It's not about the sex.

February 14, 2005 9:28 PM

More juice on Jeff Gannon(maybe NSFW). As you might have heard, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Gannon a few days ago. The little rascal denied that any of his sexually explicit sites ever went live.
posted by greatgefilte (585 comments total)

BLITZER: So what are you going to do now? [...]

GANNON: I've had some people call and make inquiries to see if I had any interest in certain positions.
posted by greatgefilte at 9:34 PM on February 14, 2005

Check out the revitalized discussion here on MetaFilter.
posted by ericb at 9:34 PM on February 14, 2005

A good summary article here (as posted by amberglow).
posted by ericb at 9:36 PM on February 14, 2005

Why do gay and straight people hate America?
posted by bardic at 9:40 PM on February 14, 2005

CNN, Digby, Wonkette, - and even The Conservative Voice weigh in on the new developments!
posted by ericb at 9:42 PM on February 14, 2005

Ah, crap, I didn't realize that thread was still active. Sorry. But someone had to...
posted by greatgefilte at 9:44 PM on February 14, 2005

There's more coming, i'm sure. I betcha a former client or 2 comes forward (but not the ones in the White House)
posted by amberglow at 9:49 PM on February 14, 2005

Me suspects that other discussions will be "reactivated" elsewhere on the "Internets" (and, hopefully the MSM - Mainstream Media) on this topic this week, particularly as regards to such sentiments as:

"What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find? ... Who in the White House is at the center of all of this? Who allowed this to go on in the People's House? Who committed the crime of exposing Valerie Plame?" [AMERICAblogs | February 14, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:53 PM on February 14, 2005

Howie the Putz Kurtz isn't fit to deliver papers or repair tvs, let alone report anything--he still is covering up for them. KURTZ: Although what this has to do with Jeff Gannon's job at the White House -- whether was criticized on the substance is debatable.

unbelievable--nothing about Plame, or security at the White House, or anything.
posted by amberglow at 9:54 PM on February 14, 2005

Um, yeah, I think ShrubCo will probably do a little more research and background check on their next fake journalist to plant in the White House press corps and toss soft lobbers to the Prez.

When are Jeff's (sorry, is that James or Jeff, Gannon or Guckert? I get so lost these days) White Hot White House porn vids going to be released to the internets?
posted by fenriq at 9:59 PM on February 14, 2005

When I first heard the story, I thought it was intresting, typical bush propaganda stuff. But this is just amazing. An internet man-whore?

Just how far is this rabbit hole going to go? I mean this guy obviously got his job through connections, but how is an internet man-whore connected to the bush white house?

Or maybe it's an elaborte ruse to throw liberals off track while they plunder social security?!
posted by delmoi at 10:19 PM on February 14, 2005

Perhaps this is all part of a viral marketing campaign and Gannon is trying to make waves in his target market of "m4m solution/service/synergy."

Or not.

Ok, so there is such a thing as bad press.

Yikes.
posted by Coda at 10:26 PM on February 14, 2005

Or maybe it's an elaborte ruse to throw liberals off track while they plunder social security?!

Rabbit holes. Magicians. Misdirection ?

Watch
posted by ericb at 10:27 PM on February 14, 2005

...my left hand ... as my right flits to my pocket.
posted by ericb at 10:28 PM on February 14, 2005

I'm dumbfounded. All I can say is wow.

I'm in Canada, and only started to mention Gagnon in conversation today when someone asked me what I though the effect of bloggers will be on politics, media, etc (what can I say, he's been at a Buddhist retreat for the past five months). Since then I've spoken to several people who I know keep up on current events, and none of them were aware about the whole White House Press Corps bit. Now I see this, with those undeniable photos and corroborative evidence. It really begs the following question:

Will this stick like egg on the face of the current administration, or is it going to fly under the popular radar?

My faith in the ability of the USA to look upon itself and react as needed rides on this question.

Oh, and thank you so much for posting those links, this is a great scoop that only a medium such as the internet could do justice in delivering.
posted by furtive at 10:28 PM on February 14, 2005

Ah, crap, I didn't realize that thread was still active. Sorry. But someone had to...

Something tells me, greatgefilte, that the discussion will continue on this thread - and you were wise and timely to resurrect the topic here.
posted by ericb at 10:33 PM on February 14, 2005

Don't sweat it, greatgefilte. I was thisclose JeffGannon-ScottyMcClellan-close to posting the FPP myself this afternoon. I knew someone would have to. On preview: Got yer back, ericb.

Everybody's said everything else, so I'll just say: I doubt this is a planned leak to distract the media from social security - even if the mainstream media do eeeevennnnntualllly pick it up - and that shouldn't put a crimp in any of our efforts to saturate America's broadcast spectrum with it. Why? Because the media are already thoroughly fucking up the social security story anyway, so there's absolutely nothing to lose on that front. And the hypocrisy and security issues embedded in this are so deep and so clear that this really should have legs - and know how to use them!
posted by soyjoy at 10:41 PM on February 14, 2005

Proof of God.

Think about it: what are the chances that a media whore like Gannon would turn out to be an actual whore? It's impossible. It boggles the mind how infinitely unlikely this is. It's like if you found someone pirating CDs, and it turns out he actually had a peg leg and a parrot on his shoulder and sailed around the Caribbean saying "arrrrrr!" and plundering booty. You wouldn't believe it. But there it is: impossible, but true. Impossible truths are miracles, and only God can work miracles. Ergo, God exists. Q.E.D.

posted by euphorb at 11:07 PM on February 14, 2005

The White House can simply play it off as poor background check, blame it on a lower staff member, and make some comment about cleaning up the morals of America. The odds of there being any real "dirt" here are highly unlikely IMO. A lot of people were once prostitutes, I think one in one-thousand is a currently active prostitute according to some stats I read somewhere.
posted by stbalbach at 11:11 PM on February 14, 2005

Wow. I haven't been paying enough attention to know who this Gannon fella is (anyone care to fill me in?), but that's pretty damning. If only all poltical scandals were this deliciously scandalous.
posted by neckro23 at 11:14 PM on February 14, 2005

Wow. I haven't been paying enough attention to know who this Gannon fella is (anyone care to fill me in?)

Check out:

"Jeff Gannon's Secret Life" [Salon | February 15, 2005]

"GannonGate" [MediaMatters | February 14, 2005].
posted by ericb at 11:30 PM on February 14, 2005

Just in case folks didn't get soyjoy's Gannon/McClellan joke, here's one site that claims to have seen Scott McClellan at a Texas gay bar, and to have discussed the issue of his sexuality with the White House Press Office last September:

RAW STORY has been told that the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan visited a gay bar in Austin, Texas, on March 19, 1995. The date was placed exactly as a local memorial service was held on the same day. The source, who would only comment on condition of anonymity, reserved comment on whether McClellan was actually gay, but said he was frequently seen at gay clubs. Another source also confirmed this account.

“He was often seen in gay clubs in Austin, Texas and was comfortable being there,” the Texan said. “He’s been seen in places that normal people who are looking for heterosexual relationships are not seen alone.”

According to a White House transcript, McClellan is married, and Gannon sent the press secretary a wedding card. The White House, however, declined to comment. “He was the mayor’s son in town, everybody knew who he was,” the source added, referring to McClellan’s mother Carole Keeton Strayhorn.

When the story broke, my first thought was "Someone in the Press Office is fucking Guckert." It never occurred to me that it might actually be McClellan.
posted by mediareport at 11:39 PM on February 14, 2005

ericb, crikey, thanks.

Just how embarassing is this going to be? The guy's been outed publicly now, he can't go hang out with his Washington pals anymore, he scares them now.

Unless they knew him from the escort service? Hmm.....
posted by fenriq at 11:44 PM on February 14, 2005

ericb:

CNN, Digby, Wonkette, - and even The Conservative Voice weigh in on the new developments!

You missed or were too early for the good article at The Conservative Voice. Rather than what you linked to, check out Jeff Gannon / James Guckert: a gay prostitute. AMERICAblog was shocked by its position.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:17 AM on February 15, 2005

Family values.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:38 AM on February 15, 2005

That man has approximately twice as much penis as is strictly necessary.

Uh, I was looking at the pictures in the name of press freedom.

Seriously, though, this has left me a bit speechless. I eagerly await the FoxNews coverage.
posted by jokeefe at 1:21 AM on February 15, 2005

which is more embarrassing?

getting punk'd by ashton kutcher
or getting punk'd by a gay hooker?

must everything get past the liberal media?
posted by tsarfan at 1:38 AM on February 15, 2005

More juice on Jeff Gannon

what, a bukkake video?
posted by matteo at 2:55 AM on February 15, 2005

what, a bukkake video?

Oh boy.
posted by The God Complex at 3:49 AM on February 15, 2005

Um, yeah, I think ShrubCo will probably do a little more research and background check on their next fake journalist

What makes you think they didn't know this? I mean, if you're going to plant a fake journalist, you better make sure he's not going to turn on you. This way, he does what they want, or they call Vice on his (well-muscled) ass. That those pages came up when they Googled his name is probably why they picked him for this. You'd think they'd have picked somebody with subtler blackmail fodder, but nobody ever said these guys were competent.
posted by queen zixi at 3:54 AM on February 15, 2005

I'd be more interested in seeing an analysis of his bogus media work than hearing about his gayness. After all a whore only screws one paying customer at a time. A white house press core media whore screws the whole country.
posted by srboisvert at 3:54 AM on February 15, 2005

Will this stick like egg on the face of the current administration, or is it going to fly under the popular radar? My faith in the ability of the USA to look upon itself and react as needed rides on this question.

Yeah, this will really determine whether we have our priorities in order - not like our reactions to the war, or the recession, or the election, or those other insignificant things. Nothing tests the character of a country like a gay prostitute working in the White House. I must have skipped that chapter in civics class.
posted by scottreynen at 4:13 AM on February 15, 2005

Will this stick like egg on the face of the current administration,

Not quite the metaphor I would have used, given the context (I would have gone all the way), but you're on the right track.
posted by The God Complex at 4:20 AM on February 15, 2005

Not only is he a fake journalist but he's gay too!

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

...unless it makes our enemies look bad, then the dirty, dirty man has to pay.

Relax, correct thinking homosexuals, we'd never turn on you like this.

...unless you disagree with us or slept with someone who disagrees with us, then it's up against the wall (and not in the god way).
posted by Mick at 4:35 AM on February 15, 2005

the GOOD way, forgot an Ohhhhh
posted by Mick at 4:36 AM on February 15, 2005

"Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?"

Pardon, but the first link seems to be overly concerned with the possibility that he's a gay hooker.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:55 AM on February 15, 2005

To those who're getting sidetracked by sordid tales of gay prostitution, there's a much larger story here. FYI:

Steny Hoyer Statement on "Jeff Gannon" Connection to Valerie Plame Leak

Letter to Plame Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from Reps. Slaughter and Conyers

Request to Secret Service re Guckert's credentials from Reps. Slaughter and Conyers
posted by edverb at 5:07 AM on February 15, 2005

From the Conservative Voice comments: "Well, that takes the cake. I can't DO this anymore. I can't support the GOP, I cannot support these so-called conservatives in power, and tomorrow I am switching my party affiliation to independent."

Well, that's just great, and we appreciate it. Now, tell me again where the fuck you were in November?

Can't wait to see where this goes from here.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:23 AM on February 15, 2005

I'd hit it. /anncoulterstyle
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:25 AM on February 15, 2005

Slate's been very quiet, with only this Kaus mention quoting a rightwing blog--weird (except for the WaPo purchase, of course). Funny tho, that gossip about Eason Jordan's affair with Marianne Pearl is ok with him.
posted by amberglow at 5:30 AM on February 15, 2005

...unless it makes our enemies look bad, then the dirty, dirty man has to pay.

It's not what he does with his genitals that's interesting. It's how he got there that is-- a gay prostitute is ether blackmailing or (more likely) is in tight with someone in the administration's propaganda machine. Some gay Quisling in the gay-hating Bush administration is getting gay with a gay prostitute and planted him in the press corps to lob softball questions.

No one would plant a prostitute in the press corps unless the planter was being forced to or was blindly enamored with the prostitute. If the planter was merely a buddy to the prostitute, I think the planter would say "Hmm. Do I have any friends who can do this who aren't prostitutes and aren't working under an assumed name?"
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:41 AM on February 15, 2005

Are you seriously fucking telling me that nobody in the goddamn media checked the fucking Internet Archive when Gannon made his claim? I had (and have) close to zero interest in this story, but if I'd been at all interested in researching it that is the first place I would have checked.

I keep thinking that my opinion of the media can't sink any lower. And I keep being wrong.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:45 AM on February 15, 2005

The following transcript of a recent White House "Press" briefing comes to our attention (Hartford Courant)
posted by amberglow at 5:53 AM on February 15, 2005

Relax, correct thinking homosexuals, we'd never turn on you like this.


ah, how delightful to see how Bush cheerleaders are trying to spin this new disaster into "lib'ruls hate the gays" -- it is almost as funny as the disaster itself. I mean, the sheer mind-boggling incompetence of the WH people who can't even manage to enlist one of the many warbloggers who would pay good money to be able to kiss the President's rear live on TV -- one of the many InstaPundits or DenBestes of warblogland would have been beside themselves with joy. no, they have to hire a guy like Gannon. Jesus, even on MetaFilter, this famous liberal bastion, the many Micks of MeFi would have been so happy to take Gannon's seat in the White House press room. and maybe (I'm assuming here), maybe, their past is less embarrassing than Gannon's

even better: maybe Gannon was hired by a very powerful john -- blackmailed or not it doesn't matter. this is all so funny. if they manage not to blow up the world until a new guy gets in to sort their mess out, these next four years are going to be desperately funny (observed from abroad, of course)
posted by matteo at 6:08 AM on February 15, 2005

There's so much to wonder about here that the mind turns wobbly, and this is probably very unfortunate because with more focused allegations the message becomes a drumbeat tattoo pounded home over and over again until nothing else can be heard. Look at Rather and Eason (not to mention Lewinsky) for examples of this, and look at the administration's penchant for drilling a single concept phrase (weapons of mass destruction? axis of evil?) so deep into the public psyche that it becomes an unquestioned mantra. The lesson is so very, very clear. Keep it simple, stupid.

But look at us... Even we can't concentrate on what the point is here. Is it the faux reporter thing? Is it the gay prostitution thing? Is it the Valerie Plame thing? I hope I'm wrong when I say that the very fact of so many layers of deceit could serve to keep the story in the background both for the press (who dislike complex stories that take time to unravel, offer so many opportunities to err on the facts, and don't have that nice, neat, bankable soundbyte snappiness), and the public at large (who generally need a bit of spoon feeding to get their teeth into something with enough traction to feel confident enough to discuss it around the water cooler).
posted by taz at 6:27 AM on February 15, 2005

So what do you think President Bush's endearing nickname for "Gannon" was? I'm thinking The Schlonger.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:44 AM on February 15, 2005

taz - very well said!
posted by ericb at 6:45 AM on February 15, 2005

So what do you think President Bush's endearing nickname for "Gannon" was? I'm thinking The Schlonger.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:44 AM PST on February 15

I was thinking mudstud.

One of the many InstaPundits or DenBestes of warblogland would have been beside themselves with joy. no, they have to hire a guy like Gannon. Jesus, even on MetaFilter, this famous liberal bastion, the many Micks of MeFi would have been so happy to take Gannon's seat in the White House press room.

Exactly. The shift from virtual slurpees to real ones would be an pugrade for any of them.
And the nick would be "Mickster."
Or "Perfessor."
Or "Captain Kirk."
posted by nofundy at 7:00 AM on February 15, 2005

"Screaming about Jeff Gannon/James Guckert and his day pass access to press conferences just doesn't garner a buzz outside of the liberal new media world, even when he is outed as an alleged gay escort/web site proprietor. The American news consumer hasn't heard of Jeff or James and few even know what Talon news is. In fact, they may even believe it is a division of (gasp) Salon news. There is just no there--there." [The National Ledger | January 15, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:06 AM on February 15, 2005

I agree with taz, it would be wise to focus on one issue, but really there are two issues that need to come out. Tax dollars are being spent to pay reporters, and people posing as reporters. Certain citizens are being targeted illegally by the WHite House. I am flabbergasted at how little press this is getting.

I must admit, I am surprised at the power of blogs. I am disappointed with the press, particularly CNN, and I really don't expect much from them. Being a crank, I plan to write to Patrick Fitzgerald, in the U.S. attorney’s office, as well as to my representatives. Does anyone know which Congressmen are most influential in the Plame investigation.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:14 AM on February 15, 2005

The letter to the director of the Secret Service from Congressmembers Louise Slaughter and John Conyers, Jr. puts some of the important questions very well - this is what all Americans should be asking.

"It has recently been revealed that James D Guckert has been repeatedly cleared by your office to attend White House press briefings over the last several years. He was, however, allowed to operate under an assumed name, which we understand to be contrary to your usual policies. That he may be engaged in illegal activity only heightens our concern.

We are concerned that such an individual was allowed within a few feet of the President when the public is routinely disallowed any possible contact with either the President or the White House. … [This decision] appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently.

What standards do you impose on those who are granted access to the President and the Whie House Briefing Room? Do you rountinely allow guests to use false names? Were those standards applied to Mr. Guckert? If not, why, and at whose request?"

Etc. It's a very good letter. Are the other members of the press asking McClellan this? Or is there really such a tight hold on what the Press can ask this regime that hard hitting questions like this would get a reporter kicked out or otherwise frozen out of access?

thank you to edverb for linking to this.
posted by raedyn at 7:19 AM on February 15, 2005

There's still very little of this in the regular "mainstream" media, and it's just mystifying. Or wait...enraging. I still know where Lewinsky bought her stained dress. Gannon is ten times more salacious/explosive, and they keep trying to snuff out his story. If you ever needed a case study of Republican control of US media then my friend, you have it.

I don't agree that it's somehow liberals' "fault" for not "focusing on one message" here; a: there's more to it than that, and b: we have an allegedly free press that could pick up any one of these angles and run with it. The Times could focus on security/Plame, the rags on the sex scandal. If this story is squashed and pushed out of public view, I for one refuse to blame liberals when the obvious culprit is clearly our spineless, ball-less, dead-souled lickspittle media lapdogs.
posted by emjaybee at 7:30 AM on February 15, 2005

Nothing tests the character of a country like a gay prostitute working in the White House. I must have skipped that chapter in civics class.

I think that chapter was called "Monicagate"? White House blow jobs were always more interesting than corporate collusion.

Why is the so-called left-wing MSM quiet about this? This is huge, in every ironic and unironic sense of the word.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:39 AM on February 15, 2005

I didn't know who Jeff Gannon was before I read this, but now I've seen his wiener.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:42 AM on February 15, 2005

"An Open Letter to Jeff Gannon: Well, this week's gotta be a bitch for you. With each new embarrassing layer of information that gets peeled away I'm sure you're feeling extremely vulnerable....I'm writing because I wanted to have a chat about the whole outing thing. Okay, a one-way chat, but still. I can understand that you might be feeling that your privacy has been invaded, that your sexuality is your business, and that whoever took it upon themselves to expose your personal life was really striking a low blow. But you see, there's a whole segment of the population right now who feel just like you do, that they've had targets placed on their backs. By an administration whose policies you have been doing your utmost to promote. Can you understand that people who are having their civil liberties stripped away might look at your complicity and resent the hypocrisy of someone who insulates themselves from the consequences of such policies with money and power? And that they might rightly assume that the only way to defend themselves is to expose the grand hypocrisy of the policy makers in the first place?" [Firedoglake | February 14, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:44 AM on February 15, 2005

Correction for above" [The National Ledger | February 15, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:46 AM on February 15, 2005

I'm very dissapointed to see this posted on Metafilter.

My guess is that a few people are getting carried away, happy to feel like they're beating the conservative bloggers at their own game. I think they're losing sight of a few things:

* The story belongs in a supermarket checkout-line tabloid, not a Metafilter FPP. That should be obvious, but I'll spell it out: It has no real consequence for the world -- no lives, no money, and very little principle are at stake. It's pure titilation and slander; if it weren't for the sex -- and what consequence does that have -- this post wouldn't be on Metafilter. Doesn't that sicken you to hear that?

* You're not getting back at the conservative bloggers, you're justifying them by adopting their methods, -- the slanderous yellow journalism. The problem is their methods, not the fact that they're conservative. It's important that all voices, including conservatives, are heard in the debate -- that's democracy -- the problem is that this trash prevents debate. This post is just as bad. How dissapointing to find it on Metafilter.

* I don't think the public really cares, beyond a little tittilation, if that. This is some nobody who got a press pass; it's not Eason Jordan, it's not Alberto Gonzales or even Alan Keyes. It's not Michael Jackson, if you think the tittilation will do it. He got a press pass, not the Presidential Medal of Freedom or a night in the Lincoln bedroom.

* Worst of all, by far, is that it's homophobic. If I could remove a FPP, I'd pull this one. The rest of the stuff I'd just complain about in a post (like this one), but hatred and discrimination has no place here, or anywhere. We also justify homophobia when we use it.

And for the record, I despise Bush, particularly because he adopts tactics like the ones we're using.
posted by guanxi at 7:49 AM on February 15, 2005

Wasn't this the administration that was supposed to restore honor and dignity and respect to the White House?

My definition of these things must be different.

And if the media is so liberal, how come they're not all over this?
posted by SisterHavana at 7:56 AM on February 15, 2005

emjaybee, I'm not saying it's anyone's fault... I'm just pointing out that what seems like a breathtaking failure on the part of the news media right now has its reasons, as flaccid and deflating as those reasons may be. It is for the political machines to grind the gears (they need to focus), and the investigators to investigate. Sadly, it seems that, so far, none of the mainstream press are up to the task.

From what I've seen up to now (and those residing in the U.S., please correct me if I'm wrong), what has been reported thus far has all been reported from the angle of look what the bloggers have done (as in: hey, wow; check out this new "blogger media" thingy), instead of look at what the White House has done, and I don't believe that this is because they are "owned", but because there's too much complexity involved to grab-and-go, and way too much work to track down the various elements of the real story and deliver it in a manner that will hold viewer/reader attention beyond the initial 30 second window. If Watergate happened today, I do wonder if it would make an impression on fourth estate at all.
posted by taz at 7:58 AM on February 15, 2005

If this story is squashed and pushed out of public view, I for one refuse to blame liberals when the obvious culprit is clearly our spineless, ball-less, dead-souled lickspittle media lapdogs.
posted by emjaybee at 7:30 AM PST on February 15

Hear, hear!

Guanaxi,

Perhaps you haven't been following the story but the recent salacious details are nothing in comparison to the rest. What I'm saying is you are wrong.
This IS a BIG story.
No one besides the media needs the new details for this to be a big story.
Its just the money shot for a real life whore press.
Literally, a whore media in the guise of the WH press corpse.
Thanks be to David Koresh we still have Helen Thomas.

Dubya White House; restoring honor and dignity.
posted by nofundy at 7:59 AM on February 15, 2005

The story belongs in a supermarket checkout-line tabloid, not a Metafilter FPP. That should be obvious, but I'll spell it out: It has no real consequence for the world -- no lives, no money, and very little principle are at stake. It's pure titilation and slander; if it weren't for the sex -- and what consequence does that have -- this post wouldn't be on Metafilter. Doesn't that sicken you to hear that?

Not really. There are some important issues here:

• someone is added to the press corps under an assumed name, sits not too far away from the president

• said person with no known journalistic background ("blogging" or otherwise) asks a blatantly softball question, when the Bush administration indicated last month that they would no longer pay for positive press spin
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:59 AM on February 15, 2005

I am so happy. Does this make me a bad person?

This is going to break mainstream the next few days, those old media types are just a bit gun shy after the CBS memo fiasco. But what this story needs to really have legs is for Jeff Gannon to sing, to break down and tell us just how a hooker with no journalistic experience working for a non-existent news source and with a fake name got to be a White House journalist. The answer almost has to be gay sex and blackmail with someone at the White House.

What are the odds of his speaking out? He's got nothing to lose at this point, and it seems to me that a natural human urge to pass off some of the villification he is getting might compel him to talk. Plus there is the tens (hundreds?) of thousand of dollars he is about to be offered to speak to the tabloids.

Damn this is good.
posted by LarryC at 8:03 AM on February 15, 2005

/insert paranoid rant about how Gannon is about to whacked by the CIA here
posted by LarryC at 8:04 AM on February 15, 2005

Wow, the more I read about this, the more titillating this gets.

With all the Valerie Plame rumors sweeping around this fella, I certainly hope he has some dirt on higher-ups carefully hidden away.

It would be a genuine shame if he met with an "accident" or "committed suicide" out of left-wing MSM-related "depression" before more details are sneaked out.

I can't believe it but I'm actually rooting for this guy.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:08 AM on February 15, 2005

Speaking of serious implications, perhaps someone can answer this: in casebook law, is there any kind of legal definition for qualifies as a "reporter"? I ask this because Novak and others have been able to shield the identities of the administration officials who leaked the Plame info as a matter of journalists "protecting their sources." But ... if Gannon *isn't* a reporter, can he be compelled to testify?

Interesting question...
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:13 AM on February 15, 2005

if it weren't for the sex -- and what consequence does that have -- this post wouldn't be on Metafilter. Doesn't that sicken you to hear that?

Not when someone as ill-informed as yourself says it, no.

A tip: Check the front page of Mefi more regularly before making claims about what does and doesn't, or should and shouldn't, get posted here.
posted by soyjoy at 8:15 AM on February 15, 2005

guanaxi, this editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune might clarify some of the "newsworthiness" of this story. Excerpt:

JG routinely lobbed softball questions to White House press secretary Scott McClellan and President Bush. During the president's Jan. 26 news conference he posed an egregiously loaded one: How did the president plan to work with Democrats who had obviously "divorced themselves from reality"? Bloggers took note, and soon uncovered the partisan connections that had been willfully ignored by White House reporters.
posted by tizzie at 8:18 AM on February 15, 2005

Plus:

This makes the fourth revelation of media manipulation in barely a month. .... The White House press secretary doesn't know what a real journalist is. Perhaps he also agrees with the 36 percent of American teenagers who think the government should pre-approve news stories.
posted by tizzie at 8:21 AM on February 15, 2005

Apparently the White House Press Association (or whatever they're called) has a meeting with McClellan today--maybe something will come of it (but i doubt it)

He won't talk--it was a mistake for Guckert to even go on CNN and NPR. The next time we see him on TV will be as he goes into a courtroom with a lawyer for a deposition, one hopes.

All of you saying this is nothing, or fit for a supermarket tabloid--don't forget Plame most importantly, and one more thing: if it's this easy for this whore to get into the WH every day, it'd be just as easy for a Timothy McVeigh to do it too.
posted by amberglow at 8:21 AM on February 15, 2005

I ask this because Novak and others have been able to shield the identities of the administration officials who leaked the Plame info as a matter of journalists "protecting their sources."

BTW - just this morning...

Court: Reporters Must Testify in CIA Leak Case
A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that two journalists must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in an investigation into a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA operative. [Reuters | February 15, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:23 AM on February 15, 2005

All of you saying this is nothing, or fit for a supermarket tabloid--don't forget Plame most importantly, and one more thing: if it's this easy for this whore to get into the WH every day, it'd be just as easy for a Timothy McVeigh to do it too.

This should be shouted from every hilltop.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:24 AM on February 15, 2005

Are Bloggers Journalists? - "An Apple lawsuit against the operators of fan websites stirs debate on whether bloggers can claim legal protections. " [Christian Science Monitor | February 2, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:26 AM on February 15, 2005

A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that two journalists must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in an investigation into a leak that exposed the identity of a covert CIA operative. [Reuters | February 15, 2005]

I wonder why Novak keeps getting a free pass, given the depth of his involvement, but the courts are happy to go after a NYT reporter who had only a tangential relation to the Plame information?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:28 AM on February 15, 2005

I'm not trying to spin this as "lib'ruls hate the gays." I am pointing out the fervor with which many have gone after his sexuality because it suits their needs.

There are plenty of other points that can be made (assumed name, no journalistic experience, softball questions) that actually pertain to this situation without having to resort to gay bashing.

I think I am free to call hypocrites hypocrites without undermining the actual story.
posted by Mick at 8:40 AM on February 15, 2005

It's corrupt, but come on -- on the scale of what happens in DC today and every day, this doesn't even register. He lobbed softball questions? Who can name, off the top of their heads, 10 bigger scandels occuring right now, off the top of their heads?

