« Weighing evils | Main | Confessions of a bleeding-heart moderate »

The White House Press Corps Ain't Impressed

Since the left side of the blogosphere has realized that gay bashing is backfiring, they are now trying to go back to the "Gannon was no journalist" line. Millions of pixels were killed long before this event trying to define what a journalist was. Clearly there is no static definition.

But who is most qualified to answer whether he should have been in the White House briefing room? Anyone rational person would agree the other members of the White House press corps would be the most qualified to make the call.

They're not impressed by the liberal bloggers outting Gannon.

There's A Fourth Estate And A Fifth Estate

James Dale Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, the former White House correspondent for Talon News, set off a firestorm of controversy and introspection last week inside the cramped press work quarters behind the West Wing briefing room.

The unabashedly conservative reporter had already disappeared in a flash of green smoke, drummed out by left-wing bloggers who had set out to expose the personal background of the short, shaved-head man after he asked a particularly right-wing question in a presidential press conference.
...
Left behind after the smoke cleared were a few fundamental questions: What is a reporter? Does asking biased or loaded questions invalidate a reporter's credentials? Do columnists count? And above all, who gets to decides?

Members of the White House press corps offered some insight last week after Guckert's resignation.

"We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters," said Terry Moran of ABC News. "I don't know anything about Gannon's--or Guckert's--private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration. But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions--from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary."

Moran's point is food for thought. Although Guckert's question to President Bush in the Jan. 26 press conference--about how Bush planned to work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality"--clearly crossed a line, the Talon News reporter occasionally held the president's feet to the fire. Guckert asked questions about GOP discontent over such issues as immigration, pressed the White House on conservative issues and drew out the administration's perspective on Democratic initiatives.

While many White House reporters oppose advocacy journalism in the briefing room, Moran vehemently objected to the course of action that led to Guckert's resignation.

"Whatever the ostensible rationale, it seems clear to me that `Gannon's' personal life was investigated and targeted by some bloggers because they did not like the ideas he expressed in his questions. That is chilling to me," he said.

John Roberts of CBS News agreed that "the liberal blogosphere"--not the White House press corps--drove the onslaught against Gannon. But he also said that Guckert's "presence at the daily briefing was not an issue with me."

"There are other people there with a clear agenda as well," he said.

Judy Keen, the sage White House correspondent for USA Today, closed the loop.

"Gannon--or whatever his name is--certainly isn't the only reporter whose point of view is reflected in their questions. Anyone who regularly attends the gaggles and briefings knows that there are other reporters there whose questions suggest a certain hostility toward the administration," she said.

Regular briefing attendees know that only too well. Helen Thomas, a former reporter turned columnist, despises Bush and once called him "the worst president in all of American history." Her daily rants come from the hard left, including this question during the lead-up to war in Iraq: "The president claims he's compassionate, but he's on the warpath against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Philippines, and this new report he would use nuclear weapons whenever he gets the urge. Is he trying for dictator?"

How very true. If Gannon is to be attacked for his question, Helen Thomas should be drawn and quartered.

OK so how do we decide in the future then???

The White House certainly doesn't want the job.

"I don't think it's the role of the press secretary to get into picking or choosing who gets press credentials," Scott McClellan said. "I've never inserted myself into the process. [Guckert], like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are. The issue comes up -- it becomes, in this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. And there -- it gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room. ... There are a number of people in that room that express their points of view."

The spokesman said he would welcome any input from the White House Correspondents' Association, which represents the press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues. But the association's president, Ron Hutcheson, does not want the organization to be the arbiter of White House credentials.

"I want the association to be an advocate for getting people into the White House, not for keeping people out," he said. While Hutcheson noted that "we don't want someone hijacking the briefing so they can talk about their agenda, from the left or the right," it's not the task of the association to decide who should be allowed to attend daily briefings.

Nobody wants the job. Partisans abound in the briefing room, they always have. Gannon was no less a journalist than Helen Thomas.

I guess they lefty bloggers will have to go back to gay bashing.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The White House Press Corps Ain't Impressed:

» Jeff Blogworthy.com linked with More on the gay-bashing non-story story

» Riehl World View linked with Want Something to Read?

» Little Miss Attila linked with The Outrage of Gannon/Guckert

» Joust The Facts linked with Power Line Asks "Have They No Shame?"

» Jeff Michael @ The Right Society linked with Breaking News: Media Conservative?!?!?

» Jeff Michael @ The Right Society linked with Breaking News: Media Conservative?!?!?

