guy Jim mentioned asking hardball questions? They certainly didn't want that, did they, Neil?

NEIL GABLER: Well, then he shouldn't even be there. But the point of the fact is I don't know whether or not he got a daily credential every single day as Guckert did. Every day for ... for years ...

JIM PINKERTON: I agree that Guckert/Gannon getting a pass ... I worked in the White House for 6 years and I can tell you that there's somebody, you know, with a false name is ... but the Secret Service ...

NEIL GABLER: On a daily basis.

JIM PINKERTON: [nodding] On a daily basis takes an incredible ammount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House. That I would ...

ERIC BURNS: So it wasn't just that someone overlooked this. It was complicit.

JIM PINKERTON: It was conscious, yes, and some investigation should proceed and we should find that out. However, as I pointed out many times on this show, there's this new phenomenon called 'bloggers' and there's 8 million of them at last count. Lots of them have lots of facts including what they did to Gannon/Guckert what other bloggers did to Dan Rather in terms of taking apart the story through hard work and elbow grease. But we're having new categories of journalists and so I'm hesitant to say that anyone with a first amendment Free Speech right should be muzzled or intimidated from saying whatever they feel like because that's just what a free press is.

NEIL GABLER: Just not in the White House press corp.

ERIC BURNS: But the point is, Jane, we have a finite ammount of space here and there has to be some distinction ...

JANE HALL: There has to be and I talked to a White House press person who was arguing Jim's point - you don't want to restrict free speech - but there's actually a serious question of security for the President. If you have that kind of a lapse and somebody is intervening, that's a serious issue.

CAL THOMAS: I agree with that and there's another point to be made. The Congressional press galleries, as Jim says, for years, has credentialed and decided who is a ligitimate journalist and who is not. They're really behind the times on this Internet stuff. Slate, for example, and some other conservative websites. Who IS a journalist? I think that is something that needs to be looked into again and new rules established.

NEIL GABLER: Guckert, by the way, thanks among other people Karl Rove for his insistance, encouragement, and guidance. I think that is very, very interesting.

ERIC BURNS: [dryly] Well, he's a polite fellow ...

JIM PINKERTON: That's called brown-nosing your sources ...

[END]