I'll start: Social Security accounting manipulation, Bush's attempt to bankrupt welfare programs, the regressive payroll taxes, Iraq & Afganistan costs omitted from the budget, Senate GOP's attempt to end fillibustering, Karl Rove being given an official policy (as opposed to political) job, procescutors and courts trying force reporters to reveal sources, Fox News' lack of accounatability, Delay packing the House ethics committee with supporters, Condi Rice receiving overwhelming support from both parties, the media's failure to cover more than White House platitudes regarding the Iraq elections.

I always thought the Clinton-Lewinsky thing was over-hyped, meaningless nonsense for the same reason -- it just doesn't add up to much, on the scale of reality. Should I rethink?


soyjoy:
A tip: Check the front page of Mefi more regularly before making claims about what does and doesn't, or should and shouldn't, get posted here.

I've been reading Mefi regularly for years, and I stand by my statement.
posted by guanxi at 8:43 AM on February 15, 2005

I think I am free to call hypocrites hypocrites without undermining the actual story.

Do you want to name actual names of actual hypocrites or will this part of your strawmanesque complaint remain off the record?
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:43 AM on February 15, 2005

Yesterday "the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked a California Superior Court for a protective order that would prevent Apple Computer from forcing three online journalists to identify their confidential sources and hand over unpublished materials. EFF, serving as co-counsel for the journalists, argues that online journalists are protected by the same "reporter's privilege" laws that shield print journalists from having to reveal the names of anonymous sources." [Press Release | February 14, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:43 AM on February 15, 2005

There's also been talk that now that Guckert has been revealed not to be a journalist, he can't claim that "protecting my sources" thing anymore.
posted by amberglow at 8:45 AM on February 15, 2005

It's corrupt, but come on -- on the scale of what happens in DC today and every day, this doesn't even register. He lobbed softball questions? Who can name, off the top of their heads, 10 bigger scandels occuring right now, off the top of their heads?

Guanxi:

• He is a gay prostitute who was hired by the GOP to lob soft questions at a president who makes hatred of gay people part of his daily agenda. The inconsistency is interesting, but the least so of these three points.

• He was added to the press corps under an assumed name. The SS never allows this. From a national security standpoint, letting someone like this get physically close to the president is a mindboggling, if not incomprehensible security lapse.

• He is involved in some way with information leaked to the right-wing press regarding CIA agent Valerie Plame. As such we are entitled to know his level of involvement in this scandal. Other journalists are being threatened with jail time for withholding information. One is not. He has information we should know.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:49 AM on February 15, 2005

I always thought the Clinton-Lewinsky thing was over-hyped, meaningless nonsense for the same reason -- it just doesn't add up to much, on the scale of reality. Should I rethink?

Hey, you have to go to war with the scandal you have, not the scandal you want.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:54 AM on February 15, 2005

"James D. Guckert, the former White House reporter who's been accused of everything from asking partisan questions to being a male prostitute, is no longer speaking to the press, claiming it does not help his cause..."[Editor & Publisher | February 15, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:25 AM on February 15, 2005

There's also been talk that now that Guckert has been revealed not to be a journalist, he can't claim that "protecting my sources" thing anymore.

What makes a journalist?
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:26 AM on February 15, 2005

I feel uncomfortable about exploiting the prostitute angle, but it really is the least salacious aspect of the story. Suppressing this because of one man's career as a sex-
worker is the height of prudishness.

The public and the media are very inconsistent about what makes them angry. To my mind this is much less important than the war in Iraq and the attack on the New Deal, but it is very significant. Gigologate, as I'd like to christen it, consists of identity fraud, missuse of public funds, and possibly the illegal outing of a CIA agent.

There is no way that the Secret Service didn't know who that man was. I was allowed in to a news conference for the Slovak Prime Minister. The SS (don't you think we should change the name?) insisted that I give them my social security number in advance, and two forms of photo ID. I cannot believe that they would require less for the President of the United States. Somebody was helping this guy.

And Amberglow is right, he's no longer a reporter, if he ever was (if he was paid by a PAC, he does not have a leg to stand on). So the only way this could refuse a subpoena is to plead the 5th amendment, admitting that he has be party to an illegal act.

I hope press doesn't focus too much on the naked pictures, that I must admit that I would enjoy cross examining him. (So, your saying that those pictures are you because your dick isn't that big?)
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 9:26 AM on February 15, 2005

What are the odds of his speaking out? He's got nothing to lose at this point, -- except his life, of course.

Do you seriously think that THIS White House, THIS administration, would allow him to blab? Consider what they have been capable of doing -- lying to congress, lying to allies, revising every aspect of civil liberties, altering policies on use of torture, bombing the shit out of two countries (with only one of those actually invovled in 9/11) -- the list goes on and on.

What does Ganoon/Guckert/whatever have to lose? I feel sorry for the naivete that question betrays, and how sad it is that you must be disillusioned of those thoughts.
posted by mooncrow at 9:35 AM on February 15, 2005

AlexReynolds: exactly.
Card Cheat: hee

guanxi: see AR's answer. And also, can we not wring our hands like schoolmarms? No one is suggesting that liberals dump policy in favor of character assassination. But he who lives by the sword--or the sex scandal--deserves to be brought down by it. Gannon/Guckert has made more hateful, homophobe statements in his "journalism" than anyone posting here. As has the administration that inexplicably gave him access to the President.

To point out someone else's moral hypocrisy is not to adopt their values. To say the emperor has no clothes does not make you a nude-o-phobe.
posted by emjaybee at 9:36 AM on February 15, 2005

There are plenty of other points that can be made (assumed name, no journalistic experience, softball questions) that actually pertain to this situation without having to resort to gay bashing.

Let's add the outing of an undercover CIA agent, how he managed to get confidential information and White House press passes and I will say that I agree with Mick. (Pay attention, this doesn't happen often.)

I say let's leave all the sex scandal stuff to the Republican politicians and their media toadies where it truly belongs.
posted by nofundy at 9:36 AM on February 15, 2005

guanxi: Should I rethink?

Yes. This is a story worthy of much more coverage, much more outrage, and much more press time. The very LEAST that MeFi should do is keep it front and center as it develops.

Why? Sure, there are other scandals and corruption brewing in the WH, in Washington in general, in Iraq, but this one hits at the heart of problems in the media, which is where so much of what is wrong with this administration centers.

guanxi, why aren't those other scandals being heard? Why is the major media so incompetent, or so indifferent?

This story brings it all together, and forces them to look at the crap they have been sitting in for the last four years.

Maybe a few of the WH press corpse will realize that they have to clean up their own act first. Here is a perfect place to start.

Of course, they are afraid to cover a story that seems to involve the head of the WH press office. I wonder why.
posted by mooncrow at 9:43 AM on February 15, 2005

What's really sad about this too, is that by not investigating this or covering it, the mainstream media is hurting themselves--covering up for someone who's not even one of their own slimes them with the same ethical problems. They have a chance to show that they're not the same as Guckert or Williams or Gallagher or McManus, but aren't taking it.
posted by amberglow at 9:47 AM on February 15, 2005

What makes a journalist?

Good question. The debate has been raging for sometime....at least since Forbes Digital Tool (online/new media) exposed Stephen Glass as a fabulist at the New Republic (print/old media). And, when Matt Drudge pursued the Monica Lewinsky story, "...[a] recurring theme [that was] spelled out in the ensuing news coverage and discussion transcripts...[was] that the newfangled Net...[was] luring traditional journalism into the ethical abyss." [Online Journalism Review | June24, 1998].
posted by ericb at 9:47 AM on February 15, 2005

According to this well-documented AMERICAblog entry (caution: spicy photos), he was running one of his escort web sites until May 2003, a month after he first entered the White House as a journalist in April 2003.

It's also interesting that he was able to get a White House press pass after he was denied a Congressional pass because he couldn't show he worked for a valid press organization.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:03 AM on February 15, 2005

and his ads as an escort on other sites were still up as of yesterday.

there are tons of escort review sites on the web--i'm sure people are combing through them now.
posted by amberglow at 10:05 AM on February 15, 2005

oh! get this: The Smoking Scalp ; >
posted by amberglow at 10:30 AM on February 15, 2005

Ech, guanxi, you're right. This is a little ridiculous. So, what do we have here: a Republican was secretly gay, and a Republican was secretly a slimy sycophant. To top it off, the president seems to want to answer easy questions. Why is anyone surprised? The only reason people harp on this is because they like tittilation, and the height of tittilation is anything sexual combined with anything conservative.

But what were you expecting? Take a glance at who's commenting in this thread. The sharper ones are leaving it alone, since a "no more daily gannon updates!" callout would be a waste of time when you can just ignore them and hope that this is the last one.

The best thing about this is the Zelda joke, and no one's even making it.
posted by koeselitz at 10:45 AM on February 15, 2005

mooncrow:
This is a story worthy of much more coverage, much more outrage, and much more press time. The very LEAST that MeFi should do is keep it front and center as it develops.

MeFi has a political agenda? MeFi is a tool for a certain political agenda?

Allow me to resolve everyone's question: Yes, they're hypocrites: Bush, the media, and also your fellow Mefites, you, and me. Throw a rock and you'll hit a hypocrite. Maybe I should make that a FPP and then all the rest will be dupes.
posted by guanxi at 10:53 AM on February 15, 2005

koeselitz -- The only reason people harp on this is because they like tittilation, and the height of tittilation is anything sexual combined with anything conservative.

Hee hee -- you said "tittilation"!!

Why is it so hard for you and guanxi to see why this is an important, crucial story?

Hmm. Let's see. Maybe it has to do with the fact that this WH seems hell bent on using "gay" as the tire iron to beat civil rights back to the 19th century?

Maybe it has to do with the way rethuglicans beat the shit out of Bill's pecadillo with Monica, since sex sells, and illicit sex sells the most?

Maybe payback is a bitch?

I don't know. I guess hypocrisy still gets me really fucking pissed. Seems to be the case with a couple other MILLIONS of people as well.

Grrr..
posted by mooncrow at 10:59 AM on February 15, 2005

JG routinely lobbed softball questions to White House press secretary Scott McClellan which makes sense if he was actually softballing him behind closed doors, eh?

The irony of this whole situation is the most compelling thing to me. Shrubya and his Slimy YesMen! fear The Gay but they also fear real journalists. So they plant a ringer who moonlights as a hot muscle butt for hire.

I love the story, it doesn't really matter that Gannon/Guckert is gay. It matters that he's a prostitute who got planted in the White House Press Corps without a background check and under an alias because it suited the administration to let him in. I expect and hope that this continues to make them look like the morons they are.

guanxi, what's hypocritical about being interested in some pretty pathetic media-fixing with a guy who happens to have a pretty sordid past? Go ahead and make your FPP rant, we'll see you again sometime under a new name.
posted by fenriq at 10:59 AM on February 15, 2005

it's not just about being hypocrites (although pointing it out does give us pleasure)--they violated national security in the Plame case, and violated White House security in getting this whore into the press corps and within spitting/shooting distance of the president without proper security checks.

All of us on the left have repeatedly pointed these things out to you over and over--and you guys can only focus on the sex aspect. hmmm...
posted by amberglow at 11:01 AM on February 15, 2005

I've been reading Mefi regularly for years, and I stand by my statement.

You're free to stand there, but your statement was patently false, since the Gannon story has been FPP'd repeatedly here before there was any sex involved. So have the other stories in this series - the actual journalists the Bush administration used as sock puppets for their propaganda, stories completely devoid of sex.

So how do you square that fact with "if it weren't for the sex -- and what consequence does that have -- this post wouldn't be on Metafilter"?
posted by soyjoy at 11:06 AM on February 15, 2005

The only reason people harp on this is because they like tittilation, and the height of tittilation is anything sexual combined with anything conservative.

Nonsense.

You left out that a slimy, Republican sycophant had access to secret CIA documents, and an inside connection to get him into the White House in the presence of the POTUS under false pretenses, under a fake name with no journalism credentials, in contravention of all security procedures in place from the WH Press Room to Secret Service. Oh, by the way, he was a gay prostitute until recently, for what that's worth.

Doesn't that deserve an explanation? The part about the apparent fake news organization with Texas GOP ties getting instant access, feeding CIA secrets to a poser non-journalist with a fake name? Aren't you at least a little curious just what in the blue f*ck is going on here?
posted by edverb at 11:10 AM on February 15, 2005

OK, enough moral fiber; back to the titillation:

Per amberglow's latest link - isn't that him? Hmmmmmmmmmmm....
posted by soyjoy at 11:14 AM on February 15, 2005

To point out someone else's moral hypocrisy is not to adopt their values. To say the emperor has no clothes does not make you a nude-o-phobe. - Yes!

The Smoking Scalp - What does one say, but "clever"!

Gigilogate - love it!

rethuglicans - love it!

And all of what mooncrow and amberglow said!
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on February 15, 2005

As soyjoy rightfully points out, the discussions about Jeff Gannon/Jeff Guckert here on MetaFilter started (i.e. February 1, 2005) before there was any "titilating" sex-talk: See here, here, here, here and here for previous threads in which the topic was previously discussed, or touched upon.
posted by ericb at 11:38 AM on February 15, 2005

“And one more teeny tiny point for those who want to pretend we're invading GannonGuckert's privacy and digging into his personal life just to embarrass him:

HE POSTED THESE PHOTOS ON THE WEB FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE.

GannonGuckert was not stalked by photographers. No one dug through his trash. Hidden cameras were not placed in sleazy hotel rooms to gain evidence. GannonGuckert posed for the cameras and then put them on the biggest display board in the world to drum up business. GannonGuckert wanted people to see them; he wanted strangers to see them. He wanted to make money off of them. Any of his family or friends or business associates could have stumbled upon them at any time. If anyone disturbed GannonGuckert's privacy, it was GannonGuckert himself.” [My Two Cents, Michael @ AMERICAblog | February 14]
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on February 15, 2005

Someone on the Internets was bound to do it ...

Jeff Gannon Blog
Jeff Gannon is not my name and I am in no way pretending to be anyone else whose name isn't really Jeff Gannon.
posted by ericb at 1:46 PM on February 15, 2005

they're not listening--they're just dutifully feeding us their freeper talking points on this. After all, freepers are known the world over for their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, and of sexual peccadillos in the White House, no matter which party is in charge, right?
posted by amberglow at 1:47 PM on February 15, 2005

Gigologate – the movie trailer.
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on February 15, 2005

And just to point out, the Plame scandal is about a heck of a lot more than Plame. Now that the cat is out of the bag with Plame, hostile intelligence services can look at everyone who has had contact with Plame, worked with Plame, along with the cover organizations that Plame used. The possibility is quite strong that entire networks of informants have been compromised.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:55 PM on February 15, 2005

I think there is a bit of merit to exposing the seamy side of the story, if only that it's the kind of thing that might actually get some naive right-wingers to take notice of the fact that their precious administration is not as squeaky clean as they'd like it to be. Honestly, thinking of certain Bush supporters in my family, they probably don't have the faintest clue about Valerie Plame, and probably wouldn't give a damn about the implied problem with White House security. But say the magic words -- sex scandal -- and they'll be all over it like Farkers on boobies (no offense to either intended).
posted by greatgefilte at 1:55 PM on February 15, 2005

MeFi has a political agenda? MeFi is a tool for a certain political agenda?

Huh? How does this follow?

I or any number of your fellow MeFites might have a political agenda, but MeFi really doesn't, does it?

If few freepers tend to post stuff here, is that the fault of MeFi? Or of the community?

I seem unable to board your train of thought -- do I need a special ticket?
posted by mooncrow at 2:11 PM on February 15, 2005

Propagannon - "Because it's not about the sex..."

"Welcome to the new website for the Propagannon project. We are in pre-launch beta; the site is ready to use for organizing this investigation and storing info but it's not all prettied up yet for the rest of the world."
posted by ericb at 2:20 PM on February 15, 2005

CBS has the story on its website. The mainstream breakout of this story has begun.
posted by LarryC at 2:25 PM on February 15, 2005

"The Ward Churchill case, of course, is the most complex of them all (until the saga of 'Jeff Gannon' resurfaces some time this week, when it could turn into the political scandal of the year — more in a subsequent blog)." [Keith Olbermann | February 14, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:25 PM on February 15, 2005

That CBS story is from February 10th. Let's hope CBS and others cover the Gannon Affair further. This story deserves more coverage in the mainstream media for all of the implications folks have mentioned above. Let's hope there's some comprehensive and critical coverage of this unfolding scandal.
posted by ericb at 2:31 PM on February 15, 2005

Let's hope there's some comprehensive and critical coverage of this unfolding scandal.

I hope so, too. That this has been a story since the 10th, but has been kept silent since then, is disconcerting.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:40 PM on February 15, 2005

I actually read the the interview with Wolf BlitzkriegBlitzen. Gannon says that his family has been harassed and frightened by angry liberals who have said terrible things to him and about him. He is leaving his profession to spare them.

I am still not sure why a man with such a robust internet presence would put himself in the limelight. Something doesn't make sense.

I can see the next chapter of Giglogate in my crystal ball: Rush Limbaugh chastising liberals for taking away this journalist's livelihood, trying to force him into a life of prostitution. As Stonerose put it, "things are hard for an embedded reporter like Gannon."
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:40 PM on February 15, 2005

we need to dig deeper. who's behind Gannon?
posted by matteo at 3:46 PM on February 15, 2005

we need to dig deeper. who's behind Gannon?
posted by matteo at 11:46 PM GMT on February 15

Must.Resist.Obvious.Rejoinder.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:03 PM on February 15, 2005

This scandal may indeed give new meaning to the term emBEDded reporter!
posted by ericb at 4:08 PM on February 15, 2005

Look, I know it's not about the sex. But, go back. What else is there? As I said before: a Republican is a sycophant, and the president likes easy questions. This does not a scandal make. It sucks that whoever's in charge of White House security is asleep, but that also doesn't constitute a scandal. Someone, somewhere, will lose their job. It's not scandalous for the President to hire people who don't protect him very well. It's just stupid.

People should be spending their time showing how W's a bad president, not showing how his minor affiliates are bunglers and perverts. If I believed in a maliciously conspiratorial right, as I think some do, I would be saying that this was merely meant as a distraction from real issues.

And, by the way, mooncrow mentions the Lewinsky thing. Democrats were right then to say that the Republicans who pursued Clinton on the oral sex thing were spineless muckrakers engaging in underhanded tactics. "Payback is a bitch?" If this is your idea of revenge, it's pretty lame; this kind of scandal won't take down anyone higher up than whoever's in charge of White House security. Why not focus on the things that make a difference-- like, say, foreign and domestic policy?
posted by koeselitz at 4:13 PM on February 15, 2005

Re: Gannon's access to info on Plame, this from David Corn is informative:
There has been some public confusion about this aspect of the Gannon/Guckert story. Representative Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, has called upon Fitzgerald to "investigate the leaking of a classified Central Intelligence Agency memo containing the identity of undercover agent Valerie Plame to a man at the center of the White House Press Briefing Room scandal, 'Jeff Gannon.'" The classified memo came not from the CIA but from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and by the time its contents reached Gannon, Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) had already been identified as a CIA officer.

Corn is no GOP apologist, and certainly agrees that Gannon had no right to the info he seems to have had. Also it is the case that we have witnessed, astonishingly, a prostitute gain privileged access to the White House. A gay prossie in the Republican White House.

You couldn't make it up. Airport blockbusters declared redundant.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:29 PM on February 15, 2005

Koeselitz: Dude, I agree with you, however, when the reporters have been bought, (Gannon is the third or fourth paid shill?) It makes it difficult for the citizenry to maintain an informed opinion on such important matters as how poor a president Mr. Bush is. Perhaps you should read some of the questions Gannon posed to the President. It is hard to imagine a journalist further entrenched in the buttocks of the POTUS.

However, there may very well be. That is a huge problem. That's why everyone is up in arms. And frankly, the fact that sex had to be involved to raise any attention is pathetic.

But it does make the political commentary a bit more of an exciting read.....
posted by Freen at 4:38 PM on February 15, 2005

If I believed in a maliciously conspiratorial right, as I think some do, I would be saying that this was merely meant as a distraction from real issues.

Sounds like you and amberglow agree. It's another distraction.

I guess it goes to back to whether bloggers are searching for truth, or partisans/operatives looking to score or deflect attention, or both --amberglow

The bloggers currently inspecting Gannon's crusty underwear are intrepid, patriotic, brave truthseekers while those who threw light on the Jordan remarks are evil muckrakers? Hilarious.

The Gannon distraction is certainly more fashionable than Churchillgate, story of a 'two-bit' professor who'll no doubt do speaking tours, write some more books, release a few more spoken word CDs and, in general, continue being a self-involved twit whose 'two-bit' visibility in the national consciousness grows in porportion to his ego.

So is this not another 'distraction' as amberglow mentioned? Perhaps we shouldn't allow ourselves deflect attention for too long by issues like, "How can we, as Democrats, present ourselves better in order to win elections?" rather than salivating over Gannongate.

If Gannon was 'bought' by the GOP: let him fry. If he broke laws: throw the book at him. If he outed Plame, or knows someone who did: hold him in custody. But don't pretend all the other extraneous info doesn't belong in the National Enquirer's trash bin.
posted by dhoyt at 4:46 PM on February 15, 2005

It's not just him, dhoyt--should the white house people who approved his day passes for 2 years fry? the secret service? the people who got him in even tho he was rejected by the organization that gives out permanent passes? how about the person/people who gave him the Plame info? all the people he told the Plame info to? the people paying his check? the people who purchased his "services"?

We're talking about an awful lot of people who brokes rules if not laws, no? How about we find out the answers to all these questions and find out who all these people are?
posted by amberglow at 4:55 PM on February 15, 2005

"How can we, as Democrats, present ourselves better in order to win elections?"

why do you assume that everyone upset by this Gannon revelation is a Democrat?

your last paragraph is mostly correct, but the "extraneous info" you mention might be exactly why Gannon might have been "bought" or might have been breaking laws.

when he continues to publicly lie about the "extraneous info," we can probably agree that there might be a bigger story involved.

while some Democratically-bent bloggers could be portrayed as "inspecting Gannon's crusty underwear" (ewww), one could also say that they are "following all of the leads," just like any reporter should. no?
posted by mrgrimm at 5:00 PM on February 15, 2005

dash_slot: Thanks for posting the David Corn link. He points out a number of interesting and revealing details which were new and illuminating to me.

I agree with Corn that "..maybe pulling on this string will cause a larger scandal to unravel." Further reporting is needed, so that we can see if the more serious allegations (i.e. the Plame outing) hold water.
posted by ericb at 5:12 PM on February 15, 2005

Koeselitz....Perhaps you should read some of the questions Gannon posed to the President.

Some of Gannon's greatest hits, as featured in a video montage on Olberman's show last night:

May 10, 2004: "Q In your denunciations of the Abu Ghraib photos, you've used words like 'sickening,' 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible.' Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? And will Americans ever see those images?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because the President talks about that often."

July 15, 2004: "Q Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"

April 1, 2004: "Q I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."

Feb. 10, 2004: "Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"

[via The Washington Post | February 10, 2005]
posted by ericb at 5:22 PM on February 15, 2005

Actually ... those were the questions posed to White House spokesperson Scott McClellan.

The Gannon/Guckert question to President Bush on January 26th: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
posted by ericb at 5:26 PM on February 15, 2005

Dhoyt: No one is claiming Churchill shouldn't have said what he did....

The point is, this is in fact a scandal. Gannon's sordid past is all but irrelevant really. He's the third or fourth paid shill that has been discovered. That alone is a huge scandal. It's problematic because he isn't a professor, who is paid to have thought-provoking points of view, he was a journalist, who regularly asked the president of the united states fawning questions under a fake name, while being paid by a GOP operative. Problematic in the extreme. Churchill's story gets legs because it "sexy" in a different sort of way. He says controversial things. You are right, he'll continue to be controversial ad some people will pay attention and other won't. But at least he used his own damn name, and didn't outwit the Secret Service.

Why are the republicans powerful now Dhoyt? I'd say it's primarily due to moral backlash from Clinton's indiscretions and healthy dose of being scared shitless that gay people might have the same rights as everyone else. Do you not think that the Monica Lewinsky scandal brought down Clinton?
posted by Freen at 5:29 PM on February 15, 2005

If Gannon was 'bought' by the GOP: let him fry. If he broke laws: throw the book at him. If he outed Plame, or knows someone who did: hold him in custody. But don't pretend all the other extraneous info doesn't belong in the National Enquirer's trash bin.

What other extraneous info?

That he's a gay male prostitute working for an administration and a political party that goes out of its way to castigate GLBT?

Civil rights are not extraneous or tabloidesque material. Sorry, dhoyt, wrong again.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:41 PM on February 15, 2005

Gannon says that his family has been harassed and frightened by angry liberals who have said terrible things to him and about him. He is leaving his profession to spare them.

If you read that transcipt, it's the most awkward, slimy thing to read.

JimJeff is repeated asked about "his family" being harassed and how, and he finally admits that he's referring to his mother and brother, not the "wife and kids" that he is trying to imply to the viewer by repeatedly mentioning "his family".

Poor guy. Confused and constrained to the end.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:58 PM on February 15, 2005

From Feb. 2004, WebDems: (one of the earliest attempts at finding out who this guy was, i believe)
Would you be surprised to learn that (as White House reporters are browbeaten daily) a seat in the fourth row of the WH briefing room is occupied by a volunteer for a rinky-dink right-wing "news service" whose reporters include a personal trainer, a scout camp director, an aerospace employee, and a high-school student? This volunteer, credentialed by the White House, is a denizen of the barely credible web forum freerepublic.com. Read down; this gets worse.
...
Talon News Service is obviously a silly and kooky wannabe outfit. And yet a precious seat in the fourth row of the White House briefing room is Gannon's. He boasts on freerepublic about asking questions designed to elicit "gasps" from the real correspondents.

How and why did Talon gain permission to access White House briefings while the same White House threatened denial of access to correspondents from media giants NBC and CNN and The Washington Post? And doesn't Talon's inclusion cement the critical need for reporters to be credentialed through peer review?

and she was asking the same questions as us in March 04
posted by amberglow at 5:58 PM on February 15, 2005

Hmmmm...do Gannon's questions sound scripted to anyone else? And if so, who wrote the script?
posted by LarryC at 6:18 PM on February 15, 2005

AMERICAblog has just posted: More proof that invoice to Gannon for hustler Web site is real
posted by ericb at 6:34 PM on February 15, 2005

And it's going to be in Roll Call tomorrow
posted by amberglow at 7:06 PM on February 15, 2005

Slowly, for the mouth breathers (Tom Tomorrow)
posted by amberglow at 7:20 PM on February 15, 2005

Digby has it exactly right, and boy, how things change when a Republican is in the White House, no? ... Paraphrasing a comment I read somewhere yesterday (apologies to the author) "pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values white house living room." Goldberg affects a jocular dismissiveness for a reason. He knows what a real story is and he knows how they work. And he is trivializing this one because it is actually quite dangerous.

Meanwhile, on the left we have much handwringing by commenters over this not being a "gay" story and how we should concentrate on the national security angle and how it's really about access etc, etc. We too are ignoring the naked, gay conservative prostitute in the midde of the family values white house living room. And this is where they get us.

Perhaps it would be instructive to take another little trip down memory lane. Jonah knows very well what a real story is because he was up to his ears in one of the biggest political sex scandals in history. From Michael Isifkoff's award winning MSM articles on the Lewinsky affair:

There was another guest at Jonah Goldberg's house in the Adams Morgan section of Washington that day. For some months, Newsweek's Isikoff had been in touch with Tripp – "hounding" her, Goldberg claims. Aware that Isikoff knew of rumors that Clinton was having an affair with a former White House staffer, Goldberg suggested to Tripp that she play the tapes for Isikoff. Uncomfortable with the whole taping process, Isikoff declined to listen and left Goldberg's house.

In their many phone conversations that fall, Lewinsky complained to Tripp that she was being neglected by the president... By the fall of 1997, Lewinsky was complaining that Clinton's ardor for her seemed to be cooling. He wasn't calling her much, and he rarely returned her increasingly frantic calls. Lewinsky was restless and bored at the Defense Department.