Comments (67)

Gotta hand it to you Paul,<... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

Gotta hand it to you Paul,

For your creative and innovative attempts to spin this 'non-story'! This is your third, fourth...post?

And, if you're gonna alleged the White House Press Corps (plural) not impressed, have more than just one corroborating article - and certainly not the Moonie Times (doesn't count!).

I'll say it again, the only... (Below threshold)
TJIT:

I'll say it again, the only way Gannon's past could have possibly been discovered is if the white house had done extensive, invasive, background checks. That puts people like Clive in the position described below. I really don't want the white house vetting reporters moral background. And if the leftists were not such hypocritical homophobes they would not either.

The left wing people that are making a big issue out of this thinks the white house staff should be doing extensive background checks on reporters to make sure they are "moral" enough to be in the white house. And they want to make sure the background check is extensive enough to find out if the reporters have done anything "immoral" in their past.

I suspect if the white house had actually proposed doing something like this before now the same leftists patting themselves on the back over outing this guy would have gone apes--t calling the white house fascist abusers of press freedom. They would also accuse the white house of performing personal destruction on those who would dare to "speak truth to power".

The real hypocrites here are the leftists.

What is particularly stupid... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

What is particularly stupid about the story is that there are examples of left-wing journalists who ask equally one-sided questions. The most famous of course is Mokhiber's question:

Mokhiber: Scott, last night, in an amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department came down in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments at courthouses and statehouses around the country. My question is - does the President believe in Commandment Number Six - thou shalt not kill - as it applies to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?

Scott McLellan: Go ahead, next question

If youj pop to the Scottie and Me website linked above, you will see that Mokhiber, who does not have a permanent press pass either, still was called plenty of times. I agree with Clive that Gannon is a non-story, but the left trying to run with it is still probative of what a sorry state they are currently in.

Well, hoppin' moonbats, Pau... (Below threshold)
Gannon Who?:

Well, hoppin' moonbats, Paul is doing it again! You trying to get into Guinness?

Oh, clive thinks it's a sto... (Below threshold)
julie:

Oh, clive thinks it's a story. He's just pissed off that it's failed to bring down the Bush Whitehouse.

I DO NOT CARE is this guy i... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

I DO NOT CARE is this guy is a fag. Unless the the loony left think he's somehow going to try and grope the President when he's not looking or something.
Yeah, I wouldn't put it past the sicko pussies on the lef tot think up that.

I'll say it again, the o... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

I'll say it again, the only way Gannon's past could have possibly been discovered is if the white house had done extensive, invasive, background checks. I really don't want the white house vetting reporters moral background.

Moral background? Hilarious! So, now I know why the White House did such a crappy job vetting Berine Kerik! And, why isn't he Homeland Sec. right now?

The left wing people that are making a big issue out of this thinks the white house staff should be doing extensive background checks on reporters to make sure they are "moral" enough to be in the white house.

Not moral enough, a security risk! So, what your saying is that a gay male escort, with no credible reason being in the WH Press Corp, is none of your business?

Keep it coming people...

So CliveI guess yo... (Below threshold)

So Clive

I guess you're saying that those damned Moonies made up the quotes from CBS, ABC and USA Today? or blackmailed those correspondents to say 'em?

Wow. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy knows no bounds, eh?

(note to Rove - I expect a bonus in my check for this)

Now if you think E&P has also come under the EvilGeniusRove (tm) ...

"After a 30-minute sit-down with McClellan, WHCA President Ron Hutcheson said he believed the current system was fine and hesitated to have the correspondents' association play a bigger role in distributing press passes. "I'm not sure we need to do anything," Hutcheson told E&P. "I'm not comfortable in passing judgment on who is a journalist and who isn't. My overriding view is that if I am going to make a mistake, it is going to be on letting people in rather than keeping people out."

Day passes appear to be available to any reporter who provides his or her name, address, and social security number and the name of his or her news organization, and can pass a basic security check."

... I guess I'll just leave you with this advice ...

seek medical help now.

I really wouldn't give a da... (Below threshold)

I really wouldn't give a darn if the White House let a guy into the pressroom wearing a Goofy suit claiming to represent the "Toontown Times". I'd give him the same crediblity as Jeff Gannon/Guckert, Helen Thomas, or Dan Rather. I'd also give him the benefit of the doubt until he revealed himself as legitmate reporter or an idiot.

Loaded questions come from the left and the right and from people with all sorts of other agendas.

