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