Isikoff listened later, needless to say. So did the entire country. That little meeting at Jonah's house led to the impeachment of the President of the United States. They came this close to forcing him from office. Goldberg and the entire GOP establishment knew without doubt that they had a story and they were not afraid to lead the media to it by the nose. And just look at what an oozing chunk of sensational soap opera tabloid offal it was. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:36 PM on February 15, 2005

There was some degree of complicity...
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:59 PM on February 15, 2005

If this is your idea of revenge, it's pretty lame; this kind of scandal won't take down anyone higher up than whoever's in charge of White House security. Why not focus on the things that make a difference-- like, say, foreign and domestic policy?

Well, I personally don't think we are going to see much of a scandal that is going to take down anybody this this term.

However, it is just one more symptom of a reality warp around the president:

Fact: Shortly after a bitter campaign affected by issues of whether Clinton lied under oath, Bush gives two participants in the Iran-Contra scandal previously convicted and pardoned for the same offense, positions responsible for foreign policy. Among the ironies, Elliot Abrams, with a history of whitewashing and denying the existence of massacres under his watch in Central America by U.S. allies is appointed to be "Human Rights Czar."

Fact: In the early months of the administration, peer-reviewed research available on or through federal web sites was systematically removed if it contradicted the administration's education or environmental policies.

Fact: The administration has spent most of the last 4 years attempting to stack scientific advisory bodies with appointees supportive of administration policies.

Fact: The Senate probe into intelligence failures in Iraq found that the administration bent the available interpretations to match the desired political outcome. Shortly after the election, news was released of political purges of the intelligence bureaus.

Fact: The current candidate for Attorney General and Director of Homeland Security have both been implicated in approving torture as a justifiable interrogation tool for prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fact: Members of the administration paid shills to promote the administration's policies in the media.

One or two of these problems is not a big deal. Adding them up suggest that the current administration has some pretty deep problems with corruption.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:06 PM on February 15, 2005

how can you say that, Kirk? they restored "integrity to the White House" ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:28 PM on February 15, 2005

Worst of all, by far, is that it's homophobic.

guanxi, you are almost unbelievably confused if you think that raising the issue of hypocrisy among closeted gay Republicans is necessarily homophobic. Gannon's absurdly conflicted situation is entirely self-created; your demand that thoughtful g/l folks ignore the obvious white elephant in the room -- on penalty of being slammed as homophobic, yet -- demonstrates a juvenile level of understanding of queer issues.
posted by mediareport at 8:35 PM on February 15, 2005

Well, I guess my question for conservatives is how many more paid shills, intelligence failures, and convicted perjurers will it take before you say, "ok, Bush needs to clean up his act?"
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:37 PM on February 15, 2005

I think there are a lot of conservatives who want to say this, and are saying it among friends, but are afraid to do so in places where people might (I'm deliberately exaggerating) scream: AHA! So you admit Bushitler is the antichrist! Even bob@flintridge says so!!!

The same way Democrats who were disgusted with Clinton's generally squishy moral center, and specific crimes against the truth couldn't say so without fearing that the things they genuinely supported about the man would be swept away with the scandals.
posted by cell divide at 8:45 PM on February 15, 2005

patriotboy outdoes himself-- Dear Mr. Gannon,
I'd like to interview you for a new internet broadcast venture I'm starting, Rapture Radio. ... The way I see it, the Frenchman, Aravosis, put the worst possible spin on the latest revelations (pictures may not be worksafe) about your web sites. Where he saw a homosexual prostitute, I see a warrior who is proud of the hard, masculine body our Lord Jesus blessed him with. That's the story we will tell on my show.
Nudity in the company of other men is nothing for which to be ashamed. It's one of the ways we bond as warriors. The other is wrestling. Our ancient Spartan forbearers combined the two and created the greatest warrior society this world has ever seen. Your mention of wrestling and the pictures of your little soldier on the USMCPT web site tell me that you understand this ancient tradition. That's the kind of knowledge men aren't taught anymore. The very thought that the tradition lives on beyond my own little compound excites me in a strange and disturbing, yet liberating, way.
...


celldivide, very few Democrats were disgusted with Clinton--the poor were better off, the economy was good, no elective wars, the family and medical leave act...The few that were disgusted spoke up without hesitation, in the media, and often. Clinton also didn't hold himself up as someone God spoke thru, or who was called by Jesus himself to lead us into war(s), nor did he ride to victory by demonizing gay people.

How many Republicans are disgusted with Bush? And why aren't they doing anything about it?
posted by amberglow at 8:52 PM on February 15, 2005

I gotta say, it's a testament to the conception and foundation of the Jesus' General site that so many new emerging news stories play so perfectly and exactly into his routine. Sir, my little soldier salutes you!
posted by soyjoy at 9:45 PM on February 15, 2005

Let me just take a moment to re-iterate something KirkJobSluder mentioned upthread. Plame was the undercover director of operations for nuclear non-proliferation in the middle east. Outing her was nothing short of a massive act of treason that has, in all likelihood, seriously endangered the lives of millions of human beings. The fact that as we speak, no one has been prosecuted, nor this scandal a major element of the recent election is shameful. Just think, how much of a partisan hack does Novak, Miller, et all have to be to try to protect the identity of the person who committed this heinous act of treason?
posted by Freen at 9:51 PM on February 15, 2005

I really do see the reticence of Guanaxi et al to exploit the situation. But the salacious nature of Gannon's websites can give him a free pass. This guy is at best a serial liar and an opportunist, and at the worst, very possibly a criminal.

It's a challenge to expose this guy in a fair manner. But a good challenge is also an opportunity.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:15 AM on February 16, 2005

amberglow: celldivide, very few Democrats were disgusted with Clinton--the poor were better off, the economy was good, no elective wars, the family and medical leave act...The few that were disgusted spoke up without hesitation, in the media, and often. Clinton also didn't hold himself up as someone God spoke thru, or who was called by Jesus himself to lead us into war(s), nor did he ride to victory by demonizing gay people.

Few confirmed Democrats perhaps. On the other hand, the 2000 elections saw serious fractures in the American left that were not helped by the Lewinski scandal, leading to very lukewarm support for four more years of Clinton politics.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:57 AM on February 16, 2005

Good coverage of the story today in the Washington Post. I hope it's a sign that more mainstream media coverage is on the way.
posted by tizzie at 6:14 AM on February 16, 2005

Reticence is one thing, gesamtkunstwerk. Saying you'd pull the post if you could and shrieking that it's homophobic is quite another. The whole "outing someone for hypocrisy is homophobic!" thing not only plays perfectly into anti-gay hands; it also relies on an assumption that there's something wrong with telling people someone is gay.

That's horseshit.
posted by mediareport at 6:17 AM on February 16, 2005

I really admire John Aravosis and the others who've pursued this story. They've done a very thorough job of investigative journalism. If some of the pictures they've discovered aren't pretty, hey, that's a shame.

If Gannon's activities had taken place in some other city, and he wasn't connected with the White House in any way, then yes - it wouldn't be any big deal. But this is a big deal, a scandal in Washington.

I'd say "bring it on," but Gannon brought it on himself.
posted by tizzie at 6:26 AM on February 16, 2005

Maybe there isn't much more to this story, but to those who say not to persue it, I would like to point out that Watergate was considered "just a break in" by most at first.
posted by drezdn at 8:23 AM on February 16, 2005

Worst of all, by far, is that it's homophobic.

mediareport has it right: guanxi, you are almost unbelievably confused if you think that raising the issue of hypocrisy among closeted gay Republicans is necessarily homophobic.

Setting aside the larger and far more important issues (some legal; some ethical) upon which this scandal touches (i.e. national security, press manipulation, the potential treasonous "outing" of an undercover CIA operative), I, as an openly gay man, find it absolutely necessary for all of us (gay and straight) to point out the hypocisy in this situation.

My apologies for reposting( from above), but these words say it well - and bear repeating:

"An Open Letter to Jeff Gannon: Well, this week's gotta be a bitch for you. With each new embarrassing layer of information that gets peeled away I'm sure you're feeling extremely vulnerable....I'm writing because I wanted to have a chat about the whole outing thing. Okay, a one-way chat, but still. I can understand that you might be feeling that your privacy has been invaded, that your sexuality is your business, and that whoever took it upon themselves to expose your personal life was really striking a low blow. But you see, there's a whole segment of the population right now who feel just like you do, that they've had targets placed on their backs. By an administration whose policies you have been doing your utmost to promote. Can you understand that people who are having their civil liberties stripped away might look at your complicity and resent the hypocrisy of someone who insulates themselves from the consequences of such policies with money and power? And that they might rightly assume that the only way to defend themselves is to expose the grand hypocrisy of the policy makers in the first place?" [Firedoglake | February 14, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:00 AM on February 16, 2005

I haven't wanted to side track the discussion, but I don't think Gannon's really been outed at all. First of all, we really don't know that he's gay. (Many prostitutes and porn stars are merely gay for pay; their professional and sexual identities are separate). As far as I see it, the only really salacious things about this story are Gannon's hypocrisy and the naked pictures he posted himself. I don't think we have any responsibility to look away.

Posting naked pictures of yourself and operating an escort service on the internet are about as public as you can get. The bloggers haven't revealed anything that wasn't published or public record, they merely pointed out contractions in his duelling identities.

There are also numerous contradictions between the information he provided CNN and the statements of the White House. As citizens, taxpayers and just plain old people living in a world dominated by American power, we have a right to know who has been lying to us.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 9:51 AM on February 16, 2005

Yo, ericb. Your enthusiasm is clear and points well taken. But reposting the same big block of text in the same thread just ain't cool. It's the internets, buddy: If you really feel people should reread it, link back up to it instead.
posted by soyjoy at 10:11 AM on February 16, 2005

soyjoy - fair enough.
posted by ericb at 11:14 AM on February 16, 2005

"Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this 'journalist' had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal. Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps—and listen to the placid mumbling of the 'liberal' media now." [New York Observer | February 16, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:43 PM on February 16, 2005

Journalist Hooker Test
"Did you know that now there is a simple test for journalists to determine if you are actually a hooker? Take the test now, because many journalists are actually whores and simply don't know it. How many of these 8 warning signs apply to you?"
posted by ericb at 12:54 PM on February 16, 2005

Democrats make moves behind the scenes as reporter-prostitute story hits Washington Post
"Democrats chew over Washington Post story on prostitute-reporter" [Raw Story | February 16, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:04 PM on February 16, 2005

New developments ... "Guess what? 'Gannon' was in the White House BEFORE April 2003" [Daily Kos | February 16, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:05 PM on February 16, 2005

GANNON EMERGES: Was This the Debut of "Jeff Gannon?

"... this post, in which someone brags about having asked a pro-war question at a February 28, 2003 White House press briefing, appears to have been made by Guckert under his psuedonym, Jeff Gannon. That would imply that Guckert was admitted into the White House even BEFORE his alleged news service [representing Talon News] existed. At that time, he done (sic) some 'writing' over the preceding couple of months for what appears to be Talon's predecessor, Republican activist website GOPUSA.com News. 'Writing' is to be used loosely in this case, however, as much of his reporting during that pre-Talon period consisted of cutting-and-pasting stories from other news outlets or GOP press releases." [Intelligence Squad | February 16, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:17 PM on February 16, 2005

Hiding in Plain Sight: Jeff Gannon's Connection to the Inner Sanctum of the Oval Office
posted by ericb at 8:27 PM on February 16, 2005

Midnight Cowboy in the Garden of Bush and Evil
"The phony journalist in the White House is the most bizarre example yet of the administration's efforts to thwart an independent press." [Salon.com - requires free "day pass" | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:00 PM on February 16, 2005

"Thus a phony journalist planted by a Republican operation, used by the White House press secretary to interrupt questions from the press corps, called on by the president for a safe question, protected from FBI vetting by the press office, disseminating innuendo and smears about critics and opponents of the administration, some of them gay-baiting, was unmasked not only as a hireling and fraud but as a gay prostitute, with enormous potential for blackmail." [Salon.com - requires free "day pass" | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:02 PM on February 16, 2005

Bush administration blurs media boundary
"Controversy over a 'journalist' adds to the buzz about message control in capital." [Christian Science Monitor | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:04 PM on February 16, 2005

A Hireling, a Fraud and a Prostitute
"Bush's agent in the press corps has given spin a new level of meaning." [The Guardian | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:06 PM on February 16, 2005

"Vox clamantis in deserto."
posted by ericb at 9:44 PM on February 16, 2005

Jon Stewart just spent nearly the entire half hour of The Daily Show talking about Gannon/Guckert, including some carefully chosen pictures from the escort sites, and went on to rip the press: "Here's CNN talking about why bloggers are more interesting than CNN"; "The Washington Post-- where you hear about it tenth." Screenshots of wonkette, and shout outs to Daily Kos and Atrios and, of course, americablog.com. Jon Stewart, at this moment in time, I heart you.
posted by jokeefe at 12:51 AM on February 17, 2005

That Guardian article is excellent-- and written by Sidney Blumenthal, as well. It gives a clear rundown on the situation, including Gannon's links to the Valerie Plame scandal, and sums the whole thing up quite nicely. Thanks, ericb.

Thus a phony journalist, planted by a Republican organisation, used by the White House press secretary to interrupt questions from the press corps, protected from FBI vetting by the press office, disseminating smears about its critics and opponents, some of them gay-baiting, was unmasked not only as a hireling and fraud but as a gay prostitute, with enormous potential for blackmail.
posted by jokeefe at 12:58 AM on February 17, 2005

Frank Rich--NYT covers it.
posted by amberglow at 5:48 AM on February 17, 2005

AND Maureen Dowd, who was refused a press pass by the WHY: I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?
At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.
In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.

and notice the new terror warnings? so predictable.
posted by amberglow at 6:08 AM on February 17, 2005

oop-by the WH
posted by amberglow at 6:09 AM on February 17, 2005

All that may be true, Amber, but I highly doubt the new terror warnings are a diversion from this story. More likely, its timing coincides with the White House asking for another $80+ billion to fight the unwinnable fight.
posted by crunchland at 6:12 AM on February 17, 2005

i don't know, crunch--they have a history of raising the "terror!!!!" flag when there's bad news.

(people are saying we're at Pink now, too) ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:13 AM on February 17, 2005

I'm glad this thread is still alive. Can't wait to see the rerun of The Daily Show tonight!
posted by tizzie at 8:56 AM on February 17, 2005

now apparently he was in the White House press briefings even BEFORE Talon News existed--see americablog.org for more.
posted by amberglow at 9:19 AM on February 17, 2005

Transcript of the "Countdown" video piece mentioned by Frank Rich in today's (2/17) NYT. Wish I could see it.
posted by trii at 11:44 AM on February 17, 2005

This is priceless, especially the sample questions.
posted by tizzie at 12:11 PM on February 17, 2005

"Jeff Gannon's" incredible access
There's evidence he got into White House briefings before he was a "reporter."

"James Guckert's mysterious career as a White House correspondent for Talon News just took another strange twist. And once again, the newest revelation begs the central question: Who broke the rules on Guckert's behalf to give him access to the White House? ...there's now documented evidence that Guckert attended White House briefings as early as February 2003. ...The date is significant because in order to receive a White House press pass, Guckert would have needed to prove that he worked for a news organization that, in the words of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, 'published regularly,' in itself an extraordinarily low threshold....But what's significant about the February 2003 date is that Talon did not even exist then. The organization was created in late March 2003, and began publishing online in early April 2003. Gannon, a jack of all trades who spent time in the military as well as working at an auto repair shop (not to mention escorting), has already stated publicly that Talon News was his first job in journalism. That means he wasn't working for any other news outlet in February 2003 when he was spotted by C-Span cameras inside the White House briefing room. And that means Guckert was ushered into the White House press room in February 2003 for a briefing despite the fact he was not a journalist. Whereas it was once suspected that White House press officials in charge of doling out coveted press passes went easy on Guckert, a Republican partisan working for an amateurish news outlet who would routinely ask softball questions, it now appears those same unnamed White House officials simply ignored all established credential standards -- including detailed security guidelines -- and gave Guckert White House access, even though he had no professional standing whatsoever. [Salon - free day pass required | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:04 PM on February 17, 2005

"Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) also called for answers about... [how Jeff Gannon/James Guckert received press credentials] today, and asked White House officials to fully explain their relationship with the discredited reporter. 'It has been a week since I wrote President Bush seeking answers in this matter,' Rep. Slaughter stated. 'I have not yet received a reply. With each new revelation it becomes more and more clear that the relationship between the White House and Jeff Gannon was anything but typical.'" [Editor & Publisher | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:17 PM on February 17, 2005

Is the Jeff Gannon Story Finally Hitting the Mainstream Media?
Is this the end of audacity? Or the beginning of an era of accountability? [Nashua Advocate | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:21 PM on February 17, 2005

The Shady Bunch.
posted by ericb at 1:22 PM on February 17, 2005

Frank Rich: "If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like 'Kerry Could Become First Gay President,' is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day."
posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on February 17, 2005

In an interview (February 11, 2005) with Editor & Publisher Gannon/Guckert claimed that ..."contrary to many media reports, he has not been subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame/CIA case."

However, a post made by Gannon/Guckert on Free Republic (March 07, 2004) indicates otherwise: "Well, as many of you now know, I have been subpeonaed (sic) by the Federal grand jury for testimony in the CIA leak probe."
posted by ericb at 2:23 PM on February 17, 2005

more from Nashua Advocate: A Plausible Scenario: Gay Prostitute Guckert Used Ties To/Dirt On White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to Gain Unprecedented White House Access
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on February 17, 2005

Olbermann is covering it again now on MSNBC
posted by amberglow at 4:58 PM on February 17, 2005

interesting piece from American Street: ... But where are the Ministers of Righteousness? Where are Dobson and Falwell? For that matter, where is Senator Santorum?

All these folks have capitalized politically and monetarily from the denunciation of homosexuality, claiming it’s a choice, it’s a sin, and comes with an agenda to recruit our children into lives of depravity, disease and eternities spent in Hell. Is there an exemption in the Bible for Republicans?

Jonah Goldberg and the other Rightwing Neuter-Poodles of Big & Little Media are quick to proclaim all interest in the Gannon story is rooted in gaybashing. Here’s a news bulletin for those two-faced pundits who’d gladly bugger Christ for a hundred shares of ExxonMobil: some gay men deserve to be bashed with every spare adverb and adjective in Roget’s arsenal. Jim Guckert/Jeff Gannon is one of them.
...

John Kerry was opposed to gay marriage, yet the so-called moral values voters went with Bush because they believed the opposite. Why? Numerous phone calls were made in Michigan, Ohio and elsewhere claiming Kerry supported gay marriage. Bush’s campaign denied they were responsible for any of those lies. Now they claim they knew nothing about Gannon/Guckert’s background. Which means they’re lying or White House security is weaker than George Bush wrestling with a two-syllable word.
...
Gannon/Guckert knew more about Valerie Plame than most of the veterans in the mainstream media. Who made him privy to this information, and why?

Amid all the national security implications and the likelihood that Guckert/Gannon was a planned media stooge of Karl Rove, though, it’s asinine to set aside the issue of his sexual identity. This country has an enormous amount of immaturity about sexuality that will never be overcome if we simply say “homophobia is stupid”. Ignorance will never be overcome by refusing to discuss the subject because it makes many people squeamish.
...
Which leads me back to questions relative to Guckert/Gannon. Considering that scandals about male homosexuals in the White House have lately seemed to erupt in Republican administrations (see these past reports , for examples), what in the blazes is going on? I’m not suggesting that the enjoyment of male homosexuals is merely a Republican thing. I’m asking whether there’s something in the culture of wealthy and powerful males - here, in Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout history - that is demonstrative of a desire to also be dominant over other males, sexually? And more relevant to the scandal currently unfolding, why is it that male prostitutes keep showing up in Rightwing White Houses?
...
But in addition to that, why not clear the air and eliminate some of the ignorance existng about homosexuality in our society? Why not aim for greater enlightenment that might actually lead to less gay-bashing, at the same time that we’re exposing the hypocrisies and hateful games played by the Right?

posted by amberglow at 6:58 PM on February 17, 2005

and now they've brought Ari out to spin for them--they must be worried.

and another NYT article (not a column)
posted by amberglow at 9:04 PM on February 17, 2005

Gannon reportedly knew about "Shock and Awe" four hours before it happened

“Gannon told [a television] producer the ‘shock and awe’ campaign launching the Iraq war was about to happen four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation….The producer went on to say that Gannon often had correct scoops on major stories, including information about Mary Mapes and the Dan Rather BUSH/AWOL scandal that this news outlet got from Gannon before any had the information publicly….how did Gannon get access to such highly classified information as to when the Iraq war going to begin? … How would someone on a day pass, who hadn't gotten the requisite 3-4 month FBI background check that other full-time White House employees get, get access to such highly classified information?... How would Gannon get inside information on the Dan Rather scandal BEFORE the rest of the major media?... ‘Gannon's stuff was always golden,’ the producer says…. ‘how does this small news outfit get this info?’ “ [ AMERICAblog | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2005

A profile of Bobby Eberle – the Texas Republican activist behind Talon News and GOPUSA. [Houston Chronicle | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:08 AM on February 18, 2005

“Once it was fairly easy to distinguish real reporters from hacks and charlatans, objective news from partisan rant. That has become increasingly difficult, thanks in part to a Bush White House that finds the confusion useful, to its everlasting dishonor.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:09 AM on February 18, 2005

Strange bedfellows: Gannon affair is wackiest White House press flap yet [New York Daily New | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:10 AM on February 18, 2005

More salacious charges ...

Reporter exposed as GOP operative: Guckert linked to male escort sites, Va. orgy party: sources [Washington Blade | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:11 AM on February 18, 2005

we're a good tag team, eric : >

I can't believe this latest news about him getting scoops on real reporters--i'm thinking it had to be Rove or someone high up feeding him all this.
posted by amberglow at 8:56 AM on February 18, 2005

mediareport:
guanxi, you are almost unbelievably confused if you think that raising the issue of hypocrisy among closeted gay Republicans is necessarily homophobic. Gannon's absurdly conflicted situation is entirely self-created; your demand that thoughtful g/l folks ignore the obvious white elephant in the room -- on penalty of being slammed as homophobic, yet -- demonstrates a juvenile level of understanding of queer issues.

You may mean it as an example of hypocrisy, but you can't control that many people will take it as salaciousness and character assassination (which many unfortunately enjoy). Many others portraying the story will mention it just to sell their story via the salaciousness.

No matter how you mean it, you can't control that it will reinforce this negative, damaging image of homosexuality. We should avoid that.

We can easily skip that issue -- it's off topic. The issue is media manipulation, not hypocrisy regarding homosexuality.

Finally, I note that by opposing you, I'm treated with the same derision and ad hominem attacks you apply to Gannon/Guckert. Is everyone who disagrees with you by definition deserving of this treatment? Why do you get to set the standard of what's credible?

These are the tactics of Rove, the conservative bloggers, and even Gannon/Guckert. The problem is the tactics: It prevents progress and constructive debate.

As someone who loves irony, I did laugh when your response to my ideas was to call me "juvenille", but I'd prefer a construtive response to the ideas, not whatever you happen to think of me.
posted by guanxi at 9:23 AM on February 18, 2005

This thread is probably the best collection of links affiliated with this story. Keep up the incredible work!

It really should be put up on the MeFi sidebar...
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:31 AM on February 18, 2005

Whoa there, guanxi. mediareport called you "almost unbelievably confused" and said your argument "demonstrates a juvenile level of understanding of queer issues."
That's pretty mild language in these parts, and certainly doesn't rise to the level of "the tactics of Rove, the conservative bloggers, and even Gannon/Guckert."

The issue is not just media manipulation, it's media manipulation saturated with a such deep cynical hypocrisy that it boggles the mind. Somebody put a hooker in the press corps. If they only wanted a friendly plant, there are dozens of "real" reporters who would have happily obliged. Somebody wanted a whore in the White House.
The question is who, and why?
posted by Floydd at 9:51 AM on February 18, 2005

The producer’s account, however, suggests Gannon was used to plant stories in the mainstream press, stories that the White House could not have placed themselves without taking damage politically.
“Gannon’s stuff was always golden,” the producer told Aravosis. “How does this small news outfit get this info?”
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who has been leading the charge with Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) for an inquiry into the Gannon affair, expressed amazement at the new revelations.
“Every day brings a new revelation,” Slaughter told RAW STORY Friday. “If this pans out to be true we can add it to the mounting stack of evidence that Mr. Gannon had a special relationship with the White House despite his dubious credentials.”
Gannon bragged about passing a scoop on who obtained the troubled Bush National Guard memos to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the conservative forum Free Republic.
“Mary Mapes is DEFINITELY [sic] behind the story,” Gannon wrote in Free Republic on Sept. 10, 2004. “This is who I told Sean Hannity got the documents. She also obtained the Abu Ghraib photos.”
...--rawstory

So is this why it's not on TV 24/7, like it would have been in Clinton's day? Is the regular press afraid that they'll all be named in the breaking of these embargos? Or is it still about fear of losing access to the White House that treats them worse than they obviously treated prostitutes?
posted by amberglow at 10:21 AM on February 18, 2005

So is this why it's not on TV 24/7, like it would have been in Clinton's day? Is the regular press afraid that they'll all be named in the breaking of these embargos? Or is it still about fear of losing access to the White House that treats them worse than they obviously treated prostitutes?

Amber, one comment from the Raw Story link you posted: "...[T]he MSM’s apparent attempt to bury this story has become a separate story… how many skeletons are in how many closets (no pun intended) in the personal lives of DC beltway politicians and reporters that so few want sunlight on this Gannon/WH scandal??"
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:40 AM on February 18, 2005

So is this why it's not on TV 24/7, like it would have been in Clinton's day?

The faults to be found with the news media are as numberless as the pebbles on the beach at Nantucket, but it's a mistake to blame them for the current emptiness of our politics. To do so serves no purpose other than to flatter the media's sense of their own self-importance. The nature of the [news] business is commercial, not political, and when the speakers on the dais praise one another as ferocious champions of liberty pacing tirelessly to and fro on the ramparts of freedom, the effect is comic. The ladies and gentlemen seated behind the wineglasses enjoy the patronage of very large, very rich, and very timid corporations (Time Warner, General Electric, the Disney Corporation), and anybody who rises to prominence in their ranks - as editor, political columnist, publisher, anchorperson, theater critic - learns to think along the accommodating lines of an English butler bringing out buttered scones to the Prince of Wales. Contrary to the preferred portrait of the journalist as a relentless seeker of the truth, the stock character more representative of the trade would be that of the cupbearer or cosmetician - a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern forever worrying about the quality and number of his dinner invitations, glad to do the kings bidding, quick to repeat the gossip heard on the palace stairs, a credulous and obliging little friend to all the world...

As few as nine conglomerates now manufacture and distribute 90 percent of the country's news and entertainment product; three corporations (AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft) manage 50 percent of the Internet traffic; and the Federal Communications Commission (established in 1934 to promote the "public interest") so obviously serves private interests that in the spring and summer of 2003, when considering the latest series of rules changes (changes that further concentrated the holdings of the monopoly syndicates), it held only one public hearing - not in Washington but in Richmond, Virginia. Not surprisingly, the wealthy corporations that own and operate the media color-coordinate their editorials with the commercial advertising.

During the weeks leading up the George Bush's presidential nomination in the summer of 2000, the adjectives became more flattering and submissive as he approached the rostrum in Philadelphia, the once ignorant and boorish chieftain from the Texas plains becoming more statesmanlike and wise with every step, until at last, on the morning of his triumphant entrance into the city, the New York Times on its front page welcomed "a man of dazzling charm, tremendous social skills, a bold self-confidence, growing political savvy, great popularity." Three years later the network anchorpersons applied the same makeup to Arnold Schwarzenegger when he accepted the news of his election to governorship of California from the perfumed hand of Jay Leno.

The American news media is the product of the American educational system, and its unwillingness to speak for itself (in Archibald MacLeish's phrase, "to resign," even momentarily, "from the herd,") should come as no surprise. The dumbing down of the schools is neither an accident nor a mistake. We are a people blessed with a genius for large organizational tasks, and if we were serious in our pious mumbling about the need for educational reform - if we honestly believed that mind took precedence over money - our schools would surely stand as the eighth wonder of the world. But we neither like nor trust the forces of intellect - not unless they can be securely fixed to a commercial profit or an applied technology - and if most of what passes for education in the United States deadens the desire for learning, the miserable result accurately reflects the miserable intent.

A Free Press Without Dissent
posted by y2karl at 10:47 AM on February 18, 2005

I know that Drudge is a right-winger, and I know his page is biased in general... but the silence on this particular story is amazing, considering the potential for gossip, dirt, the slimy underbelly of politics and basically everything the man claims to live for.