We, the public, have the ultimate responsibility to shift through the garbage we're fed and put some braincells into what we read or see in the media. To hope that someone in the White House or the government is going to somehow sanitize the press corps is ridiculous.

The idea that news is supposed to somehow be completely objective is the Big Myth. I trust reporters about as much as I trust used car salesmen. Caveat emptor!

Gay bashing from the left? ... (Below threshold)
0.00:

Gay bashing from the left? You jester!!

Yes, the party of James Dobson, Alan Keyes, Rick Santorum and the Gay Marriage Ban are accusing the Left blogsphere of ‘gay bashing’, and of being ‘morally bankrupt’. The same party in power that would dismiss badly needed Arab language linguists for being gay, and bar the Log Cabin Republicans from one of their state conventions.

Furthermore, the spiritual leader of the GOP, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, made it clear how tolerant the party is:

Falwell also suggested that gay conservatives are not welcome in the Republican Party. When Russert noted that Newsweek magazine describes Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry as a "conservative gay Republican," Falwell replied, "Well, the fact that he's a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic Party."

Clive you need to give it u... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Clive you need to give it up while you still can. You are getting smacked all over these threads.

I the whole article makes excellent points-no reporter comes into an interview unbiased (the idea that there is an unbiased media is the biggest myth anyone ever created). And there is good reason to have people from both sides asking questions, even if some of the questions are occassional softballs.

Also, the left would be exploding with outrage, if the WH even suggested some kind of "morals" test before they would hand out press passes. I also suspect that they would get the same outrage, if say, they made up a "only members of the press with a four year degree in journalism from an accredited university and at least 4 years of reporting experience are permitted to get passes.

The left is the epitome of hypocrisy.

In an earlier thread "Clive... (Below threshold)
GhostOfEdgarHoover:

In an earlier thread "Clive Tolson" wrote:

"The problem is that the Bush administration can dismiss badly needed Arab linguists for being gay…."

In a recent comment above in this thread "0.00" wrote:

"…The same party in power that would dismiss badly needed Arab language linguists for being gay,…."

Same wording in both: "…dismiss badly needed Arab…"

*****

Is Clive Tolson your real name?
Are you related to the Clive Tolson who worked for Edgar Hoover? As in Google:

"Adult Ftp Site
... amateur pictures ftp list of the bond girls nudist naturalist gallery photo clive tolson j edgar hoover homosexuals adult comix free ftp free adult ftp sites ...
www.uk-shopping-warehouse.co.uk/Adult_Ftp_Site/ - 76k -.."

(1) Gannon was not a "quali... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

(1) Gannon was not a "qualified" reporter or "real" journalist so he should have been denied access.

(2) Gannon was a White House press plant to serve as convenient escape for Chimpy McShrubhitlerenronburton and his maladministration from tough questions.

(3) Gannon was not thoroughly vetted and, hence, was a security risk within a knifes throw of the CIC.

(4) Gannon was a conduit for disseminating select materials to the public to protect the President and expose CIA operatives.

(5) Gannon was the representative hypocrite of the right who chastized certain behaviors while engaging in same.

(6) Gannon presented false attribution to a major figure of the Democratic party so his "outing" was appropriate.

(7) Gannon deserved to have his personal information disclosed because he once ran a questionable website.

There will be a quiz later....

Clive, 1. He appa... (Below threshold)
Webster:

Clive,

1. He apparently was writing for Talon.com. That is enough to qualify him to be in the room. Some people think even working for CBS qualifies one.
2. So he has a bias. They all do in that room. Prove that he was planted, unless you are an Eason Jordan style journalist reporting nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor.
3. He was vetted as are all the daily pass reporters. I suspect they don't allow knives, firearms, or bombs in the press room. Just a guess.
4. see 2 re unsubstantiated rumor.
5 What behavior did he chastise and where? News to me. Irrelevant news. Again, the press room is full of hypocrites.
6. False attribution? A mistake, perhaps? I don't even know or care what this refers to, but I am sure it is no valid reason for peeking into Guckert's bedroom window. That act is for creepy peeping toms.
7. Questionable website? I don't care how he worked his way through college. This is really a non story, but your peevishness is just too fat a target to ignore.
By the way, you flunked your own test.

Sigh. Like the first commen... (Below threshold)
JP2:

Sigh. Like the first comment said, if you are constantly running stories about this, then it's a story, obviously.