I guess a gay Republican without journalistic credentials hit too close to home?
posted by chaz at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2005

What magnifies a voice is its wisdom and compassion, and against the weight of the world's iniquity the best resource is the imaginative labor of trying to tell the truth. Not an easy task, but the courage required of the writer, if he or she seriously attempts it - and the response called forth in the reader, if he or she recognizes the attempt as an honest one - increases the common stores of energy and hope.

excellent piece, y2k.

Drudge's silence may be sour grapes too--he used to be the one they fed scoops to, remember?
posted by amberglow at 10:55 AM on February 18, 2005

The Scandal That Keeps On Giving.
The story of the phony White House reporter who called himself Jeff Gannon just gets curiouser and curiouser every day -- and shows no sign of abating.

We can only hope....
posted by Floydd at 11:02 AM on February 18, 2005

Gannon’s own statements suggest he fed exclusive stories damaging Bush opponents to networks; Bragged about feeding damaging stories to the media

"Gannon bragged about passing a scoop on who obtained the troubled Bush National Guard memos to Fox News’ Sean Hannity [in posts he made] on the conservative forum Free Republic.

'Mary Mapes is DEFINITELY [sic] behind the story,' Gannon wrote in Free Republic on Sept. 10, 2004. 'This is who I told Sean Hannity got the documents. She also obtained the Abu Ghraib photos.'

'I got the scoop and passed it to Hannity,' Gannon added. 'Look for my detailed story on Monday at Talon News. There is much more to this story. Mary Mapes is just the beginning.'

That story–that CBS producer Mary Mapes was the source of the troubled Bush Guard documents–shredded the credibility of anchor Dan Rather and killed any chance the facts that Bush had failed to adequately perform his duties as a member of the Texas Air National Guard would be taken seriously.

A producer at a rival network told Aravosis she received a call from Gannon informing her that Mapes had obtained the documents. That network then broke the tie between Mapes and the questionable ‘60 Minutes’ report." [Raw Story | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:34 AM on February 18, 2005

On preview, amberglow - my tag team mate - oops, I posted from the same Raw Story article. Hey, at least I added to the post by giving a link to Gannon/Guckert's Free Republic posts! : >
posted by ericb at 11:39 AM on February 18, 2005

"There are the two most alarming truths contained in the E&P interview with [former Press Secretary Ari] Fleischer. He 'found out' that Guckert was from this GOP-USA website, and just recently he "found out" that Guckert was his real name, not Jeff Gannon. That means somebody other than the Press Secretary to the President got Guckert in there, vetted him, and cleared him through the Secret Service.

Guckert's presence in the White House briefing room before the creation of his pseudo-news organization changes the entire dynamic of the controversy. It fully expands it from mere concern over the nature of his questions and the legitimacy of his credentials, to the process by which he got there in the first place. Somebody admitted him, to the White House, as a reporter named Jeff Gannon— even though he wasn’t Jeff Gannon, he wasn’t a reporter, and he wasn't representing any media outlet." [Keith Olbermann/MSNBC | February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:10 PM on February 18, 2005

I guess a gay Republican without journalistic credentials hit too close to home?

There are those who suggest - not that I would ever suggest such a thing - that he hit, ahem, even closer than that, which is why Drudge is silent.
posted by soyjoy at 12:12 PM on February 18, 2005

but eric, that assumes Ari was actually telling the truth to begin with--something that can not be assumed with certainty at all. Just trotting him out for E&P itself is suspicious, so any excuse he makes has to be taken as suspect.

I think it's hysterical tho, that they thought that him piping up would put a stop to the story (or something).
posted by amberglow at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2005

euphorb Your "Proof of God" comment (above) was Best-of-MeFi good.
posted by spock at 12:23 PM on February 18, 2005

The reason I keep following this thread is because I'm very interested in all the new developments, and you guys are kindly doing the legwork (I kiss you!), but also I'm extremely curious to find out at what point Joe AverageAmerican is going to be aware of this — not your typical newsaholic or net fiend, but... My parents, for example. So, just for me, give me a little heads-up at the point where you see this is the case.

I'm almost more fascinated by the press lag than the actual story, and can't quite get a full sense of what the public knows from my position over here on the other side of the big water.
posted by taz at 12:45 PM on February 18, 2005

Spin, baby, spin ...

The conservative press starts to weigh in:

"Make no mistake, Jeff Gannon, or James Guckert, or whatever his name is, is no conservative. Anybody who publishes sexually explicit photos of himself on a website in hopes of making money as a hooker is no conservative. Not in this lifetime. Not on this planet. The person in those photos is a pig and a pervert.

But Gannon did rile up the Left, and it's because they felt betrayed, certain that the only reliable, no-questions-asked, no-strings-attached home for such individuals is in the liberal wing of the establishment media or Democratic Party.

The Left wants this controversy to be about a Republican White House letting in a ringer to ask questions and get access to sensitive information so he could write up favorable stories on the Talon News website. But if Jeff Gannon was a heterosexual, I suspect his questions for the president would have drawn scant attention. He wouldn't have made many friends in the White House press room, but almost nobody would have cared.

Homosexuality, at its core, is about narcissism and self-loathing. But the Left is demonstrating another of its common characteristics in the Gannon flap - denial. They want the world to believe that exposing Gannon's journalistic bona fides, or lack thereof, is their ethical responsibility.

But don't be fooled. The Jeff Gannon controversy is about sex and turning the political tables on Left Wing ideologues he should have known would seek revenge and personal destruction. It's nothing more than that." [Cybercast News Service | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:49 PM on February 18, 2005

Look for John Aravosis of AMERICAblogs to be on CNN's "Reliable Sources" with Howard Kurtz on Sunday (February 20) - 11:30 a.m.-noon ET.

"I just did a segment on CNN with Howard Kurtz for his 'Reliable Sources' show that runs this coming Sunday, and another guy on the show was this John fellow with Powerline blog, or something like that. He decided to attack me for 'gay-baiting,' which I always find a fun charge coming from a right-wing Republican. Oh that the GOP was as concerned about gay-baiting in every other aspect of life as they are in the Gannon case." [AMERCIAblog | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:55 PM on February 18, 2005

There's definitely a press lag, taz, but I'm also seeing evidence that the story has "legs." On the NBC Nightly News last night, for example, they called it "the talk of the town" in Washington DC.

I can't take my eyes off it! If this derails the speeding train to hell that is the Bush presidency, I will be the happiest woman alive.
posted by tizzie at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2005

taz, it's slowly reaching the red state papers (Houston, Salt Lake City, etc), but online it's harder to tell if it's frontpage stuff--i think it's not, yet, but may be by next week, if revelations keep continuing. But it's hard to tell. I'm surprised NBC put it on their Nightly News already, to tell the truth.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2005

I, too, am interested to see when and if ever this affair breaks into the "collective consciousness" of most Americans. That's why I and many others are determined to "keep this thing alive".

More and more mainstream news outlets are picking up the the story (coverage for two days in NYTimes, Washington Post, CNN, etc.). There still seems, however, to be some hesitancy by others in the media. Is it the lurid, sordid aspects of the story? Is a fear of losing White House access (and being kept on the outside as has been New York Times' Maureen Dowd who previously had access since 1986)? It might be. But, hasn't the American public dealt with semen-stained blue dresses ad nauseum and the like before?

Read Raw Stories' recent article: " The Elephant in the Living Room: Why Dems, reporters say they won’t touch the sex" [Raw Story | February 17, 2005] for an interesting perspective.
posted by ericb at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2005

*Is it the fear*
posted by ericb at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2005

But, hasn't the American public dealt with semen-stained blue dresses ad nauseum and the like before?

That's what makes me mad about this--the blatant double-standard.
posted by amberglow at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2005

I, too, can't take my eyes off it! (obviously). It's got me in a tizzie!
posted by ericb at 1:35 PM on February 18, 2005

I'm genuinely curious if the coverage would have played out differently if it were a call-girl/faux-reporter. At any rate, the seeming complete absence of traditional-press, old-school investigative reporting amazes me. I'm trying to figure out when this happened, for reals.

My background is in journalism, and I became disgusted with the whole encroaching corporate and marketing aspect of my experience and left it, but I guess I always thought that there would always be a part of Big Media that wouldn't totally cave.
posted by taz at 1:43 PM on February 18, 2005

"ABC News' The Note hasn't been a friend of the Gannon investigation, being snarky about it from the beginning. So why this today: 'Anne Kornblut finds that Ari Fleischer had doubts about Jeff Gannon and said he stopped calling on the man after a while. Why is it that most savvy Democrats think this story is going away, while some pretty plugged in Republicans say the opposite?' What do those plugged in Republicans know that hasn't been dug up yet?" [Daily Kos | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:47 PM on February 18, 2005

Just announced:

"GannonGuckert going on CNN tonight with Anderson Cooper: Apparently he's scheduled to tell it all, or at least some of it, to Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN. From what I'm hearing, expect to hear that he's sorry, he's made mistakes, he's a good Christian and God has forgiven him, and the White House had nothing to do with it." [AMERICAblog | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 1:50 PM on February 18, 2005

If accurate - CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 airs 7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET.
posted by ericb at 1:52 PM on February 18, 2005

If Cooper, of all people, does not ask JimJeff any difficult questions, I will be very disappointed in Cooper as a human being.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2005

Personally, I thought the story was pretty dumb from the start (just seemed a lot of scandal-mongering over nothing...) but these latest revelations about Guckert being allowed access prior to the existance of Talon News as well as his somehow Nostradamus-like foreknowledge of major events...

Well, I'm real curious now.
posted by fet at 1:56 PM on February 18, 2005

Rove Denies Gannon connection

In the famous words of LBJ...
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:19 PM on February 18, 2005

"As if there were any doubt that Jeff Gannon worked for a virulently homophobic, pro- religious right organization, take a look at this little ditty that Talon News published this past December:

NBC Stands Behind Couric's Anti-Christian Comments
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
December 14, 2004

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO (Talon News) -- A network executive with NBC News sent a letter to conservative Christian group Focus on the Family last week refusing to comply with their request that 'The Today Show' host Katie Couric apologize for her anti-Christian comments during a broadcast just days after a so-called 'hate crime' was committed against Matthew Shepard.

Focus on the Family said Couric commented that Biblical teachings on homosexuality incited the 1998 murder of Shepard. But, a recent news report on ABC's '20/20' program revealed that Shepard's death was not an anti-gay 'hate crime' as has been popularly promoted for the past six years.

Katie's crime? Asking if religious right anti-gay ads may have helped create a culture of anti-gay prejudice. It's bad enough they call Matthew Shepard's murder a "so-called 'hate crime'," but they're also beating up Katie Couric for something she said, quite justly I might add, six years ago. And who picks up on this non-story? Talon News.

You're apparently gay, and a gay hustler, and you work for people who are trying to besmirch Matthew Shepard's memory because they hate gay people. And you don't have a problem with that. Do you understand why, putting aside the whole White House/Valerie Plame issue, people might have a problem with that?

Jeff, in tonight's interview [with Anderson Cooper on CNN], look at David Brock's example. Disown these people who hate you. You may be a conservative on many issues, fine. But you worked for anti-gay jerks, and your articles were often written to defend the indefensible (defending Rick Santorum's man-dog sex comments comes to mind). Don't just tell us you're sorry, don't just tell us you've made mistakes, don't just tell us you're a Good Christian. And most of all, don't expect sympathy because we exposed your hypocrisy. You need to recognize that you were helping people who hate you, who hate us. Whatever your politics, that is never acceptable." [AMERCIAblog | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:28 PM on February 18, 2005

"Planting or even just sanctioning a political operative in the WH press room is a dangerous precedent and Karl Rove's hope to become a respected policymaker will be hampered if the dirty tricks from his political past are more apparent than his desire to spread liberty around the globe." [CBS News | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:43 PM on February 18, 2005

If Cooper, of all people, does not ask JimJeff any difficult questions, I will be very disappointed in Cooper as a human being.
Cooper won't ask anything difficult at all--he's a closetcase himself besides being the great white hope for CNN's future--at very most (which i doubt), he'll give Guckert enough room to further implicate himself.

Devils, that's a great CBS story--we need more connecting of Guckert to Rove.
posted by amberglow at 2:50 PM on February 18, 2005

an interesting Roger Stone connection to all of this from Daily Kos
posted by amberglow at 3:00 PM on February 18, 2005

and--now the lawyers who are representing the CBS people fired there may get involved, i think.
posted by amberglow at 3:02 PM on February 18, 2005

[H]e's a closetcase himself...

Even more unfortunate, given Cooper's relatively open, gay-friendly reporting before joining ABC and CNN.

Here's hoping Guckert slips up...
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:03 PM on February 18, 2005

Radio Producer Could Always Count on 'Gannon' for Tips
(Editor & Publisher)
He was not only anxious about pushing his story of the day, but seemed to always have some kind of inside knowledge about the White House, as well.
...
Guckert, she said, frequently passed on what he clearly thought was insider information, during his 12 appearances on KTSA during 2003 and 2004. She first heard from him the expression "shock and awe" to refer to the massive U.S. bombing attack at the start of the Iraq war, and he fingered Mary Mapes as the producer of the so-called "Rathergate" segment on "60 Minutes" before she had seen that mentioned elsewhere.

AND (also E&P):

Scott McClellan Reveals That Gannon/Guckert Got GOPUSA Press Pass
posted by amberglow at 3:47 PM on February 18, 2005

5 Days Later, Guckert's Tells E&P He'll Talk Again, Apparently on CNN: one more about tonight's CNN thing
posted by amberglow at 3:49 PM on February 18, 2005

"One of the frustrating parts has been that everyone has been willing to say things and not make the effort to speak with me..."

It's kind of hard to have a conversation with someone whose answer is either, "No comment," or "I'm done with talking to the press."

"...I am still working with people who are advising me. It has to be done the right way or it may do more harm than good."

Translation: I'm being coached and had better play along, else they'll put a bullet in the back of my head over the CIA stuff.

"I wasn't even given a chance to respond. Chris Matthews' show didn’t make any effort to reach out to me, which is disturbing," he said. "He asked Pat Buchanan to comment on some things [about him] that that Pat Buchanan has no information on."

This part was more interesting. Rare display of infighting within the conservative ranks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:56 PM on February 18, 2005

Pat's a real conservative--he doesn't want fags in the WH.
posted by amberglow at 4:13 PM on February 18, 2005

"Jeff, you get your well-worn ass on Cooper and convey the attached talking points, or else. Don't worry about Cooper. We've got an entire file cabinet on that faggot. You don't do as I say, and you'll get to party with Craig J. Spence this weekend. Are we clear?"
- Karl |
(a comment at Americablog)
posted by amberglow at 4:26 PM on February 18, 2005

watching CNN now: he says his escort BUSINESS is his personal life??? bs!

and he can't remember all his talking points...and he's blinking an awful lot.

Cooper's actually talking about the escort stuff!--Guckert's saying that has nothing to do with his reporting. Employer was never aware of his past--WH wasn't aware either, he says. Are you a WH Plant? absolutely not, he says.

(I'm proud of Cooper!)

Cooper's talking about him in the press briefing even before Talon existed--he says he asked to attend, and they let him in--GOPUSA had established a news division, he says. He doesn't know the date of his first published article!!??!! He says you have to talk to Talon. Cooper says Media Matter says you're not a reporter, but just copied press releases. He was communicating exactly what the WH believes, and that's reporting, he says. Now the Wilson/Plame stuff: he says he only "made reference" to a memo already spoken of in WSJ.

Now Cooper's talking about liberal bloggers, but aren't those the same techniques reporters use? Aren't those the same techniques you yourself use?

Now, poor me stuff, life is upsidedown...bla bla bla..."What's been done to me is wrong..." Personal lives have no impact on being a journalist. Why should my past prevent me from having a future?" that's it.
posted by amberglow at 4:42 PM on February 18, 2005

i give Gannon a C- and Cooper a B+. Gannon is not a sympathetic figure and his attempts at creating pity etc didn't work i don't think. Forgetting his talking points and stumbling on them also didn't help.
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on February 18, 2005

How long does it take CNN to post a transcript?
posted by AlexReynolds at 4:54 PM on February 18, 2005

hours, usually..there should be video at americablog within an hour or less tho, i bet.

Olbermann is talking about it now, and has clips from CNN, on MSNBC.
posted by amberglow at 5:06 PM on February 18, 2005

Sex, Lies, and Jeff Gannon--The unmaking of a media whore
posted by amberglow at 5:19 PM on February 18, 2005

Regarding comments on his escort business, for those of us without CNN: So, which is he-- a hooker or a pimp?
posted by obloquy at 5:29 PM on February 18, 2005

hooker, but neither the WH nor GOPUSA/Talon knew, he says. Cooper asked about running the sites, and let it drop after a non-answer. I think Cooper wanted to stay away from the gay stuff.
posted by amberglow at 5:37 PM on February 18, 2005

the video's up at crooks and liars
posted by amberglow at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2005

Bravo, Crooks & Liars!

Oh, wow, has the White House hung Gannon/Guckert out to dry, or what?

Obviously, there was an entire PR strategy, including the other store-bought "journalists" who were schilling Bush's programs on their own radio shows. Then, for the final piece, the strategists were stting around going, "Wouldn't it be cool if we could get a reporter to ask these questions at the WH press briefing?" and someone said, "You know, I have this friend...."

And then, he asked one too many questions....
posted by tizzie at 6:06 PM on February 18, 2005

I don't know--i'm suspicious the more i think about this--Rove had to have sent him out there tonight, after Guckert said no more press. There's something wrong--is the "clueless ex-whore" thing the angle? for sympathy, along with Kurtz's liberal bloggers invading personal lives?

something's up. This was a person acting very differently from all his previous televised appearances, including the interview with Blitzer.
posted by amberglow at 6:11 PM on February 18, 2005

I don't buy it, but i think the country will, unfortunately.
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on February 18, 2005

I regret that Cooper had not asked:

• Who granted Guckert access
• Who gave him access to classified information and why
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:28 PM on February 18, 2005

Yet, as he penned himself in March of 2004, “I’m a loose cannon! I’m Jeff Gannon, loose cannon…locked and loaded and pointed in your general direction!”
Gannon didn’t mince words about Democrats, either, a RAW STORY review has found. Democrats were “frauds,” “Demo-nuts;” those who protested the Iraq war were “commies.” Hollywood was rife with “leftist anti-Christian bigotry.”
Much has been said about whether Gannon actually saw a confidential CIA memorandum naming then-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former U.S. ambassador Joe Wilson who wouldn’t tell the Administration what they wanted to hear about alleged weapons sales in Niger.

Gannon himself asserts that he read the memo, which was revealed to him by a source he refuses to name.
On Free Republic, despite saying he was advised by “counsel” not to comment on the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, he commented in detail about what he would tell the Grand Jury.
“They may not like what I have to say,” he remarked. “Excuse me, did we find out why the FBI files were in the White House residence and who hired Craig Livingstone? And the Rose Law firm billing records? And that nasty business of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. And the perjury by President Clinton? And the pardons? And Hillary’s quid pro quo for the Jewish vote and the Hispanic vote?”
“I may have to convene my own Grand Jury!” he added.
And he bragged.
posted by amberglow at 6:32 PM on February 18, 2005

that smells too, Alex--why is it that no one ever asks him that? not Blitzer, not E&P, not Cooper....
posted by amberglow at 6:36 PM on February 18, 2005

One might easily believe that if he's a team player and takes the fall for this, there are more than enough quiet places wher Guckert can go work out of the spotlight. Not as a hooker, don't mean that, just a make work PR position in some big corporation. Like the no show union jobs we see on The Sopranos and such.
posted by billsaysthis at 6:37 PM on February 18, 2005

yup--there are plenty of "Pioneers/Bush Buddies" who will pay him to stay out of the limelight.
posted by amberglow at 6:41 PM on February 18, 2005

that smells too, Alex--why is it that no one ever asks him that? not Blitzer, not E&P, not Cooper....

This wasn't a live interview, by appearances. These questions could have been edited out of the final mix, but even a "no comment" from Guckert would have been damning testimony.

[T]here are more than enough quiet places wher Guckert can go work out of the spotlight.

I hate to be morbid but I would not be surprised if he was found dead of apparent suicide within the next week, with a note that takes aim at an "atheist liberal media" for investigating his online "personal life".
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:46 PM on February 18, 2005

This was just another Friday-night info dump.
posted by amberglow at 6:48 PM on February 18, 2005

Transcript's up at CNN.
posted by obloquy at 6:50 PM on February 18, 2005

Or maybe all Rove would have to do is discredit Guckert in some way, to throw him information that he'd repeat, which would eventually catch him in a lie. Then no one would listen to him.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:56 PM on February 18, 2005

Ernst Röhm (Wiki).
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:59 PM on February 18, 2005

that's true too, Alex, but either way it makes Guckert the beginning and the end of the story for the mainstream media.
posted by amberglow at 7:29 PM on February 18, 2005

i think this guy is right, unfortunately, and he ends: He was a Rove plant, a pawn to be used when the shit hit the proverbial fan. And this interview did nothing but point further in the direction of Rove and Eberle.

Rove won't be brought down by bloggers, especially if the regular media doesn't even ask about him.
posted by amberglow at 7:38 PM on February 18, 2005

this from Daily Kos says it too: Its great that some of this fiasco has legs....
but this interview tells me that clearly the bloggers who started this have to start forcing the spotlight towards the major ice lurking below the surface of this nasty iceberg. There wasn't a lot of story behind the story questioning to me. The corporate media is covering 'this fake reporter-'maybe'prostitute-guy' (because the blogs forced them to), but as of yet, it isn't following the obvious path down the road.
At some point, the story has to move away, or branch out strongly, from J.D. Guckert (who is just another disposable patsy-symptom of this administration's disease) and solidly on towards the handlers and hucksters in the Bush administration who helped him (the disease itself) to do real damage. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on February 18, 2005

Sam Smith, (who's seen it all) finally weighs in: (I'm pasting the whole essay because (a) it's damned good, and (2) I can't find a direct link on his web site.)
ALL JEFF GANNON ALL THE TIME

IN AN ABRUPT and somewhat tardy move, the Review has started to pay
attention to the Jeff Gannon story. We originally thought it nothing
more than a case of some guy being paid to ask softball questions at a
White House news conference, hardly more despicable than the far more
common practice of reporters asking them for free. But then came the sex
angle and the realization that the only remaining grounds for
termination of public office in Washington are an illegal nannie or gay
sex.

Since DC has a large and happily out gay community it may seem a bit odd
that a straight eye for a gay guy could get into such trouble, but these
acts are sometimes accompanied by less pleasant activities such as
bribery for governmental favors or blackmail. Further, there have been
persistent reports, as Wayne Madsen writes, of a GOP pedophile and male
prostitution ring.

Sex and corrupt politics in DC is nothing new. For example, during the
Civil War there were 450 brothels in the capital. Part of the mythology
of Washington, however, is what might be called the Jim Lehrer Illusion,
which is to say that all people in DC do is sit around and rationally
debate policy alternatives. In fact, Washington politics is also heavily
driven by cowardice, bribery, blackmail, deceit, fear, loyalty to old
buddies and even older bodies, cooptation, sex, and just plain crime.
Journalists who pretend otherwise either don't understand what is going
on or are covering for someone.

The public often misunderstands the importance of Washington scandals,
assuming them to be a simple dalliance, individual failing, or private
offense. What makes both sex and crime in DC different, at least when
those in power are involved, is that there is far more opportunity for
blackmail and far more skill at covering things up.

The blackmail may be used by members of one branch of government against
those of another, by lobbyists against members of Congress, by the
police against whomever they wish, and by foreign powers. For example,
one way to keep a congress member bought is for a lobbyist to provide
him with high class prostitutes. And it is noteworthy that both the
Israelis and Boris Yeltsin apparently knew about Bill Clinton's affair
with Monica Lewinsky before the American public did.

The city's ecology lends particular importance to gay sex simply because
greater public antipathy makes it an even easier target for the
blackmailer, witness the case a few years back when DC police officers
were found to be running an extortion racket against those who visited
gay bars.

Finally, the exposure of impropriety almost inevitably raises the issue
of hypocrisy since the participating official often has inveighed
against the discovered offense or attempted to ban, punish, or otherwise
suppress the revealed practice. One of the more ironic examples was
when, during the 1960s, a white southern senator was caught with a black
prostitute. Said a civil rights leader, "Oh he's just one of those sunup
to sundown segregationists." Washington is full of sunup to sundown
moralists.

There is this quality to the tale of a gay plant at Bush news
conferences. One wonders, for example, if in the wake the Gannon matter
George Bush will now come out in favor a Sanctity in News Conferences
amendment to the Constitution.

Further, the military subtext of Gannon's site suggests similar
ruminations. One might even speculate on the homoerotic themes of
military service and behavior or even on war as the ultimate closeted
gay sado-masochistic affair. If so, what a price the world has paid for
its homophobia.

The ability to cover up scandal or crime is also much greater in
Washington. This may be accomplished by relying on the social club rules
of the federal city, through the aid of acquiescent journalists, by
official spin or censorship, or by resort to the capital's various law
enforcement agencies, each one beholden for budget and top appointments
to some federal department.

For example, both the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney (who
handles all DC crimes) are appointed by the president. The FBI, DEA,
National Park police and the Secret Service, not to mention the Aqueduct
police, all work for the president. And the Metropolitan Police
Department and the Capitol Police are under the thumb of Congress, which
approves their budgets and exercises behind-the-scenes authority. There
is not a single police agency within the boundaries of Washington that
does not report to the politicians of Congress or the White House.
FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
EDITED BY SAM SMITH
Since 1964, Washington's most unofficial source

E-MAIL: mailto:[e-mail]
LATEST HEADLINES & INDEX: http://prorev.com

(Sorry, Sam. You could have made it easier for me on a Friday night right before my vacation.)
posted by Floydd at 7:51 PM on February 18, 2005

Rove won't be brought down by bloggers, especially if the regular media doesn't even ask about him.

This is what I don't understand about the accusations of a "left-wing" MSM, when the so-called "left-wing" media won't even bother to ask important, uncomfortable questions.

I don't care that he sells his butch behind to creepy, closeted Republicans for weekends of consensual fun. The GOPs stance on sex is hypocritical but expected.

Let's just find out who's hired him for shilling, how he got the job, and what he knows about classified information he shouldn't have had access to.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:57 PM on February 18, 2005

great piece, but how do you break thru that wall of silence?
posted by amberglow at 7:58 PM on February 18, 2005

I love Gannon talking about his personal life. Is it personal if you charge $200/hr and post pictures of your dick on the internet?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:11 PM on February 18, 2005

Is it personal if you charge $200/hr and post pictures of your dick on the internet?

Exactly. If you post your personal profile (AOL) and "hustler" adverisement on the largest bulletin board of the global public library (aka "the Internets") - how the fuck can you call it an "invasion of your personal life"?
posted by ericb at 8:51 PM on February 18, 2005

Nothing personal, it's just business.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:00 PM on February 18, 2005

Nothing personal, it's just business.

Business. Ah, yes ... Jeff ... I mean James ... fuck, I mean Jeff ... no, I mean Bulldog ... whatever the fuck your name is ... why are your hooker profiles still live? Studfiles. Workingboys. MeetLocalMen [Click on "Meet Local Escorts", then on "DC", then click through 17 "nexts" to find Jeff DC)
posted by ericb at 9:14 PM on February 18, 2005

Kurtz again
Despite the battering he has taken, Gannon hasn't abandoned plans to work in journalism and hopes to generate sympathy by speaking out.

"People criticize me for being a Christian and having some of these questionable things in my past," he said. "I believe in a God of forgiveness."

(what a good boy Howie is--Rove will be proud.)
posted by amberglow at 9:17 PM on February 18, 2005

Despite the battering he has taken, Gannon hasn't abandoned plans to work in journalism.

Well, honey ... strike Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) as your nom-de plume - since it will likely carry little to no credibility.

My suggestion for likely pseudonyms: Jiffy Goob; Jiggy Goo; Jack My Gack; Jiz-a-Giz.

I'm sure you (and your handlers) can come up with other variants.
posted by ericb at 9:45 PM on February 18, 2005

Sex, Lies, and Jeff Gannon--The unmaking of a media whore

Amberglow, a fascinating piece - further exploration of the connection between Gannon/Guckert and the Valerie Plame/CIA outing story.

Compare and contrast what he said back then and what he is saying now. At no time does he make reference in March 2004 that his knowledge of the CIA memo came from reading the Wall Street Journal - as he currently contends.

Most of what Gannon/Guckert has been claiming as of late has easily been debunked. His credibility is shattered.

His current position on the Plame/CIA subpoena appears to be in jeopardy, as more of his past postings on Free Republic are dug up.
posted by ericb at 7:47 AM on February 19, 2005

Gannon attended White House Christmas parties -- but who invited him?

"Former Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon (aka James D. Guckert) attended at least two invitation-only events in Washington, D.C.: the 2003 and 2004 White House press Christmas parties....So the question arises: who invited Gannon to these exclusive events?

In a February 11 interview with Editor and Publisher, Gannon claimed that "The only connection I had with [White House press secretary] Scott McClellan was when he got married and I sent him a card." McClellan told Editor & Publisher that Gannon was not issued a permanent White House press corps pass, but obtained only daily passes. And according to a February 18 New York Times article, McClellan said that White House "credentialing is all handled at the staff assistant level."

But in past years, the White House press secretary has played a significant role in arranging the guest list for the Christmas parties....

But an April 29, 2002, New York Times article suggests that the responsibility in the current Bush White House -- at least for the previous year's party -- again rested with the press secretary: "[then-Press Secretary Ari] Fleischer offered to have Rachel Sunbarger, the 23-year-old, highly efficient manager of the White House press office, work as a clearinghouse to sort invitations [to the White House Correspondents Dinner for administration officials]. ... Ms. Sunbarger, who considers her position 'the greatest job in the world,' said that the invitation task was not as bad as the job she had in December of overseeing the invitations to the White House Christmas party for the clamoring press." McClellan replaced Fleischer as press secretary in July, 2003.

The 2004 White House news media Christmas party had "two shifts of 600 guests each," according to a December 13 New York Times report. As for the significance of the Christmas party, Chicago Tribune columnist Michael Killian observed on December 31, 2003, that receiving an invitation is a sign that "one may consider oneself a member in good standing of the fabled Washington establishment." [Media Matters | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:06 AM on February 19, 2005

"Wanted: An Investigative Reporter to Break Open the Explosive Story of a Mainstream Press that Betrays America" [BuzzFlash | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:09 AM on February 19, 2005

"I've made mistakes in my past," he said yesterday. "Does my past mean I can't have a future? Does it disqualify me from being a journalist?...Is there going to be a litmus test for reports?

Well, Duh, of course there is. If a banker is caught embezzling, he or she is forced to find a new career. If a reporter is caught lying, his credability shot. I only used to lie doesn't really cut it with me.

There is a robust, stealthy plot by this White House to control the media, to fill press briefings with ringers, to pay off producers. I didn't realize this included producing false news reports and mailing them out to media outlets.
VIA NYT
Of course the bigger question is what do Karl Rove and Scotty McClellan need to do to get fired?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 9:17 AM on February 19, 2005

Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove Attended the Same "School"; Or, "The Best Theory Yet for How Gannon Got Hired By GOPUSA and Karl Rove Got In Touch With Him"

"CBS has put (once again) its credibility on the line and speculated that Karl Rove is the man responsible for bringing Jeff Gannon (James Guckert) into the White House. Now, why would they say a thing like that? Is it because Rove controls everything in the White House down to the lifespan of houseplants in the West Wing? Or because it's a near certainty that, beyond the two men meeting at a White House Christmas party--as Gannon has already asserted--Rove and the ex-Talon News "reporter" have likely crossed paths on other occasions, too?

Well, let's see.

Karl Rove is a graduate of Morton C. Blackwell's Leadership Institute. So is Jeff Gannon. Rove went to the Institute's 'Youth Leadership School,' graduating from that grist-mill of conservative quackery in 1979. Gannon went to the Institute's 'Broadcast Journalism School,' graduating (to the extent $50 in cash enabled that 'achievement') in 2003. Both 'schools' cost substantially less than a bargain-basement television set, and provide approximately the same degree of instruction in critical thinking. [See website]. The Leadership Institute Gannon (and Rove) graduated from has an Employment Placement Service/Intern Program which, according to the Institute's solicitation to prospective 'students,' 'open[s] doors for you which would otherwise remain shut.' And how The 'Intern Program' boasts 'weekly private dinners with Washington VIPs,' including (as a sampling, from the website) Fox News commentators, Reagan Administration officials, former Republican U.S. Attorneys General, and sitting U.S. Members of Congress (e.g., Representative Tom DeLay [R-TX]; former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey [R-TX]). And perhaps -- [gasp] -- former graduates of the Institute, like Karl Rove? - read more [Nashua Advocate | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:19 AM on February 19, 2005

Compare and contrast what he said back then and what he is saying now. At no time does he make reference in March 2004 that his knowledge of the CIA memo came from reading the Wall Street Journal - as he currently contends.

eric, I'm not sure I've actually heard him say that he learned of the memo from the WSJ; just that it was referenced there before his Wilson interview. Although he does continue to say he had no "special" information from the White House:

COOPER: Did you receive information from the White House that others didn't get?
GANNON: Absolutely not.
COOPER: So there was an article in which you interviewed Ambassador Joe Wilson, and you implied that you had seen a CIA classified document in which Valerie Plame...
GANNON: I didn't do that at all. I didn't do that at all. If you read the question, and I provided -- my article was actually a transcript of my conversation with Ambassador Wilson -- I made reference to a memo. And this...
COOPER: How did you know about that memo?
GANNON: Well, this memo was referred to in a "Wall Street Journal" article a week earlier.
COOPER: So that wasn't based on any information that you had been given by the White House?
GANNON: I was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else, for that matter.
(CNN interview Feb. 18 2005)

Pedantic, maybe, but it seems more like he's saying that the fact that he was privy to the document was not unique, not that he actually read about it in the Journal-- although that's clearly what he's trying to imply.
posted by obloquy at 10:16 AM on February 19, 2005

obloquy - I see your point. As per the following in the Washington Post -

"Gannon says he was questioned by the FBI in the Valerie Plame leak investigation after referring to a classified CIA document when he interviewed the outed CIA operative's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. But he said yesterday: 'I didn't have the document. I never saw the document. It was written about in the Wall Street Journal a week before. I had no special access to classified information.' " [Washington Post | February 19, 2005].

BTW - Gannon/Guckert has made some contradictory remarks this past week regarding the Plume/CIA investigation.

On February 11, 2005 Gannon/Guckert claimed that ..."contrary to many media reports, he has not been subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame/CIA case." [Editor & Publisher]. However, others have unearthed posts made by Gannon/Guckert on Free Republic (March 07, 2004) which indicate otherwise: "Well, as many of you now know, I have been subpeonaed (sic) by the Federal grand jury for testimony in the CIA leak probe." He even boasts about it: "Somehow, Talon News (an internet based news service) is credible enough to be interrogated. Five Washington Post reporters have also been called, along with Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert and others."

Check out Jeff Gannon's exchange with "JohnGalt" on Free Republic on March 09, 2004. Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com dissects the "give-and-take" well:

"It is true that news of the internal memo cited by Gannon had already appeared in the Wall Street Journal, but when confronted on the Free Republic Web site, where he frequently posted, as to the provenance of the memo and his knowledge of it, Gannon did not deny that he had seen it – and never so much as mentioned the Journal article. When a poster who calls himself 'JohnGalt' challenged Gannon's contention that he was being persecuted and his professed ignorance of why he was on the list of journalists called before the Plame grand jury, Gannon got huffy quick:

JohnGalt: 'Mr.Gannon is not being truthful when he says he does not know why he is being subpoenaed. When he interviewed Wilson last October he made reference to "an internal government memo" purporting to be the minutes of a meeting at which Plame played a key role in getting her husband the Niger assignment. …. Gannon is suggesting that he was made privy to counterfeit official/government documents which is a crime, and a separate crime at that and logically he would be hauled in front of a grand jury probing the Plame affair.'

To which Gannon replied:

'Your professed insight into the motivation of the grand jury is merely guesswork. The document in question has never been acknowleged by any government agency to even exist. This is a one-sided investigation where people are being accused of crimes for revealing names and information that may have not been secret in the first place.'

JohnGalt: 'That is simply not true, Jeff. You are ensnared because you made reference to a government document, which appears to have been a forgery. You need to tell the grand jury who made you privy to that document. … What was the document you referred to in the interview with Wilson?'

Gannon: 'I disagree with your characterization of the document itself, but that aside, I maintain that I am under no obligation whatsoever to reveal my sources. That is a fundamental element of maintaining a free press.'

At this point, Gannon could easily have cited the Wall Street Journal piece. But he didn't. Instead, he reiterated the same point he made to the two FBI agents who supposedly questioned him. According to Gannon's account, he told them the same thing: he couldn't reveal his sources. A Gannon interview with Editor & Publisher reveals:

'He also threw into question media accounts suggesting that he had seen a classified CIA document critical to the Plame case, saying he had made references to the "internal memo," but adding, "I never said I had it or had seen it." But when asked if he had in fact seen it, he declined to say.'

While Gannon denied he had been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, admitted that he'd been questioned by the FBI, and 'hinted' that he had never seen the internal memo, he added:

'I am not going to speak to that. It goes to something of a nature I do not want to discuss.'

If, after all, Gannon had merely read about the memo in the Wall Street Journal, why this curious reticence? [AntiWar.com| February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:53 AM on February 19, 2005

BTW - as far as I can tell there is an interesting nuance to all of this.

As of February 2005 Gannon/Guckert claims to have been interviewed by the FBI - and not subpoenaed by a grandy jury investigating the outing of CIA agent Plume. However, in March 2004 he clearly indicates that he had been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury.

Am I right in assuming that an FBI interview is very different than appearing under subpoena before a grand jury? A grand jury appearance would involve testimony taken under oath, while an FBI interview does not.
posted by ericb at 11:00 AM on February 19, 2005

Gannon's words from March 09, 2004. "I maintain that I am under no obligation whatsoever to reveal my sources [in the case of the investigation of the outing of a covert CIA agent]. That is a fundamental element of maintaining a free press."

Hmmm, just this week (Tuesday) a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine must testify before a federal grand jury about their confidential sources in an investigation into a leak that exposed the identity covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Judge David Sentelle rejected the argument by the two journalists that the identity of their confidential sources was protected by a reporter's privilege under the First Amendment. [Reuters | February 15, 2005].

So, has Gannon/Guckert given testimony before the grand jury? If not, will he be compelled to do so? Is he being given a "free ride". It's all so confusing!
posted by ericb at 11:38 AM on February 19, 2005

strike the *(Tuesday)*
posted by ericb at 11:39 AM on February 19, 2005

"Getting a White House day pass is not so easy. The Augusta Free Press got one: 'Yes, we have been through the process for obtaining White House day passes. And let us just say that it is not at all an easy process to get through. Needless to say that it is difficult to think that it could have been done using a fake name - the Secret Service needs your real name so it can do a background check on you before letting you inside the gate. Several phone calls placed over the course of a two-week period were needed to get us inside. And that was for a one-shot deal.'" [Daily Kos | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:43 AM on February 19, 2005

"Once again, thank you Tivo, because I just watched Real Time with Bill Maher from last night [Friday]. Leslie Stahl talking about Jeff Gannon. Joe Biden talking about Jeff Gannon. Robin Williams talking about Jeff Gannon. Tommy Thompson talking about NOTHING and just sitting there. The show was hilarious and amazing all at the same time." [AMERCIAblog | February 19, 2005].

The episode will be rebroadcast:

Sat 2/19 10:00 PM ET/ HBO2 - EAST
Mon 2/21 12:10 AM ET/ HBO High Definition - EAST
Mon 2/21 12:10 AM ET/ HBO - EAST
Wed 2/23 12:00 AM ET/ HBO High Definition - EAST
Wed 2/23 12:00 AM ET/ HBO - EAST
Wed 2/23 10:30 PM ET / HBO - EAST
Wed 2/23 10:30 PM ET/ HBO High Definition - EAST
Thu 2/24 08:00 PM ET/ HBO2 - EAST
posted by ericb at 12:06 PM on February 19, 2005

"GOP dirty tricksters trying to sabotage AMERICAblog
by John in DC - 2/19/2005 02:38:00 PM

Well, isn't this interesting. Defenders of Gannon are now phoning people who post comments on AMERICAblog, they pretend to be me [John Aravosis], and ask the person to stop posting on the forum. This happened to a good friend of mine who posts here (guys, get a clue, don't call a friend of mine and pretend to be me), and now it's happened to someone else.

First off, when you use a phone, there's an electronic paper trail. Second of all, when you pretend to be someone else, you're very likely bordering on a crime. If this story is so hot that Gannon's, and/or the White House's defenders, are feeling the need to try to sabotage this blog, well all I can say is thanks, and I'm posting this publicly so perhaps we can get another media story out of this.

In the meantime, folks, maybe you shouldn't post your full name to your comments, and be assured I'd never phone any of you.

One more point, this is pure Karl Rove. His MO is to contact people during a campaign and pretend he's representing the other candidate, then do something obnoxious. Good to know we're getting to them, and if any reporter wants the story, give me a holler." [AMERICAblog | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:09 PM on February 19, 2005

it's really getting to them--that gives me hope. : >
posted by amberglow at 12:49 PM on February 19, 2005

ooo! check this out, from rawstory's comments: I have a pretty good idea how Gannon got the WH press pass.

I am a gay white male. In 1970 I was the national committeeman for the Young Republicans from a Southern state. I attended the YR National Convention in June of 1970 in Phonex, AZ. I met K. Rove at the convention and went to the bar for drinks.
We had sex at the Del Web Townhouse we left the bar. I was in the closet until I was in my 40’s. Karl needs to get out of the closet.

Connect the dots.
posted by amberglow at 1:24 PM on February 19, 2005

If a Guckert-Rove relationship can be substantiated, that would certainly explain a lot. Have the two ever met in public, on record?
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:52 PM on February 19, 2005

It might be hard to get people to come forward. You'd need to pay me a lot more than $200 and hour to screw Karl Rove, and I would never, ever admit it publicly.

This might be plausible, but it seems a little hasty. People can post anything they want people to believe. (Not that I wouldn't be thrilled. I'd love to see Rove OUT-- out of the White House, that is).
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:52 PM on February 19, 2005

i know--i'm trying to regain hope that this story isn't over.
posted by amberglow at 1:55 PM on February 19, 2005

There are a few references to Rove talking about Gannon in particularly glowing terms at uspolitics.com, but I wasn't able to get in with my bugmenot password, and I don't like to link to things I haven't read.

Seeing a Bush toady humiliated, spread eagle as it were ---as a journalist and as a sex worker cum pimp-- will probably continue to attract attention to the shameful manipulation of the news by the WH. If nothing else, it's raised the issue from the blogs to mainstream news.

Keep the faith, Amberglow. Rove has been really nasty inside and outside of the GOP. If there are any witnesses to a liason, there is a good chance they'll come forward.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 2:10 PM on February 19, 2005

The most disturbing thing about the two days of re-living the events of the early 1970s and the role of journalism -- or non-role, as some historians argued -- was a nagging question that hung there unanswered: If two young reporters came up with unproved evidence and incomplete testimony of dark doings today at the higher levels of government power, would that information be published or broadcast for more than a few days or even a few hours?--from Smirking Chimp: Imagine Watergate 2005
posted by amberglow at 2:38 PM on February 19, 2005

i know--i'm trying to regain hope that this story isn't over.

amberglow, let's hope the Raw Story article you posted is right:

"Major newspapers, such as the New York Times, may also run Sunday pieces detailing all of the information that has come to light on the Internet to date.

Reporters are trying to flush out how the conservative escort/reporter got such access to the president and possibly to classified state secrets.

The tenor of calls, it appears, has reached a fevered pitch.

Mainstream journalists are scrambling to be the first to hammer down a solid connection between President Bush’s White House and the conservative reporter with a dubious history who was given daily access to White House briefings and invited to the White House Christmas party.

Media sources are reluctant to say which publications and networks will break into the game; many of the networks and national newspapers have been exploring leads but thus far none have confirmed a release date.

For now, they say, it’s wait and see." [Raw Story | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:45 PM on February 19, 2005

Jeff Gannon: Self-Avowed ‘Loose Cannon’ In His Own Words; a Man Unhinged [Raw Story |February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:49 PM on February 19, 2005

Senate Democrats Utterly Silent as Gannon Story Continues To Explode
News Analysis: Senators cautious; Allowing story to play out before acting
[Raw Story | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:52 PM on February 19, 2005

Something funny is going on with his pseudonym.
posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on February 19, 2005

Funny how even just rumors were enough for stories in the Clinton days, no? There are facts to this story, and it's still not covered as it should be.

I can picture editors saying, "if we run this, we'll lose our contacts inside the WH"
posted by amberglow at 2:59 PM on February 19, 2005

False Identify Nothing New For Rove

"From the College Republicans Alumni page:

Rove, 48, was born in Colorado, grew up in an apolitical household and caught the political bug after the family moved to Utah. In 1971 he quit the University of Utah and moved to Washington to become executive director of the College Republicans. In 1973, he and the College Republicans were accused of encouraging dirty tricks during the Watergate campaign year of 1972. The Republican National Committee, which was then chaired by Bush's father, investigated and eventually exonerated Rove, who blames political opponents from his chairmanship race for spreading false allegations. < em>strong>But Rove acknowledges that, in 1970, he used a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, who was running for state treasurer. Once inside, Rove swiped some letterhead stationery and sent out 1,000 bogus invitations to the opening of the candidate's headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing." Emphasis added." [Daily Kos | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:03 PM on February 19, 2005

I'm surprised that the media hasn't latched on to Guckert incorrectly calling himself a journalist, at the very least. If I was running a press bureau, I'd run this story out of simple professional pride. No courage!
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:04 PM on February 19, 2005

Oops ... HTML error ...

But Rove acknowledges that, in 1970, he used a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon...
posted by ericb at 3:04 PM on February 19, 2005

*False Identity*
posted by ericb at 3:06 PM on February 19, 2005

I am curious, how does Geoff Jeff Gannon pronounce the name Guckert? (I've only read his name transcripts. Wolf Blixon soft-balled him on this one, but the transcripts only say Guckert, pronounced Guckert).

I don't really trust people who use pseudonyms, particularly mulitple pseudonyms. My partner has an incredibly hard name to spell (it was corrupted when his family emigrated to Québec), but people seem to remember it and It hasn't harmed his career.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:16 PM on February 19, 2005

Anderson Cooper asked him about the pronunciation of his last name last night. If I recall correctly, it was "gook-eert.
posted by ericb at 3:20 PM on February 19, 2005

Gookurt, not a great name for the self-esteem, but it's much less embarrasing than say, taking Karl to a baseball game, feeding him crackerjacks, and then taking him home to...
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:32 PM on February 19, 2005

Media Matters has the video up. FWIW, I think Cooper went pretty easy on him, considering.
posted by echolalia67 at 3:47 PM on February 19, 2005

American Street on an editorial in the Oregonian, which points out it's a legitimate news story, yet hasn't run anything on it in their news pages themselves.
posted by amberglow at 3:53 PM on February 19, 2005

Does anyone here think that part of the reason that they picked this guy is that they figured that if he was found out they could spin it as "He was fallen and wayward, but is now washed in the blood of the lamb and thus redeemed; the evil lefties are being hypocritical, saying that they support homosexuals but are savaging poor Jim/Jeff by playing to the homophobia of the public, etc."?

After all, the bible belt loves nothing more than a redeemed sinner, and the idea that he has turned towards Godly Righteousness away from homosexual prostitution plays to the meme that "you're not born gay, you choose to be gay". Then, they get to feel all warm & Christian-y in their embracing of Jim/Jeff and get reinforcement for their belief that people on the left are callous, depraved opportunistic hypocrites. I would not be suprised if they already had this little scenario worked out ahead of time as a contingency plan in case they were exposed. We'll see what happens.
posted by echolalia67 at 4:20 PM on February 19, 2005

and then taking him home to...

...to play hard ball or softball? I guess we already know which one's the pitcher ... and can guess who played catcher!
posted by ericb at 4:22 PM on February 19, 2005

Interesting ... the Jeff Gannon/Bulldog escort ads are no longer "live" at Studfiles and WorkingBoys. They were still online last night.
posted by ericb at 4:22 PM on February 19, 2005

This is one time I am happy that I am using a pseudonym: I actually think that Anderson Cooper did a good job. He was very well prepared, and hitting any harder would have back-fired. He was pretty good at exposing Gooker's unprofessionalism.

Are there other reporters who use pseudonyms?

I'd be curious to hear the reaction of someone less biased than I am. I thought he looked like a dyspeptic baby and a fool. Certainly not worth $200/hr.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:29 PM on February 19, 2005

The Missing Link? Partner of GOPUSA Founder Has Checkered Past as Republican Moneyman [Raw Story | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 4:31 PM on February 19, 2005

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)–who was once a Vietnam prisoner of war himself–called Bruce and his associates “criminals and some of the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam.”


While working with Ashcroft, Bruce gave him a donor list valued at $1.7 million in apparent violation of campaign finance laws, according to ethics groups.

Doesn't sound good, but do red states care?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:42 PM on February 19, 2005

Wolf Blitzer is actually Leslie, but that's all i've heard about.

i can't believe Guckert took them down today, after telling Kurtz they're up forever.
posted by amberglow at 4:44 PM on February 19, 2005

Everybody still here? All the candles still burning? Is this story going to be THE story in the Sunday papers and on the TV news shows tomorrow?

Can I hear an Amen?!? Hell, yes!
posted by tizzie at 6:57 PM on February 19, 2005

Gannon was GOPUSA Officer/Director
"Not only was 'Jeff Gannon' (or whoever) a 'reporter' (or whatever) for 'news agency' GOPUSA (or Talon News or whatever), he also was either an 'officer' or 'director' as of October 28, 2004. Or so Google cache tells us - grab that page fast! It'll be scrubbed by noon! [Daily Kos | February 19, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:04 PM on February 19, 2005

Web Site Owner Says He Knew of Reporter's 2 Identities
The operator of an activist Republican Web site said that he knew that his White House correspondent went by two identities. [New York Times | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:08 PM on February 19, 2005

Ignorance May Be Bliss, But It's Also Dangerous
Three weeks later, I'm still waiting for a good explanation of what Jeff Gannon was doing in the White House. And for you to be upset about it. [Miami Herald | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:19 PM on February 19, 2005

Gannon's Enemies List
Jeff Gannon is considering suing liberal interest groups, bloggers and others for a "political assassination" that drove him from his job as a reporter for a conservative news outfit called Talon News. [Newsweek | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:19 AM on February 20, 2005

Check your media lap dogs, Mr. President
If America's mainstream media really were as liberal as conservatives claim we are, we would be ballyhooing the fiasco of James D. Guckert, a.k.a. Jeff Gannon, with Page 1 banner headlines and hourly bulletins. [Chicago Tribune | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:24 AM on February 20, 2005

CNN is covering it now, with Clueless Kurtz tho (but the Americablog guy is on)

And Newsweek is a good sign, but he has no case--it's all public info, and he's a public figure.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on February 20, 2005

Jeff Gannon is considering suing liberal interest groups

That doesn't sound very wise to me, considering that he would also be under oath to answer defense attorney's questions, a situation that he may otherwise not have to face. Unless, you know, he has nothing at all to hide.
posted by taz at 8:49 AM on February 20, 2005

did you notice that the NYT article called him a "volunteer reporter" ? that's either a lie, or he was paid by someone else--how did he pay his rent?
posted by amberglow at 9:24 AM on February 20, 2005

how did he pay his rent?

Hahaha! Amberglow, his 'day' job, the one where he was 'moonlighting' as a 'reporter', was subsidised by his, err, 'sessional work', ya get me? I suspect that overlapped with his Talon 'News' gig more than we are at present aware.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:40 AM on February 20, 2005

Mr. Eberle said that in the two years that Mr. Guckert worked for him, he had not kept track of his volunteer reporter.

it's too weird--why did the Times take that at face value? why are they accepting all this stuff at face value?
posted by amberglow at 9:46 AM on February 20, 2005

The Mole, the US Media and a White House Coup
"If, during the Clinton administration, a fake reporter from a Democrat front organisation, using a false name, had been exposed as attending White House press conferences it would have been a national scandal. If he had then been shown to be a gay prostitute, the scandal could have threatened a Democrat presidency. With 'Gannon' and Bush there has been no such outcry. The mainstream media has approached the story warily, while right-wing organisations such as Fox News have largely ignored it.

That has created a vacuum in the US media. It is a space being filled by 'bloggers' from both left and right who write personal journals, or weblogs, on the internet. It is here that the real media battles are now being fought. The internet has become a sort of Fifth Estate as the Fourth Estate of the mainstream media has slid toward irrelevance. The groundwork was done mainly by the right. Internet gossip hound Matt Drudge, whose Drudge Report is a key source for every American political journalist, struck the first blow with his breaking of the Monica Lewinsky affair." [Observer/The Guardian UK | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:54 AM on February 20, 2005

"Many more readers were exercised last week about the bizarre case of James Dale Guckert, aka 'Jeff Gannon,' the conservative 'reporter' who worked for such organizations as Talon News and GOPUSA, and who managed to get himself regularly cleared into White House news briefings, and who asked a question at a presidential news conference about Democrats who he said "seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

Here's how one reader put it: 'I don't understand why The Post has turned the "Jeff Gannon" story into yet another piece about bloggers. The story happened to be broken by bloggers, to their credit. But the story has two serious elements that The Post should report out on its own: 1) How is it that in an era when we have to take our shoes off to get on an airplane, a guy gains access to the White House with an alias on his ID badge? I don't believe that has yet been answered; 2) To what extent was granting "Gannon" access another form of buying or manipulating the news? These are important questions.' "I agree." - Michael Getler/Ombudsman [Washington Post | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:00 AM on February 20, 2005

"Why isn't every major network in the country investigating a security breach, forget anything else. How could the FBI, for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member. I've read more FBI reports than I ever wanted to know. How could that happen and no one had any idea who this guy was?... The Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate should be investigating it. The House Judiciary should be investigating it. And if it were the other party in charge, it would be investigated." - Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) [on Real Time with Bill Maher | February 18, 2005].

Quicktime Video (6.8MB)
posted by ericb at 10:05 AM on February 20, 2005

Ericb, it does beg the question why this scandal gets most of its coverage in op-ed pieces, and not news content. Beyond a terse, "I agree", WaPo should be covering this from front to back and sideways.

I also want to second gesamtkunstwerk's commendation of you and amberglow, for keeping this thread alive with interesting and varied fragments of coverage.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:07 AM on February 20, 2005

"With Howie Kurtz showing such deep concern for the dignity of JeffJim GannonGuckert on his CNN program "Reliable Sources," having Hindrocket of Powerline there to sputter some outrage on GuckertGannon's behalf, I wonder if Howie has any thoughts on the dignity of the former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. Let's recall that Powerline called President Carter a traitor. Does Kurtz NOT consider that an outrage? Apparently not.

Oh by the way Howie, do you know that Powerline thinks CNN International was fathered by Fidel Castro? Yes, you work for a Commie shill Howie, according to your favorite blog.

Final note, Howie's favorite blog called atrios and kos "lowlifes" for covering GannonGuckert. Yes, the arbiters of blogosphere outrage have the standing to make such pronouncements for you Howie. Well done." [Daily Kos | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:10 AM on February 20, 2005

AlexReynolds, thanks. I'm hoping that the continuing coverage of the GannonGuckert scandal on the Internet (aka the Fifth Estate) will influence the mainstream media to investigate further and report their findings. I fear, however, that some in the MSM are cowed by the current administration. The Observer has it right:

"Suddenly, [GannonGuckert]'s 'softball' questions to White House officials looked less like eccentricities and more like plotting by an administration which has frequently displayed a dark mastery of the arts of press control....The extent of the Bush White House's command and control of the press corps is often revealed in the seemingly innocuous White House pool reports....Such micromanagement has been a hallmark of the Bush White House and its all-powerful policy guru, Karl Rove. Added to that has been what appears to be a concerted effort to subvert the mainstream media."
posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on February 20, 2005

Digby zeroes in on the Gannon/Guckert - CIA/Valerie Plame affair:

"Could the next reporter who gets JimJeff in his crosshairs please pin him down on this Plame memo issue? This is ridiculous. He has never really answered the question properly."

"In none of those statements does he simply say, 'I got the information from the WSJ story.' Look how he dances around it. No 'special' information. 'What I said was no more that what was reported.' He has been coached to answer this way.