And gay bashing? If you can produce one hateful comment from any of the ground breaking blogs, I would love to see it. I can produce several anti-gay comments from Talon "News." Hence your term "gay bashing" is unjustified.

1.) Talon is not a news organization, hence no pass. got to get facts.

-JP2

I have never understood wha... (Below threshold)

I have never understood what the problem was in this case.

Leaving aside his past and sexuality - which I really don't care about - because I have a libertarian attitude on that issue...

Shouldn't any citizen have access to the press room?

I mean, if there are empty seats, and you will report on your experiences (either on the web, wires, radio, TV, papers) then why shouldn't someone be allowed in?

It actually creeps me out that the left seems to want there to be some government functionary who would have the job of determining who is or is not the press. Next up we would have that gov't functionary deciding who would be protected as 'press' under the first ammendment. I think that is a very bad plan. All ammendments apply to all citizens. If I say I am press, and I am disbursing my views or experiences - then I am the press.

When liberals are outraged ... (Below threshold)

When liberals are outraged at anything it is good. having a "reporter" aska question from the right that might actually agree with the presidents position is fine... unless some "obejective" journalist can explain to me why agreeing with a postion that the administration takes is wrong and should never happen.

PS. this subject is what my Cartoon Contest is all about, I take the worst White house question of the week and give it a better answer! you too can participate.. so hit the link!

Sorry, JP2. I just looked ... (Below threshold)
Webster:

Sorry, JP2. I just looked at talonnews.com, and guess what I read there? News. Printing news actually appears to be the mission of the organization. News. Organization. Put it all together, whether you like them or not, and you get news organization.

Oooeee, yummy, free brunch!... (Below threshold)
BR:

Oooeee, yummy, free brunch! I love trolls for breakfast.

Jp2 says: Talon is not a... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

Jp2 says: Talon is not a news organization, hence no pass. got to get facts.

Getting lectured about "got to get facts" from people so obviously devoid of them gets tiring. Gannon was not the only person from a questionable news organization who received passes. The example I gave previously was that of Mokhiber.

If you guys aren't willing to do anything except walk in circles and blather the same nonsense, please quit wasting everybody else's time. For anybody who has actually gotten the facts it would be obvious that the temporary passes were pretty easy to get (you basically just had to list a supposed news organization, as did both Gannon and Mohkiber). Permanent passes are harder, as has been well documented already.

In terms of gay-bashing... WTF do you think that the left-wing blogs were bringing up gay prostitution? Because they thought it was complementary? GMAFB.

Yes you can definitely find right-winged bigots who are gay bashers. There are also right-wingers who oppose special status for gays without being gay bashers (GWB is an example).

But you are a f'n retard if you think that only right wingers are bigots. Take your old buddy Howard Dean and his recent shoe-leather-gnawing comment about Republicans, blacks and hotel staff. If Bush had made this comment, you guys would be going for his head, instead of appointing him to run your party.

the spiritual leader of ... (Below threshold)

the spiritual leader of the GOP, the Rev. Jerry Falwell

Golly. I think I missed one of the meetings. When did that appointment happen?

Who's the spiritual leader of the Democratic Party? Al Franken?

The easy solution to this, ... (Below threshold)
Headzero:

The easy solution to this, which would make the left climb up the walls and start chanting 'facist state' is to simply publicly disclose all information of personal background checks of anyone wanting access to the press room, and start with those already there. If those that already have access do not want this type of information released about them then they should immeadiately resign their press pass.

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Eveyone is hiding something, 99% of which is no one elses business and doesn't effect who they can do their job. Someone will find fault with something about someone else if presented with a laundry list to choose from in order to forward their own position. Can anyone who says that Gannon was a risk or uncapable of doing his job as a reporter stand up to the scutiny that he was been publicly subjected to? I doubt it.

Talon is not a news orga... (Below threshold)
Gannon Who?:

Talon is not a news organization, hence no pass. got to get facts.

PWOGRESSIVES DEMAND THE REPEAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT -- READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Look, moonbats, whether you like it or not, Talon News is protected by the First Amendment, which encompasses the freedom of the press, which encompasses, the rights to publish and gather news.

You keep calling for state action interference with Talon's First Amendment rights. It's against the law, moonbats.

You know, the story here is... (Below threshold)
Webster:

You know, the story here is how the Left furiously tries to make something out of nothing. Even the MSM know there is nothing here else they would be all over it. Lefty bloggers, much to their chagrin, are redundant news outlets as their views are already inordinately expressed in the MSM. Righty blogs have all sorts of stories that MSM doesn't report because of their bias.