There is enough evidence now to indicate that he is not being straightforward on this question. Did he get the information from the WSJ article or not and if not, where else did he hear about it?"
" - read more.
posted by ericb at 10:27 AM on February 20, 2005

The Creation.
posted by ericb at 10:29 AM on February 20, 2005

ericb:
Now, if only they'd got the proportions right!
posted by dash_slot- at 10:54 AM on February 20, 2005

Gay Prostitute Sticks it to George W. Bush
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on February 20, 2005

Transcript of CNN's "Reliable Sources" - Was Gannon Targeted by Liberal Blogs?
posted by ericb at 12:09 PM on February 20, 2005

"ARAVOSIS:...I mean, the gay-baiting is a cute line that the right likes to throw out there...But we have an administration here that goes out of its way to bash gays, whether it's the marriage amendment or what. And then we've got a writer like Jeff Guckert -- or I can't even get his name right anymore; nobody can -- who writes anti-gay articles and then wants the protection of saying, 'Oh, I'm a gay man.' The bottom line is we had a hooker in the White House talking to the president two weeks ago, and if that president's name was Bill Clinton, it would be people like John and others who rightfully would say, 'What's this guy doing there?'

KURTZ: All right. Well, he can -- Gannon denies running anti- gay articles. But I want to broaden the conversation. Now Jacki Schechner, you follow this for a living. How typical are these kind of tactics in the blogosphere, these brass-knuckle tactics where it gets really personal? And in your view, does it go too far?" [CNN | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:15 PM on February 20, 2005

What really frustrates me is the lack of investigation. While there is no shortage of editorials, there are very few real news stories about what happed. Hopefully they are just taking the weekend to gather facts and assemble details.

Damn, Goocannon's not that interesting. He doesn't seem to be smart enough to really be that important. It's all about the White House, the Plame memo and the bizarre patronage of certain spokesmen. But most of the news outlets are interested in the nuddie pictures and bloggers.

There is still a fear of looking at the WHite House's role in this.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:50 PM on February 20, 2005

CNN will be covering the Gannon/Guckert story tonight on CNN Live Sunday.

John Aravosis of AMERICAblog (who was a guest this morning on CNN's Reliable Sources) mentions that he will be the guest and that the segment will air sometime between 6:20 p.m. - 6:40 p.m. (ET).
posted by ericb at 2:51 PM on February 20, 2005

Off topic, but related...

Americans Want Democrats to Stand Up To Bush
"Fully 60%, including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his party 'don't go too far.' Just 34% want Democrats to 'work in a bipartisan way' to help pass the president's priorities. Like Bush, new Democratic Chairman Dean polarizes opinion. By 45% to 5%, Democrats say he will project a positive image rather than a negative one; Republicans say the opposite by 37% to 19%. Independents divide more evenly." [Wall Street Journal - requires paid subscription | February 18, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2005

So - MN Politics Guru (of Minnesota Politics blog) decided to send an e-mail to the folks at Powerline after seeing the segment about Gannon/Guckert on CNN's Reliable Sources program this morning. You can read his e-mail message here.

Powerline's response: "You dumb shit, he didn't get access using a fake name, he used his real name. You lefties' concern for White House security is really touching, but you know what, you stupid asshole, I think the Secret Service has it covered. Go crawl back into your hole, you stupid left-wing shithead. And don't bother us anymore. You have to have an IQ over 50 to correspond with us. You don't qualify, you stupid shit."

"I must admit I was just a bit taken aback. It's not terribly unusual for people to simply refuse to address the issues, but the virulence and profanity was simply amazing to me. This is how writers from Time magazine's Blog of the Year respond to e-mail? I haven't read monkey mail like that since people sounded off to Margaret Cho. Cripes. Whatever happened to Minnesota Nice?" [Minnesota Politics | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:15 PM on February 20, 2005

Jeff Gannon is considering suing liberal interest groups, bloggers and others for a "political assassination"

"Someone over at AMERICAblog commented that Gannon/Guckert could probably find someone to represent him pro-boner." [Eschaton]
posted by ericb at 3:56 PM on February 20, 2005

"Would this be a 'birthday suit'"? [Eschaton]
posted by ericb at 3:57 PM on February 20, 2005

I really appreciate your postings on this topic, amberglow and ericb - thanks!
posted by madamjujujive at 5:22 PM on February 20, 2005

apparently it was on CNN again today, too.

and that Bush pot thing released by a friend of the family today screams of distraction.
posted by amberglow at 5:57 PM on February 20, 2005

that Bush pot thing released by a friend of the family today screams of distraction

Yeah, but there's plenty more where that came from... Cocaine, drunk driving. Of course he'll need every one of these.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:25 PM on February 20, 2005

more on Eberle
posted by amberglow at 8:05 PM on February 20, 2005

Sure he's a hooker with a penis, but he's a hooker with a penis and a heart of gold...
posted by amberglow at 8:18 PM on February 20, 2005

It'll be interesting to see if this lands on the front pages of major newspapers tomorrow. I think the story could have legs if only because the possible extermination strategies are at odds with each other: Gannon, like every puppet masterminded by an evil svengali, has come to believe his own cover story - that he really is a reporter, and that he's been somehow libeled or slandered by people reporting the facts of his oh-so-public life. So he may well continue to fight and drag this out, which is bad for the I-screwed-up-but-please-forgive-me strategy. Even better will be if he tries to get another job as a "journalist." Also, he can only play the "persecuted gay" card if he comes out as a "gay American" rather than a sleazeball sexual opportunist, which is what he's looking like right now ("top only," remember!), and I don't know if he has the balls to do that. So I think the shut-this-story-down initiative may be tripping over its own feet a bit. Then again, Rove isn't in that job for his "pretty face;" I'm sure he's working on Plan D right now.

One little thing I want to get out: I'm sick and tired of hearing about Gannon's "softball questions" at the briefings. This is a misuse of the term that once again underplays the enormity of this situation. If I'm interviewing Michael Jackson as he's about to go to trial, and my question is "What was your favorite song from Thriller?" that's a softball question. If, on the other hand, I ask him "How do you keep going when a bunch of lying lowlifes are scheming to defraud you of your millions and stop you from bringing joy to all people?" that's way beyond softball. That's a Blowjob Question. And if the mainstream press is reluctant to use that term, they should pick a more genteel alternative, but "softball" simply does not describe the extreme level of suck-up bullshit that Gannon and his handlers were peddling.
posted by soyjoy at 8:24 PM on February 20, 2005

Call me old fashioned but fabricating stories and lying does kind of preclude a career in journalism... I'm fine with the prostitution thing, and I could even accept his partisanship, but this guy is an idiot and a criminal.

I've said it before, but Ericb and Amberglow, you guys rock! Thanks for keeping us up to date.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:35 PM on February 20, 2005

Sure he's a hooker with a penis, but he's a hooker with a penis and a heart of gold... .. "tag-team mate", amberglow ... I think this is the link to which you were referring.
posted by ericb at 9:09 PM on February 20, 2005

ooops--you're right--sorry all.
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on February 20, 2005

"So, the artist formerly known as Jeff Gannon is considering suing everybody. Well, this will separate the Gannons from the Guckerts." [MSNBC/Keith Olbermann | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:12 PM on February 20, 2005

Credible Evidence Emerges That Jeff Gannon Coordinated With the G.O.P. to Bring Down Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) in 2004 Election
[Nashua Advocate | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 9:24 PM on February 20, 2005

"No one cares about Gannon’s 'private life.' No one has even looked into Gannon’s 'private life.' Investigators (not bloggers) went to the internet and very easily found evidence of his professional life. His very public, possibly criminal, professional life. What they discovered was not private. In fact, it was advertising! Web advertisement for services, with prices listed, including graphic photographs publically [sic] posted by Gannon himself. No one went through his trash, contacted his family, stole his mail. No one cares about any of that. Everything discovered about Gannon was public - probably illegal - and purposefully PUT OUT THERE ON THE WEB AS PROFESSIONAL ADVERTISING BY HIM." [Daily Kos | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2005

Great job guys, the tag team is working... I was wondering what was up with that link. Oh, and the "penis" reminded me: In that Creation pic, not only should his be the right size, it should be, hello, a stiffie. Then that pic would totally rock.

BTW, Harry Shearer had a good bit on "Gannon" today, with him blogging a la Washingtonienne about having to juggle the two personas at once. Hijinks aplenty.
posted by soyjoy at 11:02 PM on February 20, 2005

Editor of Online Virginia Publication Describes Pains at Getting White House Day Pass

"The editor of an online Virginia publication slightly larger than Talon News told RAW STORY today of his difficulties in getting a day pass to the White House, raising new questions of whether discredited White House correspondent Jeff Gannon was given special treatment.

Chris Graham, the editor of the moderate Augusta Free Press, said it took him two weeks of phone calls with the White House to get a day pass to cover a local Little League team playing on the White House grounds in 2002.

Even after being granted a pass, Graham says, he was told when he arrived that there was no record of him in the system. He wrote about his difficulties in a Sept. 28, 2002 article." [Raw Story | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:36 AM on February 21, 2005

About the request that Rep. Slaughter made for info on how Gannon/Guckert got his credentials - How long should it take for her to get that info? Even asking the question, a cynical voice in my head is saying "As long as it will take to fabricate it!" But I want to believe that's not true.
posted by tizzie at 6:55 AM on February 21, 2005

And this is depressing.
posted by tizzie at 7:29 AM on February 21, 2005

They actually don't have any time frame to answer her, tizzie--and they're not going to, i don't think. She, and Lautenberg, are just swinging in the breeze now. There needs to be hearings on this, or a charge brought against someone, for questions to actually be answered (but we've already seen how they lie before Congress all the time, so even then...). The New Yorker's right--without controlling any branches of govt, we're pretty much powerless to get answers
posted by amberglow at 7:40 AM on February 21, 2005

Homosexual press hot to 'out' Bush figures: Gannon-gate leads to charges about top Republican officials (World Net Daily)
posted by amberglow at 8:05 AM on February 21, 2005

and it's finally a Top Story on Yahoo News (but it's a general media manipulation/propaganda piece from CSM that starts with him)
posted by amberglow at 8:15 AM on February 21, 2005

Ketchum's Washington Group and Public Affairs Division (both led by Susan Molinari--former Rep from Staten Island)

They're the agency that got millions to hire reporters (Armstrong, Gallagher, etc). Someone needs to see what she did for Talon/Eberle/Guckert.
posted by amberglow at 8:27 AM on February 21, 2005

"Perhaps we are on the edge of a major scandal here. We know that the White House has used taxpayers' money to pay at least six journalists, most notably Armstrong Williams, to promote its agenda. We know that soon after 9-11 government officials openly declared their intention to seed the news with content promoting 'America's interests,' and although public indignation quieted such talk, the government-press relationship has never been so intimate. The 'Gannon' episode is the appropriate metaphor for the whole illicit relationship." [Counter Punch | February 20, 2005]
posted by ericb at 8:31 AM on February 21, 2005

Unless, that is, Rove is deep-sixed as a matter of political necessity to shore up Bush's Christian Right base. Washington is awash with stories, including those from the normally pro-Bush conservative Washington Times group, of Rove's Hooveresque off-hours antics (as in J. Edgar Hoover). Gee, Karl, how are you going to square that with the good Reverends Robertson and Falwell? --from 2003 From the Wilderness
posted by amberglow at 9:20 AM on February 21, 2005

Karl Rove and the Gay Republican Mafia--The Gay Republican Mafia is evidently in control of the Party, even as they spin hard to avoid the obvious questions. How did so many closeted "conservative" gay men wind up in the upper echelons of the GOP? Should the GOP be called the Gay Old Party now?

With gay RNC chairman Ken Mehlman and the latest outing of fake reporter Jeff Gannon, a GOPUSA/ Talon News shill, the issue of Karl Rove has come out as well, so to speak.
posted by amberglow at 9:34 AM on February 21, 2005

Cannonfire has more dirt.
posted by amberglow at 9:43 AM on February 21, 2005

"Being a fake Bushonian journalist shill means never having to say you’re sorry." Heh! Amberglow, that radioleft piece is fascinating. I'm going to read the entire Al Martin article now.
posted by tizzie at 10:12 AM on February 21, 2005

Dammit, it's subscription only.
posted by tizzie at 10:13 AM on February 21, 2005

maybe bugmenot?

from a satire site in the UK: The Spoof:
President Bush has long said that he supports the rights of Gay Prostitutes to have access to sensitive White House documents such as those relating to former CIA agent Valerie Plame, which Mr. Guckert apparently had. The Administration is also well known for it’s support of Gay Rights and has spearheaded efforts to legalize Gay Christian Prostitution in southern Red States, believing that once Liberal Blue States see that no harm comes out of it in places like Alabama and Mississippi then socially intolerant and backward states like New York and California will realize that their fear of Homosexuals are unfounded.

and, orig. from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Pimping for the White House
posted by amberglow at 10:18 AM on February 21, 2005

I hope you saw the cartoon.
posted by tizzie at 10:35 AM on February 21, 2005

yup! very good! : >
posted by amberglow at 10:41 AM on February 21, 2005

What one article do you think is the best one to send to people who know nothing about this?

I had lunch with workmates who have not got clue #1. I am afraid that if I send them to a blog, they will dismiss the whole story. I think that the Guardian article is very good, but since it's "foreign"....
posted by tizzie at 11:02 AM on February 21, 2005

if they're Democrats (or at least not rabid rightwingers) i'd send them the Frank Rich story, and the CBS news story.
posted by amberglow at 11:10 AM on February 21, 2005

Well, as of Monday, checking front-page coverage, it looks like this whole thing is still sitting on the launch pad, revving its engine and threatening us all with carbon monoxide poisoning.

Meanwhile, Steve Young has a cute piece "defending" poor Jeff, including Questions Jeff Gannon Never Got to Ask. ("Democrats hate religion and urinate on God. Do you have any idea why?")
posted by soyjoy at 11:33 AM on February 21, 2005

"Could you also comment on the size of her calves?"

Ankles. I think it's her ankles that are really the issue ;)
posted by tizzie at 11:39 AM on February 21, 2005

What one article do you think is the best one to send to people who know nothing about this?

tizzie, I actually recommend the four articles from Salon.com (free day pass required) and read in chronological order.

Fake news, fake reporter [February 10, 2005]

"Jeff Gannon's" secret life [February 15, 2005]

"Jeff Gannon's" incredible access [February 17, 2005]

Midnight cowboy in the garden of Bush and evil [February 17, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:38 PM on February 21, 2005

It looks like the story will be getting a whopping 96 words in Time Magazine. But that is better than zero, right?
posted by tizzie at 12:53 PM on February 21, 2005

not much--didn't Monica get a cover even before anything was proven?
posted by amberglow at 1:09 PM on February 21, 2005

Probably. Dammit.
posted by tizzie at 1:36 PM on February 21, 2005

This CNN transcript is fascinating. The host and the guy from Powerline - their responses are completely illogical. How does the fact that this story was actively pursued by bloggers make the facts irrelevant? Did the Powerline guy think it was a "witch hunt" when Drudge started the Lewinski story, or when the guy who said that CBS had faked the draft-dodging evidence posted his findiings on his blog? Of course not.
posted by tizzie at 1:48 PM on February 21, 2005

the Powerline guy went off on someone who emailed him too--very very touchy, no? you'd think they know it's indefensible to have a gay prostitute under a fake name waltzing in and out of the White House, and getting and spreading secrets and scoops?
posted by amberglow at 1:57 PM on February 21, 2005

a poll to take at WorldNetDaily: What do you think about allegations of homosexuality in Bush administration?
posted by amberglow at 2:14 PM on February 21, 2005

You can have any choice of color for your car, so long as it's black.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:16 PM on February 21, 2005

the tapes released are hysterical--it's so convenient that one of the excerpts is Bush saying "I'm not going to fire gays."

wonder who they're thinking of nowadays?
posted by amberglow at 2:31 PM on February 21, 2005

It looks like the slime machine is going to belittle this story by claiming that they knew Gannon as Guckert all along. I hope reporters will focus on the plant angle, which seems like the most likely. I still can't really see a blackmailer pushing his way into the spotlight.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:03 PM on February 21, 2005

they've already contradicted themselves more than once on the name thing--McClellan, Eberle,...
posted by amberglow at 3:39 PM on February 21, 2005

Good morning, distinguished and virile gentlemen of the news media. Please be seated. Well, except for the new correspondent from PowerBottoms.Com – because you are looking just fine right where you are, Kyle. Today, in the wake of a certain uneventful, non-scandalous resignation, President Bush has directed me to promptly fill all vacancies here in His beloved Press Pool – in a manner befitting the beefed up and the tight security needed by a nation bound together in the trenches and communal showers of war.

All top-notch fellas are strongly encouraged to apply using the new, quick and easy form. We're looking for a few high-caliber men – rough and ready media pros with an insatiable hunger for exposing facts, who'll probe deep for the truth, willing to stay on top to get to the bottom of things, but showing the necessary versatility to bring a whole new meaning to the term "rock-hard news." I eagerly await your applications.
posted by amberglow at 3:49 PM on February 21, 2005

and a fitting parody of the new antiAARP ad
posted by amberglow at 4:21 PM on February 21, 2005

an excellent idea from rudepundit
posted by amberglow at 4:23 PM on February 21, 2005

the tapes released are hysterical--it's so convenient that one of the excerpts is Bush saying "I'm not going to fire gays."

That's on those tapes where Bush supposedly almost kinda sorta admits he smoked dope? Oh, boy. Those tapes sound just about as real as Gannon himself.

Gannon was a plant, and this whole "Hey, look, over here! We've got tapes!" thing is just a sideshow. I'd laugh if it wasn't our freaking government we're talking about.
posted by tizzie at 4:55 PM on February 21, 2005

Re: excellent idea from rudepundit. I thought about sending hundreds of copies of Gannon's photos to Donald Rumsfeld and Jerry Farwell. I just like the idea of their creepy staffs looking at creepy pictures.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:59 PM on February 21, 2005

i'm sending emails about it to them, gesamt.
posted by amberglow at 6:11 PM on February 21, 2005

Oh, what a great idea from the folks at the rude pundit (above)

Gotta love it: By the way, if you're uncomfortable pretending over the gay angle, why, then use the prostitute angle for your anger - it's twice the sin for half the price.
posted by ericb at 6:59 PM on February 21, 2005

Interview with "Deep Anus"
posted by amberglow at 7:10 PM on February 21, 2005

The real GOP agenda
posted by amberglow at 7:46 PM on February 21, 2005

I didn't realize this thread was still going with new comments and information until the Daily Show/Gannon thread. You guys have done some great work over the last couple days in following this. :)
posted by Arch Stanton at 7:49 PM on February 21, 2005

Me neither arch me neither
posted by sourbrew at 8:06 PM on February 21, 2005

What if "John Gannon" isn't really "James D Guckert"? (And why should he be, since he's lied about everything else?) What if he proves to be Johnny D Gosch?
posted by hortense at 8:10 PM on February 21, 2005

sourbrew, i thought it was a good clip. i saw it this weekend on rerun, but watched it again from your link anyway.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:12 PM on February 21, 2005

Hortense, that is a possibility that is creepy beyond words.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:28 PM on February 21, 2005

hortense, i read that too, but he's too old to pass for 31 or however old the Bush senior kid would be. We still really don't know if Guckert is really his name, tho.
posted by amberglow at 8:31 PM on February 21, 2005

I know its creepy,but the GOP child sex ring story keeps poping up, for the last 20 years . tinfoil anyone?
posted by hortense at 9:29 PM on February 21, 2005

I'm sorry that your post got deleted, sourbrew - I'd like to see this story stay on the front page. We need a new angle!
posted by tizzie at 4:12 AM on February 22, 2005

Time for Bush to define 'independent press'
"The cafes and restaurants here were atwitter again last weekend. Finally, after years of talking about things like terrorism and deficits and Social Security reform, the capital's chatterers had a story they could discuss without reading a briefing paper. Thank you, Jeff Gannon or James Guckert or whatever your name really is. It seems like old times again inside the Beltway." [Christian Science Monitor | February 22, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:27 AM on February 22, 2005

Good article, especially the "crossed the line from having a bias to being a propagandist and party activist" bit. It ignores completely the question of how Gannon got access, though.

And I love this - "True, the White House didn't pay him for coverage, we assume." Ummmm, pretty generous assumption, there.
posted by tizzie at 8:06 AM on February 22, 2005

Why is so little of this story about following the money? In the NYT story of 2/20 (cited above), the article says of Robert R. Eberle, the operator of the Talon News and GOPUSA.com web sites, and Jim/Jeff Guckert/Gannon's boss:

Mr. Eberle, who once worked for Lockheed Martin and says he prefers to keep his current employer unidentified, said that he was not bankrolled by any backers and that he and his wife had made few Republican contributions. Texas Republicans said he was not well known in the party.

And:

Mr. Eberle said that he and some friends founded Gopusa out of his Houston home about five years ago and later created Talon News. They expanded by buying another conservative site called MillionsofAmericans.com.

So here we have a guy who runs several websites, hires a (volunteer?!?) pseudo-reporter, and won't disclose his source of funds, and it's not a story?
posted by WestCoaster at 8:46 AM on February 22, 2005

(Correcting the Johnny D Gosch link, which was to the blog's main page, and given that Jeff Wells has now posted a book-length entry above it, may be increasingly hard to find, if not to believe.)
posted by soyjoy at 9:57 AM on February 22, 2005

E&P has had another chat with "Jeff," in the process opening up yet another area of inquiry:
Who 'escorted' Guckert to the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2003 and 2004?

And in that same link (in which, bizarrely, he seems to take the initiative in comparing himself to Monica Lewinsky), it appears that Harry Shearer wasn't far off:

In other matters, Guckert said he is spending most of his time these days writing in a journal he has kept since he first began covering the White House in February 2003, a journal that could become a book. "I have probably one page for each day at the White House, about 200 pages of stuff," said Guckert. "Is it all interesting? Probably not. But it could be [a book]. I haven’t thought that far ahead."

Heh. Idle musing or a warning to certain people to back off?
posted by soyjoy at 10:43 AM on February 22, 2005

Who placed the gay prostitute in the White House?
Who paid his salary?
Who fed him the Plame info, and all the other scoops?
Why is WH Security so good at keeping real reporters like Maureen Dowd adn the guy who wanted to cover the softball game, out, but immediately and repeatedly let this whore in? What if he was a Timothy McVeigh? Why no investigation?
Who was he sleeping with?
Are the rumors about Rove true? How about the Bush rumors? the McClellan rumors?
Just how many gay Republicans are working to disenfranchise gay Americans?
Does Mehlman have anythiing to do with all this?

anything i missed?
posted by amberglow at 10:44 AM on February 22, 2005

"There are people who are definitely interested in some of my behind-the-scenes work in the press room."
Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays? "behind-the-scenes work?"
posted by amberglow at 10:47 AM on February 22, 2005

How to Protect your Privacy From Liberal Bloggers
posted by tizzie at 11:06 AM on February 22, 2005

From the E&P link: In other matters, Guckert said he is spending most of his time these days writing in a journal he has kept since he first began covering the White House in February 2003, a journal that could become a book.

I pray that that sentence just made someone in the White House break into a big sweat.
posted by tizzie at 11:10 AM on February 22, 2005

From the E&P link: " 'There are people who are definitely interested in some of my behind-the-scenes work in the press room.' That is certainly an understatement."
posted by ericb at 11:43 AM on February 22, 2005

Heh. Looks like Talon News employs serial plagiarists. Fortunately for "Jeff," he never had to worry about the people whose copy he was appropriating saying anything about it...
posted by soyjoy at 12:41 PM on February 22, 2005

they didn't even teach them to rewrite at that 2-day journalism school?
posted by amberglow at 12:59 PM on February 22, 2005

Americablog noticed that comment about the journal, too. I bet the answers to your list of questions are in there, amberglow!
posted by tizzie at 1:19 PM on February 22, 2005

i bet not--i'm thinking Regnery will publish it, and he'll become another rightwing talking head about horrible liberal bloggers invading personal lives. Howie Kurtz and Fox will have him on a lot.
posted by amberglow at 1:54 PM on February 22, 2005

"Reporter Selling Gay Adult Domain Names Tied to White House Scandal" [AVN | February 22, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:20 PM on February 22, 2005

"And by the way, Jeff, how's that invasion of privacy lawsuit going? I mean, you're obviously suffering a lot judging by the fact you're crowing over how much money you're going to make, the new book, the interviews, etc. ... his alleged concern for all this publicity taking a toll on his family doesn't appear to be stopping him from continuing to add to the fire over this story each and every day....'I have made mistakes in my past. And these are all of a very personal and private nature that have been'... It's not 'a mistake' when you try to make $15,000 off of it TODAY, and write coy little messages in the ad about how 'this is the site you've been hearing about!' That sounds like crowing and profit-taking, not a good Christian admitting a mistake." [AMERICAblog | February 23, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:27 PM on February 22, 2005

great letter to the editor
posted by amberglow at 3:31 PM on February 22, 2005

Gannon/Guckert is unbelievable. He can't shut-up about himself.

"Although Guckert said no one had asked him to be their guest at the 2005 White House Correspondents dinner, scheduled for April 30, he believes his recent fame will make him a potential guest. 'There is still time,' he said, noting that the dinner had often prompted attention because of some controversial guests in the past, such as Monica Lewinsky. 'There is always someone there trying to make news,' he added. 'Maybe this year it is going to be me.' "[Editor & Publisher | February 23, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:31 PM on February 22, 2005

This is funny ...

Editor Questions Place on Gannon's 'Enemies List'
An evening of oysters and white burgundy ends with an invoice

The editor of a popular conservative weblog is questioning why his name has appeared on the list of 'enemies' that reporter Jeff Gannon is considering suing. Swift Report executive editor Todd Fox notes that his news site has consistently sided with Mr. Gannon in recent weeks and suggests that the reporter's enmity towards him may date back to a personal misunderstanding over the difference between a professional colleague and an escort. [The Swift Report | February 22, 2005]

Be sure to check out the "Ever Wonder Am I Gay - Set The Record Straight Home DNA Kit" advertisement on the page.
posted by ericb at 3:40 PM on February 22, 2005

Was Gannon's hooker past known a year ago?
"This blog linked to Senator Thune's (R-SD) campaign, the guy who beat Tom Daschle, says reporters are telling them that they received photos of Gannon a year ago, photos that were meant to 'discredit' him. Could these be the same photos we found on his male escort site/profiles? And does this mean reporters knew a year ago about Gannon's other business? And if so, why didn't any of those reporters speak up in the past 3 weeks when the Gannon story hit the fire? Reporters have recently told me that the Daschle campaign had been sending them photos of Gannon for at least a year to discredit him." [AMERICAblog, February 22, 2005]

"Former Staffer of Senator John Thune (R-SD) Alleges Former Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle (S-SD) Knew Gannon Was Gay Prostitute--in Early 2004" [Nashua Advocate | Febryary 22, 2005].
posted by ericb at 3:52 PM on February 22, 2005

finally! The Senate Democratic leadership is privately circulating a letter calling for other senators to join a call for an investigation into discredited White House reporter Jeff Gannon, RAW STORY has learned.
posted by amberglow at 4:40 PM on February 22, 2005

A question

A right-wing news anchor intentionally and unarguably lies about what FDR said about social security. A right-wing journalist turns out to be a gay prostitute. A right-wing president appoints a criminal to be the chief of US intelligence. The RNC chair accuses Howard Dean of being a racist. The NY State GOP chair associates Howard Dean with a traitor. A right-wing blog accuses a former president of being a traitor. Then they do it again. Another right-wing blogger accuses a US Senator of being a traitor.

Is it just me or does it seem like the right-wing is really losing its collective mind these days?

and from one of the comments: I think it is a question of morality. Every instance you pointed to is a moral failing. Lying, stealing, cheating are all methods used by desperate people who cannot get their way legitimately. In some cases it is merely a shortcut taken to accelerate what would transpire anyway, but in other cases the cheating is purely to manipulate the public debate and bring about a change that cannot be arrived at legitimately.
posted by amberglow at 5:02 PM on February 22, 2005

Comment page to thank Senator Dick Durbin for calling for the investigation.
posted by tizzie at 6:03 PM on February 22, 2005

How to Protect your Privacy From Liberal Bloggers

Step 1: Keep your weenie shots offline
Step 2: Don't exaggerate — we liberals have rulers, and we know how to use them
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:47 PM on February 22, 2005

finally! The Senate Democratic leadership is privately circulating a letter calling for other senators to join a call for an investigation into discredited White House reporter Jeff Gannon, RAW STORY has learned.

This can only be good news, and will help pull the scandal off the op-ed pages and put it into main, factual content. Here's hoping things take off from here.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:51 PM on February 22, 2005

Encourage your senators to support Senator Durbin's call for an investigation and Seantor Lautenberg's call for the White House to hand over all documentation relating to Gannon's credentialing.

Contact your representatives in the House, seeking their support for Congressman John Conyer's and Congresswoman Louis Slaughter's Freedom of Information Act requests for all White House records on Gannon/Guckert.
posted by ericb at 6:54 PM on February 22, 2005

done and done (but it was too weird emailing Hillary--she won't touch this at all, i'm sure)
posted by amberglow at 6:55 PM on February 22, 2005

*Senator Lautenberg's*
posted by ericb at 6:55 PM on February 22, 2005

Well, I suspect that most of our Massacusetts delegation will get behind these efforts of support.
posted by ericb at 6:57 PM on February 22, 2005

argh ... typos tonight: *Massachusetts*
posted by ericb at 6:58 PM on February 22, 2005

ooo! Re: Guckert's Lewinski crack -- he couldn't be sending the world a message that he shares with Monica the distinction of having had sex with the president in the White House, could he? Because the two of them obviously have nothing in common other than the sex-scandal aspect of their stories.

Such are the words that destroy presidencies.--a comment at Americablog.
posted by amberglow at 7:16 PM on February 22, 2005

I feel like a broken record, but this is really good work. My respect for bloggers has never been higher.

I can't encourage my fellow mefites enough. Please contact your senators and representatives. Don't be discouraged if nothing happens. The assholes have all three branches of government. What we need to do is embolden the press and the opposition party. There's a tipping point. I don't know where, but we need to find it sooner rather than later.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:35 PM on February 22, 2005

WP chat with Kurtz (the Putz) ....Herndon, Va.: on the whole Gannon/Hard pass issue. The post's own WH correspondent Dan Balz has stated (in an interview at Kos, the recursion is getting dizzying) that he personally saw GJ with a hard pass at the White House. Further still photos of the televised press briefings appear to show him with a Hard pass around his neck even BEFORE talon news existed.

Howard Kurtz: I've talked to several reporters who THINK they saw Gannon with a hard pass, but they can't be certain, and he isn't definitively wearing one in the photos we've been able to get. I asked him in the interview published Saturday about how he got a day pass a month or two before Talon was launched. He said he was then working for GOPUSA (both are owned by a Texas Republican activist) and that Talon News was then spun off in a "marketing" move to create a separate news division from the obviously partisan GOPUSA. Although when I've clicked on Talon stories it has taken me to GOPUSA, so any distinction between them is paper-thin. ....
posted by amberglow at 9:19 PM on February 22, 2005

And he still thinks it's a media story and not a security issue at all.
posted by amberglow at 9:20 PM on February 22, 2005

Aravosis wrote last week on his blog that an unnamed television producer says Gannon told him the Iraq war was going to begin four hours before Bush announced it. Gannon chuckled at that, saying many reporters sensed an attack was imminent because the White House kept delaying the routine announcement that no more news would be made that day. "You could feel it in the air," he said.

So he's corroborating this producer's recollection? That he did indeed blab this four hours in advance (as part of a pattern of mysterious scoops)? This particular aspect could get very interesting... "feeling it in the air" or no.

Loose Cannon, indeed.

Oh yeah... and when I'm writing to urge my senator to support Durbin's move, should I use the word "Santorum"... you know... that way? As in, "Santorum Found in White House Briefing Room?"
posted by soyjoy at 10:27 PM on February 22, 2005

Eric Boehlert on how 'Jeff Gannon' got a day pass into the WH Briefing Room every day. Turns out he just had to sit through a 30-second commercial every day, and... boom.
posted by soyjoy at 11:08 PM on February 22, 2005

Well, I'm curious....
posted by taz at 2:54 AM on February 23, 2005

Hey, Guckert can apply for this:

The Bush administration is hiring more reporters. Only this time, it wants them to keep quiet.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last week placed a help-wanted listing on journalismjobs.com, an employment website. The department sought reporters to participate in TOPOFF 3, a biennial exercise directed by Congress that simulates a terrorist attack on the United States.
...
Instead of acting as advocates, the reporters would be prohibited from relaying the results of the exercise outside of the “virtual news network” that is part of the training exercise.
“You must NOT be currently employed by a real news organization and will be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement barring you from writing about this in the future,” the job posting stated.
posted by amberglow at 5:36 AM on February 23, 2005

The Nashua Advocate article says that the Daschle campaign knew Gannon was a phony over a year ago.
posted by tizzie at 5:48 AM on February 23, 2005

That's pretty much what ericb covered (above). Sorry for the duplication!
posted by tizzie at 6:08 AM on February 23, 2005

A collection of the many questions, answers, interviews and satire video clips that has made up the Gannon/Gate story so far. [Crooks and Liars | February 22, 2005].

WMV file.
posted by ericb at 7:05 AM on February 23, 2005

Gannon’s Song (Who did he do?)
posted by ericb at 7:13 AM on February 23, 2005

Chicago Tribune's Charlie Madigan: Did the White House knowingly plant this lap doof in the press corps?
posted by soyjoy at 9:17 AM on February 23, 2005

Mark Crispin Miller at Buzzflash: ...
BuzzFlash: Why is the so-called "Eastern Liberal Press" ignoring the Gannon/Guckert affair or having White House shills like Howard Kurtz covering it in the Style Section? Didn't the Post and New York Times gobble up Matt Drudge's semen-stained leaks from Ken Starr when it concerned a Democratic President? In the post 9/11 world, how could the mainstream media ignore the security lapse here?

Mark Crispin Miller: The media's bizarre avoidance of this very juicy story makes a few things very clear--or I should say, very clear again. First of all, it's further proof that there is no "liberal bias" in the US corporate press--none whatsoever. It also reconfirms the fact that this media system is not simply "sensationalistic," and therefore apt to print whatever lurid stories its employees can dig up. There is a tabloid element, of course, but it works according to a double standard that is more ideological than commercial. Simply put, the US media reports sex scandals only when they seem to tar "the left," i.e., the Democratic party. As long as they involve the Democrats, the press is clearly willing to report such scandals even when they're fabricated. On the other hand, the press goes deaf and blind to "moral" scandals that involve Republicans, no matter how egregious and well-documented.
...
Now Bush's White House is embroiled in a sex scandal that is both more sordid and more serious than anything involving Clinton's infamous libido. This involves not just a huge security lapse, but what appears to be yet one more case of the Bush White House illegally deploying propaganda tactics through the institutions of the Fourth Estate.

Moreover, Gannon/Guckert seems to have been given classified information. He evidently knew of "shock and awe" before it was announced, for instance. The story's busting out all over, and getting uglier and weirder by the day--but not on the networks, not on cable, and, in print, primarily in opinion pieces. If this had happened in a Democratic White House, there would be no escaping it, and the rightists would be shrieking that the President of the United States had taught our precious children all about gay sex for hire. (According to the right, remember, it was Clinton--not his enemies, and not the press-- who went public with the news about those blow jobs.)

It's typical. There was a big sex scandal back in 1989, reported by, of all organs, the Washington Times, which broke the story of a male prostitution ring with lots of clients in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and a midnight tour of the White House by six revelers, two of them male prostitutes. Did anybody ever hear of that again?
...

sorry for the length, and bookmark it in case Frist runs in 08 for President.
posted by amberglow at 10:04 AM on February 23, 2005

This Gingrich comment in the Houston Chronicle is choice! Talking about the lack of uproar over Gannon, Newt says: "It's fair to say that in my career I would probably have found an opportunity to comment on it."

Understatement of the year.

Fits right in with your Buzzflash quote, amberglow.
posted by tizzie at 11:25 AM on February 23, 2005

From RawStory: Reps. Conyers, Slaughter call for GAO investigation into Gannon and suggest to Fitzgerald that he subpoena that daily journal he just blabbed to E&P about yesterday.

Also, this middle-Pennsylvania columnist I've never heard of has some good lines, including a mirror-universe version of the security lapse, his list of tipoffs that "You might not be a journalist if...", and the priceless quip about Gannons lawsuit threats, "'definition of character' is not a cause of action."
posted by soyjoy at 12:35 PM on February 23, 2005

This boy is really dim-- dimmer than I ever expected. Maybe even dumb enough to keep bragging about his connections. Every time he opens his mouth he either demonstrates his lack of journalistic skill, or attracts more interest from investigators.

Why so little news coverage? Are editors that afraid their reporters will be kept out of the WH briefing room? It almost seems like a badge of honor at this point.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:06 PM on February 23, 2005

meanwhile every station is covering the Swift Boat Liars sequel with the AARP. : <
posted by amberglow at 5:11 PM on February 23, 2005

Yes, one of the guys in the wedding photo posted on Daily Kos that they had used that photo without permission - no surprise! But still, I hope his cousin is a pit bull of a lawyer who bites the Swifties in their collective ass.
posted by tizzie at 5:41 PM on February 23, 2005

C'mon, Just a Few More Minutes of Fame?

"Trolling for a date: James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) is angling for an invite to the gala White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in April, saying his recent notoriety qualifies him as a great guest. "There is still time," he told Editor & Publisher this week. "There is always someone there trying to make news. Maybe this year it is going to be me." He also revealed that he's trying to line up paid speaking gigs, telling the trade mag: "There are people who are definitely interested in some of my behind-the-scenes work in the press room."

Yes, this is the same guy who, after being linked to gay escort sites a couple of weeks ago, posted on JeffGannon.com: 'In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life.'

Meanwhile yesterday, Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) asked the Government Accountability Office to expand its investigation of illegal government propaganda efforts by looking into Guckert's work as a White House reporter for the Web sites Talon News and GOPUSA. They claimed the administration 'gave prepacked print stories to Mr. Guckert, which he reprinted wholesale.' " [Washington Post | February 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 10:54 PM on February 23, 2005

someone has to google up phrases from those and see who else printed them.
posted by amberglow at 5:25 AM on February 24, 2005

and even Ann Coulter's writing about it now

it's her usual lying, slanted, crap. A factchecker's head would explode if they actually had to prove any given sentence of hers.
posted by amberglow at 5:40 AM on February 24, 2005

ooo! ... But one thing is for sure: Jeff Gannon is on the lips of every insider in Washington D.C., and many say he's been kissing some of them, too -- for $200/ hour and $1,200 / weekend. His profiles on escort websites say he leaves no marks, only lasting impressions.

So, I ask again -- have you seen this man? Have you slept with this man? Do you know this man?

A local socialite, who wishes to remain anonymous, has teamed up with this site to offer a $10,000 reward to anyone that can provide hard proof (photos, phone pictures, locks of hair, DNA on a suit) that Jeff Gannon had ANY sexual -- or romantic -- relationship with any top-ranking officials here in Washington.

posted by amberglow at 5:45 AM on February 24, 2005

If only Karl Rove's dry cleaner would turn over the blue (suit) from the Gap!
posted by tizzie at 6:00 AM on February 24, 2005

Today Show! That's pretty mainstream.
posted by tizzie at 6:56 AM on February 24, 2005

Just curious: ericb, are you Eric Boehlert?
posted by Vidiot at 8:59 AM on February 24, 2005

Vidiot - no, I'm not Eric Boehlert.
posted by ericb at 9:02 AM on February 24, 2005

Just wondering, thanks.
posted by Vidiot at 9:14 AM on February 24, 2005

...Now that would've been a scoop!

And:

Campbell Brown: Were you in that press conference as a plant by the White House? Gannon: Absolutely not. I mean, look at it, Campbell. If the White House was going to use a plant, wouldn't they pick a better one than me?

Once again, Chewbacca rears his ugly head!
posted by soyjoy at 9:29 AM on February 24, 2005

This is freaky stuff from Wayne Madsen:

The GOP's many Talons: Did White House S&M ring order special videos from Abu Ghraib?

and

Gannongate threatens to expose a huge GOP pedophile and male prostitution ring

The second one was referred to in a quoted article upthread, but not linked, I think.
posted by taz at 9:30 AM on February 24, 2005

Just a little chuckle: Talon News goes dark, in order to - get this - "perform a top-to-bottom review of staff and volunteer contributors..."

What are they sayin' here? They were in on Jeff's whole 'escort' scene, too?
posted by soyjoy at 9:40 AM on February 24, 2005

"Guckert has been interviewed by FBI agents on the Plame case."
Did we know that? When did that happen?
posted by tizzie at 10:13 AM on February 24, 2005

we've heard that he was interviewed, and that he was subpoena'd--we still don't know which is true.
posted by amberglow at 10:15 AM on February 24, 2005

Finally - Fox News (tizzie's link) gives the story some coverage!
posted by ericb at 10:21 AM on February 24, 2005

In his interview with Editor & Publisher (February 11, 2005) Gannon/Guckert said that he was interviewed by the FBI and denied being subpoenaed by a grand jury.

That claim, along with other statements have since been debunked. For example:

(1) It has been shown that he was in the White House before April 2003.

(2) Posts made by Gannon/Guckert on Free Republic (March 07, 2004) indicate that he was indeed subpoenaed by a grand jury:

"Well, as many of you now know, I have been subpeonaed (sic) by the Federal grand jury for testimony in the CIA leak probe." He even boasts about it: "Somehow, Talon News (an internet based news service) is credible enough to be interrogated. Five Washington Post reporters have also been called, along with Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert and others."

An FBI interview is very, very different than an appearance before a grand jury. One is an interview; the other testimony under oath.
posted by ericb at 10:44 AM on February 24, 2005

what eric said : >
posted by amberglow at 10:47 AM on February 24, 2005

*claim, along with other statements, has*
posted by ericb at 10:51 AM on February 24, 2005

It is comforting to know that the FBI has at least looked into his relationship to Plame. My guess is he was caught trying to look more important than he is. I can't believe he is so well connected that he could dodge a subpoena unless he was blowing Fitzgerald too.

This is all very heartening. I don't know how much to expect in the press, but this story does seem to be alive and well. The fact that Ann Coulter is writing about it belays a sense of insecurity vis-a-vis giglogate.

I think I'm going to send Ann some pictures of Guckert. I wonder if she's a malicious liar or a delusional one.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 11:37 AM on February 24, 2005

she's both, gesamt--and psycho--i wouldn't email her anything--she'd probably sign you up to nambla or something.

It would be good to email her syndicator to tell them to stop running lies all the time.
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on February 24, 2005

As soyjoy points out , Talon News has gone dark...while "it perform[s] a top-to-bottom review of staff and volunteer contributors..." At least we know who's a "top" (as per his online profiles)!
posted by ericb at 2:58 PM on February 24, 2005

Jeff Gannon is publishing a blog!
posted by ericb at 3:40 PM on February 24, 2005

This guy is unbelievable! Me, me, me!!!
posted by ericb at 3:41 PM on February 24, 2005

And I quote: "Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media - So feared by the Left it had to take me down"
posted by ericb at 3:43 PM on February 24, 2005

Feed the fire, feed the fire!!!
posted by ericb at 3:43 PM on February 24, 2005

AMERICAblog reacts to Gannon/Guckert's blog.
posted by ericb at 3:45 PM on February 24, 2005

"They dug deep for dirt, dredging up things long past and erecting a fantasy world worthy of a Vince Flynn novel." [Jeff Gannon].

Honey, it was you who was doing the "erecting"!
posted by ericb at 3:47 PM on February 24, 2005

"It seems that several of the live male prostitution profiles linked to Jeff Gannon have now been taken off the Internet. In addition, the Web archive of the main escort site, usmcpt.com, has now been erased (but have no fear, we have copies of everything). All of this is quite odd since Gannon has been implying that his linkage to male prostitution is all just crazy conspiracy talk. If so, then why did the hooker using the actual profiles remove them? I mean, you can't buy this kind of publicity." [AMERICAblog | February 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:54 PM on February 24, 2005

"Don't Give Gannon a Pass" [American Progress Action Fund | February 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 4:03 PM on February 24, 2005

he's hanging himself.

his attorneys won't let him talk about being a prostitute, but it's ok to blog??? and to pretend to be Ann Coulter?
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on February 24, 2005

"Durbin letter slated to be delivered to President Bush
An aide to the senator who is circulating a letter calling for an investigation into how ‘Jeff Gannon’ got access to the White House told RAW STORY Thursday the letter would be delivered to President Bush Friday morning." [Raw Story | February 24, 2005]

"Biden declines to sign letter for Gannon inquiry, while Kerry signs
In seeming break with his public comments on discredited White House reporter Jeff Gannon, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) has declined to sign a letter calling for an inquiry, RAW STORY has learned. Meanwhile, senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) have signed on." [Raw Story | February 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 4:11 PM on February 24, 2005

and where's the comments section? that would be a good read. ; >

(altho i can just read the escort reviews of him, no?)

I wonder if he's an "ex-gay" now?
posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on February 24, 2005

"As Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., pointed out during a meeting with The Chronicle editorial board Wednesday, the Guckert case, at a minimum, suggests "sheer, friggin' incompetence,' in terms of White House security. Biden said Congress should investigate this potential breach of security, but he acknowledged such a probe would never occur with Republicans in control of the House and Senate." [San Francisco Chronicle | February 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 4:13 PM on February 24, 2005

During my tenure I developed some good friends there who welcomed the refreshing perspective I brought to the briefings and respected my courage for asking the questions that I did.

WTF? He admitted that he was just there to report on the administration's perspective. Sure it's brave to set yourself up for ridicule, but it's not smart either. I'd be very surprised if any of his good friends will give him the time of day, at least in public and with clothes on.

I hope he does sue. This boy's not going to shut up until he's shot himself in both feet and legs, and he is completely unemployable.

Anyway, good suggestion Amberglow. I'm sending pictures of Gannon and Ann Coulter's column to these people here.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:22 PM on February 24, 2005

Biden's a big talker, but never ever follows thru

This was good: “There’s more screening to get into a Bush for President rally than the White House press room,” Boyd added. “A Girl Scout troop can’t even go on a public tour of the White House, but a Republican Party right wing activist of sketchy origins got daily West Wing access? This latest scandal makes Armstrong Williams look like a saint by comparison.”
posted by amberglow at 4:23 PM on February 24, 2005

So Guckert sees himself as some sort of martyr for the conservative cause. There must be a clinical diagnosis for this in the DSM-IV.
posted by tizzie at 4:40 PM on February 24, 2005

Dear Jeff,
Are you still for sale, cause you are hot.

Biden's a worm and a fool. But Gannon's not even close to being in Biden's league.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:40 PM on February 24, 2005

I'm not sure. Biden sounds a little schizophrenic too.

"Biden made waves when he appeared on HBO’s Bill Maher show Friday and said Congress should be investigating."
posted by tizzie at 4:43 PM on February 24, 2005

Hmmm ... wanna start a e-mail letter campaign? : >
posted by ericb at 5:32 PM on February 24, 2005

*an e-mail*
posted by ericb at 5:32 PM on February 24, 2005

Gannon/Guckert on MSNBC-TV tonight:

"Many of you have been following the intriguing story of man who claimed to be a reporter and who covered the white house using a fake name. James Guckert, previously known as Jeff Gannon, sat down for an interview with NBC's Campbell Brown.

And for those of you who missed the "Today Show," we are going to repackage some of the clips tonight on Hardball (7pm & 11pm ET)."
posted by ericb at 5:39 PM on February 24, 2005

I thought about starting a campaign to Guckert (hence the link) but he's probably not worth it. I do think it's important to write our representatives and media organizations demanding better transparency and honest news coverage.

The fact that Ann Coulter and idiots like Gannon are paid to spread lies and malice really troubles me. We have to go after the ashcrofts who paid their salaries and promote them.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:30 PM on February 24, 2005

I totally agree, gesamtkunstwerk. But my particular senators are hopeless - Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell, heh. I'm utterly disenfranchised!

So I've been sending paypal contributions to the blogs who are working so hard on this, and hoping that they can keep the flames alive long enough for people in states where they actually have a voice to become aware and take action. I also wrote to Durbin and expressed my thanks.
posted by tizzie at 6:57 PM on February 24, 2005

gesamtkunstwerk - you're right. It's more productive for us to contact our senators and representatives in Washington D.C. Keep the heat on!
posted by ericb at 6:57 PM on February 24, 2005

I can definitely relate, Tizzie. Donating to good blogs is a very worthwhile thing. (This has actually pushed me over the edge. I now believe blogs are the best hope for a free press). I am lucky as far as representatives go-- Baldwin, Feingold and Kohl are great.

I'd really suggest writing to key members of Congress like Joe Biden. He's an ass, but a well connected one, and he responds to political pressure like a dog to raw meat.

Not that I would suggest anything unethical, but in order to contact a member of congress, you need a local address, like say Wilmington College in Delaware.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:57 PM on February 24, 2005

"See No Gannon, Hear No Gannon, Speak No Gannon
Why has the mainstream media ignored the White House media access scandal? ...

On Feb. 17, 'NBC Nightly News' anchor Brian Williams introduced a report on controversial White House correspondent James Guckert by informing viewers that the saga was 'the talk of Washington.'

Nine days later the mysterious tale of an amateur, partisan journalist who slipped into the White House under false pretenses remains the buzz of the Beltway. Yet most mainstream reporters have opted not to cover the story."

[Salon - requires free day pass | February 25, 2005].
posted by ericb at 10:07 PM on February 24, 2005

.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Okay, teasing crunchland is one thing, but that kind of stuff gets on everybody's nerves. Read whatever you're gonna link to, then post it and comment on it, fer chrissake. Just a freindly reminder.
posted by soyjoy at 10:52 PM on February 24, 2005

Thanks for staying on the job, guys.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:09 AM on February 25, 2005

soy - those links just point to the front page. Did you mean to put [http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/39609 before the #?]

O - and good work guys. I can't remember a thread this old
posted by dash_slot- at 2:04 AM on February 25, 2005

I can't remember a thread this old... being on my bookmarks so long. Still checking back several times a day.

The story is almost becoming 'why are the MSM ignoring this?'. Enquiring minds want to know.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:07 AM on February 25, 2005

This piece in the LA Times this morning is very kind to Gannon, saying that since we have freedom of the press, we should let everyone who calls themselves a journalist in to the White House.

Who wants to report for TNS (not Talon - Tizzie News Service) next week? I think we can come up with a good question or two.
posted by tizzie at 4:57 AM on February 25, 2005

Actually, that makes me wonder - what if Atrios or John Aravosis shows up and asks for a day pass? If the Times' argument holds true, there's no way they could be shut out.

Somehow I doubt they'd get called on by Bush.
posted by tizzie at 5:00 AM on February 25, 2005

"Is Ann Coulter a Male Prostitute?
Has anyone read this latest article by good old dragon lady? If nothing else, she’s good for a laugh. In this assorted amalgam of shit, Ann Coulter goes on and on about a myriad of things, saying that Guckert/Gannon is no worse than Rhandi Rhodes, who uses a pseudonym in place of her last name for privacy reasons." [Watching the Watchers.org | February 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 6:40 AM on February 25, 2005

White House Press Room as Political Stage [Wall Street Journal | February 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 6:44 AM on February 25, 2005

"From the Ashes Rises The Liar, The Whore
You have got to be kidding me. The completely disgraced and irrelevant Jeff/Jim Gannon/Guckert has popped back up ... and seems to have added borderline personality traits to his resume because he has clearly become detached from reality while he was gone." [OpEdNews.com | February 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 6:47 AM on February 25, 2005

"Talon News site closes to re-evaluate operations
The negative online traffic and publicity made it difficult to work, publicist says. [Talon News owner Bobby] Eberle's phone has been disconnected, but his publicist, Jennifer Ohman, said that the large number of Web visitors attracted by the controversy 'were not the kind of hits we were looking for. The attention by and large was negative. If anything, it seemed to fuel the fire.'" [Houston Chronicle | February 25, 2005]

Well, guess what Bobby? Jeff/James is back to fanning the flames himself!
posted by ericb at 6:52 AM on February 25, 2005

Sex to go: Call White House press office [Tribune Media Services | February 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 6:54 AM on February 25, 2005

The WSJ article takes the same angle as the LA Times piece:

"The fact is that the history and tradition of the White House have been much more open and accepting" of nonmainstream journalists than other Washington institutions, such as the Congress, says Ari Fleischer, Mr. McClellan's predecessor. "I think it would be a real shame if that tradition ended. It might be good for the press secretary but not for diversity of opinion."

It sounds like the mainstream media has found their spin!
posted by tizzie at 7:27 AM on February 25, 2005

soy - those links just point to the front page. Did you mean to put [http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/39609 before the #?]

Why, yes. Yes I did. Teach me to post drunk after 1:30 a.m. I really do know how HTML works, honest I do!

Hopefully there wasn't too much mystery about what I was referring to. It's the seven comments in a row, starting with this one, that are all about the same basic link.
posted by soyjoy at 7:53 AM on February 25, 2005

tizzie: congrats on the shout-out over at AMERICAblog:

"Thanks to tizzie for pointing us to this Wall Street Journal article today about James Guckert. It continues the LA Times angle that this is a case of old media versus new media and who gets to decide what constitutes a real journalist. Again, not ONE quote from a source who argues that Guckert was indeed a fake journalist and that this is a serious issue about national security and the manipulation of the media by the White House."
posted by ericb at 11:15 AM on February 25, 2005

"Gannon's to the Right of Me
The infamous ex-White House reporter James Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) fights fire with fire, reactivating his Web site and starting a blog. Among other things, he claims that those 'sexy pictures' on the Web, 'said to be of me,' are leaving many of his critics 'tingling.'" [Editor & Publisher | February 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 11:21 AM on February 25, 2005

Thanks, ericb. I missed that!

It seems like the same line of thought is repeated in this David Corn piece.
posted by tizzie at 11:43 AM on February 25, 2005

you go, tizzie! : >

Corn's just protecting the media--sad. And this is just wrong, when you look back to what was reported about Clinton for 8 years. One site has used the Gannon/Guckert affair to float unsubstantiated rumors about the sex life of Scott McClellan. This is fair game--but only for journalistic investigation, not for throw-it-and-see-if-it-sticks postings. If there is evidence that McClellan is a gay GOP hypocrite or that Gannon/Guckert had an advantage because he was literally in bed with a White House official, that's a news story. Otherwise, it's smear-by-blogging. Last year, I spent months talking to a professional dominatrix who claimed she had been hired several times by a prominent Republican who does the family-values shtick. I examined her allegations the best I could. But I could not substantiate her claim, which I found credible. I had nothing to publish, nothing specific to blog.

Someone should ask Corn why every single unsubstantiated rumor was printed and widely dispersed re: the Clintons throughout the 90s, and why these eyewitness accounts and more-than-rumors now aren't.
posted by amberglow at 5:33 PM on February 25, 2005

ah! Corn is upset that Gannon posted a complimentary thing on his blog--what a tool Corn is--even Guckert realized it was a helpful piece to him.
posted by amberglow at 5:40 PM on February 25, 2005

From the E&P piece: He (Guckert) also thanks Howard Kurtz for a "solid piece."

Howie's such a good obedient boy. i'm gagging.
posted by amberglow at 5:43 PM on February 25, 2005

NY Daily News today--Dems pursue reporter flap: Democrats in Congress are trying to keep an embarrassing GOP scandal alive by asking that the official probe of White House propaganda be widened to include how an alleged gay hooker with an alias got into the press room every day.
....

posted by amberglow at 6:16 PM on February 25, 2005

Hey, you don't have to be a journalist to know a "solid piece" when you see one. In fact, that sort of thing might be right up Jeff's alley, so to speak.

Oh, sorry, I got carried away there! It was just the excitement of amberglow's return!

All this hand-wringing from the poor media about how they are only trying to let everyone have a turn. So magnanimous! Even if Daschle's people told them a year ago that there might be some "issues" with Gannon, they wanted to be fair and give the guy a break. They probably didn't want to upset his family - you know, like the way they didn't want to upset Hillary with the Lewinsky story.