Pity the poor leftys. Trying to manufacture a story out of something the MSM wouldn't touch is kind of like what Dan Rather did using phony documents when no one else would use such poor judgment. There is nothing there.

Headzero, exactly my though... (Below threshold)
BR:

Headzero, exactly my thought too. But let's allow the left to show us how even-handed they can be: let all those who exposed Gannon, make a list of ALL White House press corps reporters and do the same investigations of ALL of them. The left has suddenly become so security conscious - let them do it! Since the majority of WH press corps are on the left, I can assure you, we won't hear peep!

But here's a challenge to Clive Tolson, JP2 and all the bloggers on the left - let's see you do it!

It actually creeps me ou... (Below threshold)
julie:

It actually creeps me out that the left seems to want there to be some government functionary who would have the job of determining who is or is not the press. Next up we would have that gov't functionary deciding who would be protected as 'press' under the first ammendment. I think that is a very bad plan.

Got that right, liberty. It make me think of the old soviet union and blocs and China. Layers and layers of corrupt functionaries. Someone recently quiped how the left longs for the comradery of the Long March. Boy, he hit the nail on the head, too.

We're just going to have to... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

We're just going to have to chalk these lefties that still insist that there's a story here up in the column with the same ones that still believe that the TANG papers weren't forgeries. Tin-foil asshatted liberals, the worst kind....

RE: Clive Tolson's post (Fe... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Clive Tolson's post (February 20, 2005 01:15 PM)

HA! "Clive Tolson's post" - now that is rich. I kill myself sometimes.

Clive,

You are now guilty of plagiarism. You took my (AnonymousDrivel) sarcastic retort from this Wizbang/Gannon thread without proper attribution, verbatim, sans creative content of your own, and adopted it as your own work.

Well done, Clive "Hack" Tolson (heretofore referred to as the Plagiarist).

So would you care to address the question entertained in my original post before your fine, out-of-context editing?

PS - Are you a member of the MSM? You seem to be following some particularly nefarious habits.

"Who's the spiritual leader... (Below threshold)
Just Me`:

"Who's the spiritual leader of the Democratic Party? Al Franken?"

Well I was sort of going for Reverend Al, but that one may have been a self appointment.

RE: Webster's post (Februar... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Webster's post (February 20, 2005 01:32 PM)

I urge you to follow the entire original Wizbang/Gannon thread in my post above to get the context of my summary and the silliness of it all. Don't let the Plagiarist detract you from the main point.

I don't think clive has the... (Below threshold)
julie:

I don't think clive has the courage to answer you, AD.

I really do not think they ... (Below threshold)
Theadosa:

I really do not think they were gay bashing at all.

The bigger question is, do you all, the alleged level headed party of Conservatives, want an ex male-whore who was impersonating an American serviceman sitting in close proximity to the President of the United States without credentials?

Not to mention a income tax dodger as well? Shameful.

Honestly-as long as the "ex... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Honestly-as long as the "ex" part is "ex" I really don't care. Everyone has skeletons in their closet, and everyone has made some bad choices. I don't know that it should neccessarily prevent somebody from their job.

If he is currently doing it, then let the cops investigate and let the chips fall.

As for credentials and all that, until one of you liberals tell me you have examined the pasts and private affairs of every reporter who gets a day pass, then the rest of your argument is crap. I am betting that you will find some equally awful skeletons in at least some of those reporters.

And see the other discussion for why the government, the WH and liberals shouldn't be in the business of defining who is and isn't a journalist. Talk about fascism-why don't we just cancel the first amendment while you are enjoying your little witch hunt.

Theodosa: No, the ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Theodosa:

No, the bigger question is whether we want to define who is, and who is not, a journalist/publisher, which is in direct conflict with the First Amendment and USSC law. And whether we want to perform extensive background checks and make determinations of who is “moral” enough to be a journalist.

Now, it is clear you do want to do these things. So, please explain to us how you are going to pull it off legally?

Frank L wrote:<br... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Frank L wrote:

The idea that news is supposed to somehow be completely objective is the Big Myth. I trust reporters about as much as I trust used car salesmen. Caveat emptor!

Very well said Frank. It's our job to think for ourselves, not someone else's.

Headzero wrote:

Can anyone who says that Gannon was a risk or uncapable of doing his job as a reporter stand up to the scutiny that he was been publicly subjected to? I doubt it.