Errr, ummmm, nevermind!
posted by tizzie at 6:21 PM on February 25, 2005

busy working, tiz : >

CJR/CampaignDesk smacks down the LA Times story, deservedly.-- The piece, titled "An Identity Crisis Unfolds in a Not-So-Elite Press Corps" does nearly everything wrong: it makes grand assumptions (exactly which reporter is having an identity crisis?) while relying on a series of half-truths and misleading statements to reach a muddled conclusion -- one which we here at CJR Daily are still trying to parse.
...
This is where the story goes beyond the pale. If Fitzwater or Neuman honestly believes that there is any comparison to be made between Helen Thomas and a fake journalist with a fake name working for a fake news outlet asking fake questions at a real press briefing, then Neuman's feigned befuddlement over what a journalist is begins to seem less feigned. Alas, if the Los Angeles Times sees fit to print lazy and misleading pieces such as this, then the craft may indeed be facing an identity crisis, the likes of which Jean-Paul Sartre described 50 years ago.
posted by amberglow at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2005

great post on Daily Kos about the silence: (altho silence might be better than shit like the LA Times article and Kurtz's stuff)
I remember Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and The Pizza Delivery and The Thong-Snapping and The Wagging Finger and `I Did Not Have' and `Is Is' and The Blue Dress and Linda `John Goodman' Tripp and Whitman's Leaves of Grass.

I remember Gary Condit and Chandra Levy and The Jog in The Park and The Parents.

I remember Governor McGreevey and Golan Cipel and The Wife And Baby and The Resignation.

I remember Gary Hart and Donna Rice and The Boat Named Monkey Business and The Media Challenge and The End.

I remember Jack Ryan and Wife Jeri and The Sex Clubs and Exhibitionist Sex and Alan Keyes.

...
posted by amberglow at 7:20 PM on February 25, 2005

last one: KSFO Hannity program rundown:
Sean spends a moment with Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief for Talon News.com. Jeff talks about his daily meetings with White House Press Secretary Scott McCellan.

hmmm.
posted by amberglow at 10:35 PM on February 25, 2005

The DailyKos post makes a quick point that's worth mentioning. It's one of the understood rules of public relations - when you have to say something that you don't really want people to notice, say it on Friday (and after noon at best!) You'll notice that that's always when Bush's people release their worst economic numbers.

I'm glad the senators released their letter, but the timing makes me wonder if they weren't trying to minimalize its impact.
posted by tizzie at 6:34 AM on February 26, 2005

Kos' point is excellent. Politics is all about subtle messages.

Am I alone in feeling bitter towards both my Democratic senators?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:41 AM on February 26, 2005

Thank God my two Democratic Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) signed the letter!
posted by ericb at 8:10 AM on February 26, 2005

More juicy dirt on Rove/Gannon, etc: February 23, 2004: “An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove’s “good friend” ‘Jeff Gannon’ are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator, who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR’s, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a “respectable” gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.
...
Malice and disapproval aside, the real problem here is this: George W. Bush, supported closely by Karl Rove, was reelected as President of the United States on the so-called Moral Majority vote. In sum, Bush, via Rove, was projected as a moral man who would return a hedonistic America to the simpler virtues of a bygone era. This would be a moral crusade with strong religious overtones. Rove, who is brilliant if depraved, saw this and was successful. A large part of the American public, unhappy with what they saw as debilitating liberalism, abortion on demand, disgusting gay marriage and other forms of what they considered moral decay, put Bush back in office.

What will happen when these devout and angry people discover that their beloved symbolic President is just as bad as the evil, liberal Clinton? It was the Christian Right, financed by the weird Mellon heir, who harassed Clinton and got him impeached because of a seedy affair with the zaftig Monica Lewinski. Now they have to deal with rampant male whores prancing around the White House in consort with a small army of closet queens and all of whom very obviously have the ear, and the confidence, (and hopefully, that’s all they have) of their “moral” choice for President. Shakespeare said that hell had no fury like a woman scorned and from the letters and emails we are getting here, the duped and conned Moral Majority types are going to be a source of great trouble for Bush. How can this happen, you ask? After all, Bush has been elected for four more disastrous years.
posted by amberglow at 11:25 AM on February 26, 2005

Normally, I'd hate to see anyone outed without their consent.

But fuck Rove. Seriously. For every evil thing he's done against GLBT folks, let his fat ass burn.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:55 AM on February 26, 2005

If I lived in the DC area (and perhaps if I were a little better looking), I'd hang out at the Eagle just to see if I could out a political power-house for the good of the team. Bringing down Rove would the only sex scandal that could make my mother proud.

But something tells me people like Rove have some savvy people arranging their trysts for them. I hope the dominatrix hurt fat Karl.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:48 PM on February 26, 2005

Well, I suspect that if it can ever be substantiated that Rove was ever at J.R.'s, or any other D.C. gay bar, his excuse was that he was there "for research"!
posted by ericb at 2:38 PM on February 26, 2005

Christian right mum on Gannon Affair
"Why have the 'traditional family values' folks erected a wall of silence around the Gannon scandal? They were livid over SpongeBob Square Pants' participation in a video advocating tolerance, and fuming about Buster the Bunny's visit to a lesbian household. So where's the outrage from the Christian right over the Jeff Gannon Affair? Despite a chunk of time having passed since the Gannon Affair was first uncovered, Christian right organizations are still cloaked in silence. As of February 24, there wasn't any news about the Gannon Affair available on the Web sites of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition. As best as I could determine, no special alerts about the Gannon Affair have been issued; and no campaigns have been launched to get to the bottom of the matter.

Curious about this wall of silence, I phoned several Christian right groups on Tuesday, February 22, hoping to find someone who could comment on the Gannon Affair. This is what I found..." [Working For Change | February 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:40 PM on February 26, 2005

Yet another editorial - this one from today's Chicago Tribune - on the Gannon/Guckert affair. But, when will we see it on the news pages?
posted by ericb at 2:43 PM on February 26, 2005

i think we won't, unless a mole/deepthroatbutt comes forward. : >
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on February 26, 2005

gesamtkunstwerk, you are far too gorgeous for Karl. I have never met you, but your inner beauty alone disqualifies you!

I'm not alone in my sincere "prayers" that this Christian right stuff blows up right in Bush's face. If that could be through the outing of the Rove, so be it.

Or, as they say, bring it on!
posted by tizzie at 4:19 PM on February 26, 2005

digby strikes gold again, on the Corn piece
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on February 26, 2005

and the Decembrist: If GOPUSA is like other outposts of the Texas money machine, it's very possible that some of this corporate money flowed into it, not directly but through one of the other "soft money cutouts." If someone can get to the bottom of this, raising questions at the corporate level about why they funded Gannon/Guckert is likely to be highly embarassing, even if the company's executives are conservative. These companies in the future will probably exercise some oversight on their contributions to make sure they know where they are going. And that will significantly cut down DeLay's extortionary power. Similar questions should be raised with the companies that funded USA-NEXT and their anti-gay anti-AARP ad.
posted by amberglow at 4:48 PM on February 26, 2005

"...chuckles all around."

Did you read this Digby post that was linked on Americablog? Again, I almost hate to give BushCo credit for the brains and skill it takes to manipulate the media so effectively.
posted by tizzie at 4:50 PM on February 26, 2005

You beat me to it!
posted by tizzie at 4:52 PM on February 26, 2005

I'm going to have to stop downloading gay porn in the other tab ;)
posted by tizzie at 4:54 PM on February 26, 2005

oo, tizzie--GOP Gang Bang? Reaming Rove?

*gags*
posted by amberglow at 5:10 PM on February 26, 2005

"Reporting by ‘Jeff Gannon’ was entered into Congressional record in 2003
‘Reporting’ by Talon News’ discredited correspondent Jeff Gannon was entered into the Congressional record in 2003, Daily Kos diarist Susan G found Saturday. An article written by Jim Guckert, who wrote under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon during his tenure as White House correspondent, was unanimously entered into the Congressional record during a Senate hearing in 2003." [Raw Story | February 26, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:15 PM on February 26, 2005

unbelievable
posted by amberglow at 7:20 PM on February 26, 2005

Maureen Dowd again: ... The only balance W. likes is the slavering, Pravda-like "Fair and Balanced" coverage Fox News provides. Mr. Bush pledges to spread democracy while his officials strive to create a Potemkin press village at home. This White House seems to prefer softball questions from a self-advertised male escort with a fake name to hardball questions from journalists with real names; it prefers tossing journalists who protect their sources into the gulag to giving up the officials who broke the law by leaking the name of their own C.I.A. agent. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:32 PM on February 26, 2005

Reuters finally did a story (but on Talon shutting down--how many days behind are they?)
posted by amberglow at 8:40 PM on February 26, 2005

Rude Pundit on the silence of the Religious Right: ...C'mon, this is like a black man in the South in the 1920s fucking a white woman in the middle of a Klan meeting because the flames of the burning cross are so romantic. It's like a mohel walking into the middle of Hitler rally and saying, "Who wants a circumcision? I'll give you a good price." It's like an Iraqi walking into Abu Ghraib, dropping his pants, and saying, "I know where the weapons are, and I bet you can't beat it out of me." ...
posted by amberglow at 8:50 AM on February 27, 2005

Talon News said in its message that the Web site would be redesigned and ``a top-to-bottom review of staff and volunteer contributors' would be performed.

I'm happy that they hire tops and bottoms. I may not agree with their politics, but at least they are equal opportunity employers.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:23 AM on February 27, 2005

I know--so many double-entendres, so much bullshit. : >

related: Rep. Maurice Hinchey, who said Rove was "behind" RatherGate went on CNN and took it further: (scroll down)
HINCHEY: Well, Judy, no one has come to any conclusions and that's the unfortunate thing. We need to get to the bottom of this. We need to get to the bottom of the whole business of manipulating the media that has gone on in the context of this administration.

I think that that's critically important. The essence of this democracy is really at stake. If people sitting back in their living rooms can't rely upon the information they're getting over the news channel or over the radio, then very important aspects of this Democratic system become eroded.

posted by amberglow at 10:32 AM on February 27, 2005

amberglow, did you notice this on your CNN link, talking about that AARP ad that USA Next put out:

"We contacted USA Next. And we got a statement from Charlie Jarvis the CEO of that company and he said actually this ad was a test. He wanted to see how the liberals would react, whether they would engage in the debate on the very popular important debate on Social Security or whether they would just run screaming. They said "Sadly the left are proved and chose anger and explosiveness about a simple image rather than dealing with the details of a critical issue."

That is so far fetched - it's absolutely ludicrous. The ad with the red X on the soldier and the green check mark on the gay couple... that was supposed to spark debate about Social Security?? Someone help me with the logic here.

To quote our friend Gannon, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
posted by tizzie at 1:49 PM on February 27, 2005

yup--ridiculous as usual. Notice how Woodruff bought it tho? She didn't even question or anything. pathetic--she just repeats their spin.
posted by amberglow at 2:13 PM on February 27, 2005

A Plant in Putin's Press Corp
posted by ericb at 3:03 PM on February 27, 2005

Democratic National Committee, Pelosi weigh in on Gannon scandal, credentialing [Raw News | February 27, 2005].
posted by ericb at 3:11 PM on February 27, 2005

long but good thing at Smirking Chimp: 'The hypocrisy taboo ... "Obviously there's got to be constraints. I mean, there's got to be truth. People've got to tell the truth. And if somebody violates the truth - and those who own a particular newspaper or those who are in charge of a particular electronic station need to hold people to account."

What neither Bush nor Putin addressed, however, is the common reality of how their two systems work, using pressure from their political allies to influence the decision about whether a journalist is fired for making a mistake or gets a free pass.

So, on one hand, an accomplished journalist like former CBS producer Mary Mapes is shown the door for not adequately checking out a purported memo about Bush shirking his National Guard duty. On the other hand, a Bush ally like the Washington Post's Hiatt keeps his prestigious job despite buying into Bush's false Iraq WMD claims.

The key difference was that powerful voices in the conservative media demanded the head of Mapes, who months earlier had broken the Abu Ghraib sexual abuse scandal. There was no comparable pressure for punishing journalists, such as Hiatt, who had violated journalistic rules by treating a disputed claim - Iraq's WMD - as a settled fact. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:54 PM on February 27, 2005

Check this guy out--Tim Goeglein--Rove's "legman on the Right"

--and one of the people thanked by Eberle.
posted by amberglow at 5:00 PM on February 27, 2005

... Gannon is a rent-boy-cum-White-House-reporter. His easy access to presidential briefings, where his rimming skills were on routine display (“Mr. President, how do you work with people who are so divorced from reality?”) has raised questions about payola and security precautions that the White House would rather not answer. The Gannon scandal is merely the latest episode in a long-running boy-on-boy action plot.

It’s an old story — at least as old as J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn. Queer men assume the role — and the dirty work — of straight ones in bids for power so aggressively homophobic as to cleanse them of any charges of faggotry.

And as recent events prove, it’s as new as Ken Mehlman, David Dreier, Dan Gurley and Ed Schrock. (And possibly Scott McClellan as well. I’m just so darned curious: who did get Gannon admitted to those notoriously secure press briefings in the weeks before he even had the flimsy press credentials of Talon News as cover?) ... --rawstoryQ
posted by amberglow at 6:01 PM on February 27, 2005

Capitol Hill Blue: Is Dubya in the closet?
Ah, the irony of it all. The administration of George W. Bush, easily the most homophobic president of modern times, deployed a homosexual escort and promoter of gay life styles as one of its “propaganda as journalism” shills.

James Dale Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, infiltrated the White House press corps as a so-called journalist working for two GOP-backed web sites. He quit after some left-wing blogs outed him but – like most Washington scandals – the story gets juicier.
....
Perhaps Bush, like other public homophobes, decries the gay life because of yet another secret in his sordid past. Maybe booze and cocaine wasn’t the only thing our President stuffed into an available orifice.

posted by amberglow at 6:31 PM on February 27, 2005

" Check this guy out--Tim Goeglein..."

Oh. Oh dear. And I say this as a woman with a gay brother and a gay best friend, and all the love in my heart.

That, honey, is a gay man.
posted by tizzie at 7:11 PM on February 27, 2005

thank you tizzie--exactly! And he's the liasion to the Religious Right!!!
posted by amberglow at 7:14 PM on February 27, 2005

Tom Tomorrow!
posted by amberglow at 9:15 PM on February 27, 2005

It would seem that the role of an editor to check facts and coherence has fallen by the wayside. It reminds me of reading obviously censored works from the Soviet Era. There seems to be a movement afoot to edit Ann Coulter's rants, though it doesn't really seem to make her manic journalism any better. There are impressive non-sequitors in this piece, like the tidbit that Helen THomas' parents were Lebanese (I care, why?) . Was more edited out?
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:58 AM on February 28, 2005

Speaking of Soviet, this is priceless:

When George Bush sat down with Vladimir Putin in Bratislava last week to deliver his long-awaited lecture on civil liberties and freedom of the press, Newsweek says Putin shot back with an attack of his own: "We didn't criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS."
Bush was apparently slack-jawed, and senior White House aides were angry. "Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather," one administration official told Time. "It was like something out of '1984.'"
Newsweek , rising to the defense of freedom of the press in these United States, says it’s "all too clear" that Putin sees the relationship between Bush and the American media as being “just like his own.” Presumably, that means that Putin thinks Bush controls the U.S. media in the same way that he controls the Russian media. We can’t imagine where he got that idea.
posted by tizzie at 7:05 AM on February 28, 2005

WooHOO! Americablog says this is front-page in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

"Every president has sought to manipulate the media. But historians say that Bush, unhappy with what he calls "the filter," is courting controversy in his quest for innovative formats. Several conservative commentators have been paid to trumpet Bush policies in their work; one recipient, Armstrong Williams, is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission. And two agencies have disseminated pro-Bush videos that look like TV newscasts, without disclosing the Bush sponsorship - a breach of federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The White House has stated that these media decisions were made independently by the agencies. Nevertheless, former Republican strategist Jim Pinkerton, who worked in the administration of George H.W. Bush, says: "It's quite clear this White House is exploring radical alternative ways to getting its message out - through the aggressive hiring of flacks like Williams, and the presence, or even planting, of friendly so-called journalists like Gannon.

"The Bush people are challenging all the old assumptions about how to work the press. They are ambitious - visionary, if you will - in ways that Washington has yet to fathom."

Larry Gross, who runs the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California, says: "Richard Nixon hated the press, Bill Clinton hated the press - but they accepted the basic rules of the game. Bush has a strategy of discrediting, end-running, and even faking the news. Those prepackaged videos sent to local TV stations 'looked' like news, much the way Gannon 'looked' like a reporter. We're seeing something new: Potemkin-village journalism."
posted by tizzie at 8:23 AM on February 28, 2005

And from Americablog commenter cadejo4:

here's a list of newspapers which picked up the Dick Polman/Philadelphia Inquirer article, via Knight-Ridder. Might be worth writing to a few to congratulate them for running it.

Kansas City Star, MO
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA
Centre Daily Times, PA
San Luis Obispo Tribune, CA
Tallahassee Democrat, FL
Duluth News Tribune, MN
Bradenton Herald, FL
Macon Telegraph, GA
Lexington Herald-Leader, KY
Monterey County Herald, CA
Myrtle Beach Sun News, SC
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS
posted by tizzie at 8:32 AM on February 28, 2005

Maybe it's finally finally getting thru?
posted by amberglow at 10:37 AM on February 28, 2005

or probably they (the "real" media) are finally waking up to the fact that they are and have been under concerted attack by the Bushes?
posted by amberglow at 10:41 AM on February 28, 2005

This piece from TomDispatch poses the theory that the entire world has been Gannonized for George's protection.

"After all, even the President's Crawford "ranch" is really a Gannon-style set. And in Germany and France, George and Condi, his new Secretary of State, managed to have town-hall style meetings only with audiences of European Gannons; audiences so carefully combed over that, on a continent whose public is largely in opposition to almost any Bush policy you might mention, not a single challenging question seems to have been asked."
posted by tizzie at 11:33 AM on February 28, 2005

One more goodie! From WorkingForChange, via Cursor:

While waiting for callbacks, my minds eye drifted back to the Clinton White House. Tim Bannon, a liberal activist, had made his way into a presidential press conference; Bannon had been attending press briefings for nearly two years, under the name Slim Cannon. No one seemed knew much about FallOnNews.com, the Internet news service he worked with, but many suspected it was a front group for the Democrats.

Clinton had been taking a well-publicized beating over the Monica Lewinsky Affair. At the president's first press conference in quite some time, he called on Cannon, who asked the following question: "Mr. President, given revelations about House Speaker Newt Gingrich's serial affairs and the abandonment of his wife when she had cancer, and given that Congressman Bob Livingston has a similar record of perfidious peccadilloes, and given stories about the sexual shenanigans of a host of televangelists including Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, could you please comment on whether the right wing media, isn't selectively focusing on the Lewinsky Affair, and doesn't want to deal with sexual scandals in its own backyard?"

Less than twenty-four hours later, a host of right wing Web sites -- suspicious that Cannon may have been planted by the White House -- discovered that Slim Cannon's cannon was prominently featured on a number of gay porn sites, and that in his off hours he may have been a gay "escort." Intrepid researchers find out that Cannon had been privy to secret documents before any other duly accredited White House reporters.

"Clinton's gay consort" became the right's theme for the next several months.

The author could not get any Christian right organizations to comment on Gannon. Imagine that!
posted by tizzie at 11:55 AM on February 28, 2005

The main difference is that the Dems do not have a majority in either the Senate or the House. They really can't do anything about these scandals unless the public realy, really gets involved, which they won't.

If they do really well in the midterm elections, you might see some hearings about this stuff. Otherwise, forget it, it will disappear.
posted by chaz at 11:58 AM on February 28, 2005

we're on track to do well--Santorum and other Repubs are on very shaky ground, especially now that they've been pushing SS so hard--it's blowback time.
posted by amberglow at 12:17 PM on February 28, 2005

Blowback? Is that what's about to happen in this photo? (scroll wayyyy down)
posted by tizzie at 1:21 PM on February 28, 2005

White House Correspondents' Association wimps out on GannonGuckertGate [AMERICAblog | February 28, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:17 PM on February 28, 2005

Gannongate, Part 1: Should We Even Care Who Left the Gate Open?
Gannongate, Part 2: This Administration Really Does Have A Man-Date
Gannongate, Part 3: De-deuce Bigelow, Male Gigolo
Gannongate, Part 4: Who Got Gannon’s Cannon?
Gannongate Part 5 & 6 - yet to come: "In the next part, the Bloogeyman will get a little more serious and try to look at this whole thing from two perspectives. We’ll talk strategy: How should Republicans handle damage control and ensure that this whole episode is soon forgotten? How should the Democrats ensure that this thing is not only fully investigated, but also fully exposed to the public? "
posted by ericb at 2:29 PM on February 28, 2005

The author could not get any Christian right organizations to comment on Gannon. Imagine that!

That's why I advocate sending pictures of Gannon to right-wing asscrofts like Phred Phelps, James Dobson and Rick Santorum. Let's see how long they can ignore it.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:25 PM on February 28, 2005

Drudge has finally bothered to mention this, just today.
posted by interrobang at 4:33 PM on February 28, 2005

and look what he picks--something that doesn't mention most of the story at all.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on February 28, 2005

"Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker," he shouted, as if in a White House news conference, identifying himself as "Dino Ironbody"

His question: "How do you feel about the president's awesome plan to privatize Social Security?"

posted by amberglow at 9:09 PM on February 28, 2005

Jeff Gannon Contradicts Himself and the White House in Obscure Internet Postings From 2004 and Before [Nashua Advocate | March 01, 2005]
posted by ericb at 6:28 AM on March 1, 2005

Good article, ericb. That part about Gannon's gun gives me the creeps!
posted by tizzie at 6:59 AM on March 1, 2005

Transcript of Gannon Segment on Fox News [Aired 2/26/2005]
posted by ericb at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2005

'Interview' with Gannon here.

Please make comments without personal abuse.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:18 PM on March 1, 2005

Inside The 'Gannon' Case: How Blogs Broke It Wide Open [Editor & Publisher | March 01, 2005]

"For the first time last month, I was able to follow a "blog probe" from the start, and it was amazing to see the resources and skills the larger sites can bring to bear on a single issue or controversy.

The Jeff Gannon affair has not yet morphed into a full-fledged political scandal, or retreated to the realm of embarrassing footnote, so this may be a good time to pause and reflect. At the center of the controversy: A man with no journalistic (but plenty of sex-site) experience who managed to cover the White House at close range for two years for an obscure online site called Talon News — under an alias — with the avowed aim of simply presenting the administration's case, unfiltered.

Whatever the merits of the uproar over this episode, it has proved extremely instructive for me, making possible my first immersion in the new world of blog-generated controversy." - Greg Mitchell
posted by ericb at 12:26 PM on March 1, 2005

Can we expect a Hollywood version of this whole story anytime soon? Sylvester Stallone or Ben Affleck as John Aravosis? Vin Diesel as GanGuck? All we need is Charlie Kaufman to write the script.
posted by greatgefilte at 2:30 PM on March 1, 2005

"While the mainstream media in the big cities frets over how to handle the gay hooker story (see no hooker, speak no hooker, hear no hooker), less cosmpolitan spots like Arkansas hit the nail on the head." [AMERICAblog | March 01, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:32 PM on March 1, 2005

"What does the affair tell us about White House security amid the "war on terror"? That's hard to say. So far nobody's explained how a man with no journalistic credentials and a phony name passed muster with the Secret Service. One reasonable presumption might be that a high-ranking White House official must have vouched for him, but given the Washington press' reluctance and GOP control of Congress, we may never know.

McClellan pleads no contest.

"In this day and age," he said, "when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist."

Um, Scottie, how about somebody who has ever worked as a reporter for a newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station? Most people would start there. Google "James D. Guckert," our hero's real name, and you won't find a long list of professional accomplishments. None, actually....

As if to demonstrate that people on the cultural left often don't think any better than their putative opponents on the right, online publications like Salon.com ran letters from gay readers denouncing his forced outing as "homophobic."

Excuse me, but when you pose for explicit photos and advertise your services on the Internet, it's not private, it's public.

More typical was Kurtz's complaint that "I didn't go into journalism, frankly, to be looking at Web sites like hotmilitarystud.com." Well, frankly, I never expected to read anything like the Starr Report.

Try to imagine the uproar if the Bill Clinton White House had pulled something similar. Every committee in Congress would run televised hearings 24/7. On "Hardball," GOP attack blondes would be speaking in tongues. Tim Russert might simply explode.

The bitterest irony, of course, is that Bush, the most theatrically "manly" president since Ronald Reagan, might never have been elected but for his 2004 campaign's calculated appeal to homophobia." [The Decatur Daily Democrat | March 01, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:34 PM on March 1, 2005

It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid
"Republicans are angry that the Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert story won’t go away....While most conservative columnists, along with the top newspapers in the country are simply not addressing the story, hordes of Republican bloggers, who usually wouldn’t touch a gay man with tongs, let alone defend his reputation, are protesting that the left has gone too far, that Gannon’s private life is off-limits, and, amazingly, accusing those keeping the story alive to be homophobes. The hypocrisy is jaw-dropping." [Buffalo Beast | March 01, 2005]
posted by ericb at 5:14 PM on March 1, 2005

The bitterest irony, of course, is that Bush, the most theatrically "manly" president since Ronald Reagan

A guy who uses the word "fabulous" all the time is manly? A guy who stutters and whines through a political debate is manly? A guy who shrieks "bring it on!" while sitting on another continent is manly? Well, I agree with the "theatrical" part anyway.

The Decatur guys may want to have a look at Roedy Green's excellent roundup of GWB's manliness.
posted by telstar at 6:21 PM on March 1, 2005

Ericb, your namesake has the definitive article in Salon this morning.

""Creating 'Jeff Gannon' as a credible White House correspondent and creating radical doubt about the intentions of mainstream journalists (in order to decertify the traditional press) are two parts of the same effort.""
posted by tizzie at 5:19 AM on March 2, 2005

tizzie - good article.

People are now starting to consider the Gannon/Guckert affair in a larger context.

The mainstream media are now starting to recognize how this scandal - when tied with other recent scandals, such as the discovery of paid-off pundits and video press releases disguised as news telecasts – may be indicative of an overall insidious Republican/White House strategy to "muddy the waters", as per your point above.

And guess what - the White House realizes that their dirty tricks have been exposed ... and they don't like it.

Their strategy now is to get the public to discount the scandal as nothing more than an attempt by some to discredit a “journalist” for being gay. They cry foul that people are digging into the “private life” of one of their own self-loathing wingnuts.

These folks conveniently avoid the fact that:

(1) Gannon/Guckert is, by most accounts, hardly considered to be one who qualifies as a “journalist”

(2) Gannon/Guckert knowingly posted naked photographs of himself online for the purpose of providing sexual services - even quoting hourly prices, terms-and-conditions and personal preferences (i.e. strictly a top) on the largest and most accessible bulletin board in the World, thereby voluntarily ripping off any “cloak of privacy” for himself. (BTW - rumor has it that that cloak was given to Ashcroft to cover the exposed breasts of the statue at the Justice Department).

(3) There are legitimate questions as to how Gannon/Guckert got into the White House everyday for years (and even before he was claiming to be a journalist), under a false name. How did someone who was representing a partisan organization (GOPUSA) – and who was denied press access to both houses of Congress – get such preferential treatment? And, more importantly, did Gannon/Guckert have access to confidential, classified information – particularly as to relates to the exposure of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame (as he boasts himself in online forums and in his interview with Joseph Wilson) and pre-emptive knowledge of the launch of the “shock-and-awe” bombing campaign for the start of the war in Iraq?

To further quote the Salon article: “...the White House's ultimate aim is to raise doubts about the information independent journalists produce.’Their explicit goal is to get us to the point where there are blue [state] facts and red [state] facts,' ....Eliminating agreed-upon facts has obvious political advantages for the White House.
posted by ericb at 7:10 AM on March 2, 2005

Someone asked why Christian groups attacked the spongebob ad and not Gannon. The answer is simple. Spongebob was promoting gayness and Gannon wasn't. The Christian watchdog groups aren't homophobic, they are just trying to protect children from the gay.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 7:23 AM on March 2, 2005

Even perceptive people like Jake at Lying Media Bastards are missing the point now.

As the Salon article points out today, the Gannon story is only one element of a larger strategy to castrate and discredit the media, and control the dissemination of information. Bush, or his handlers, have a very sophisticated strategy in place to get their propaganda heard. Planting Gannon was a part of that. If that's not big news, what is?
posted by tizzie at 11:47 AM on March 2, 2005

From reading the discussion on MeTa and the start of a new Gannon/Guckert discussion on the blue, it looks like that's where we should continue our postings and related conversations. See you there ...
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on March 2, 2005