I doubt it too. I read way too many sites that were really going after Gannon no holds barred, saying that anything they could come up with was justfiable in the quest to bring him down...which I think is bullshit. It was character assassination, and a severely disagree with how many people handled this whole thing.

I still think that the Gannon story didnt amount to much, so I agree with you Paul. Basically the main argument is that he was biased, and maybe a sub-par reporter. Big deal. There was no reason to go after the guy like that, to tear him apart, and to make an issue of his personal life.

I was actually really surprised to see some of those sites making such a big deal about Gannon's personal life. I was pissed. I thought it showed a lack of class, to say the least, and too much concern with making political gain at all costs.

RE: julie's post (February ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: julie's post (February 20, 2005 03:47 PM)

Maybe. We shall see.

At any rate he needs to grow a pair because he violated one of the singular most important tenets of writing. I dislike being quite so hostile about this, but this is an exchange of ideas via blogs where integrity matters. If he wants to be considered for his thoughts, he better make damn well sure they are his own. If they are not, then he should reference the original author particularly when the violation is so egregious; otherwise, he should not be taken seriously whether one considers his other thoughts (hijacked or original) as nutty or legitimate. That's not to say that my post was particularly insightful or informative. Some might have thought it stunk; however, the Plagiarist thought it was useful enough to twist without changing a comma (or correcting a misspelling) when it fit his perverted manipulation. About that he has earned a rebuke.

Rant off.

we need to move on from the... (Below threshold)
Travis:

we need to move on from the the stupid gannon non news.

RE: Travis's post (February... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Travis's post (February 20, 2005 04:56 PM)
we need to move on from the the stupid gannon non news.

In many ways, I concur. In the realm of media bias and access to information, our pixels might be better used discussing Eason Jordon's Davos statements regarding his assertion/backtracking on American soldiers targeting media and the concomitant response by CNN to the recorded session. Perhaps that has been covered enough too even though the masses have still not been witness to the factual evidence.

Oops. Eason Jordan.<... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Oops. Eason Jordan.

Sorry... I've been... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

Sorry...

I've been over at AMERICAblog">http://www.americablog.org">AMERICAblog conversing with people who are not lying hypocrites, hiding out in a Conservative comment thread too gutless to put their 'spin' to the test.

Webster, julie, GW, Bullwinkle, why don't you guys go try your convoluted arguments out over in one of those comment threads? You've had practice smacking me around, time to step out of your bubble!!

See ya there...

Clive "Plagiarist" Tolson, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Clive "Plagiarist" Tolson, you forgot about me, again.

And I said "needs to grow a pair" - not look at 'em. :)

I don't have any problem fi... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I don't have any problem finding more than my fair share of idiots right here, why would I go to their breeding grounds? I'm not gutless, I just don't like the feeling that I need a penicillin shot and a quick dip in a pool of hydrogen peroxide I get when I go to liberal sites. If they are so brave why the hell don't they come here?

I would think that posting ... (Below threshold)
Lepuchica:

I would think that posting pictures of oneself naked on the internet and offering to fuck other men for money should disqualify anyone (journalists included) from accessing/plying one's trade in the people's Whitehouse. Play reporter somewhere else 'Jeff.'

I would think that posti... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I would think that posting pictures of oneself naked on the internet and offering to fuck other men for money should disqualify anyone (journalists included) from accessing/plying one's trade in the people's Whitehouse. Play reporter somewhere else 'Jeff.'

Gay Bashing? Why would anyone say the liberals are gay bashing?

"I would think that posting... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"I would think that posting pictures of oneself naked on the internet and offering to fuck other men for money should disqualify anyone (journalists included) from accessing/plying one's trade in the people's Whitehouse. "

Posting pictures of myself naked on the net isn't something I would choose to do, but I hardly makes a person a threat to anyone, if they are given a press pass. There are plenty of libertarians and liberals who believe prostitution isn't a threat to anyone (and I actually agree as far as being an actual threat to people, even if I don't approve of the occupation and think it can cause harm in other areas).

At this point Gannon was never charged with prostitiution, and I haven't seen much evidence that he is currently engaging in the behavior. If he is, then let the law deal with it, but there are men currently in congress who have done far worse in the area of morals and even legal ethics, than what you are reaming this guy for.

So I guess, tell me exactly what threat Gannon is to anyone in the white house, even if he is a male prostitute being paid by other men for sex? Or is it just the legal issue you are offended by? Well lets go hunt down every reporter granted a press pass that has ever broken a law, and deny them passes as well.

RE: Lepuchica's post (Febru... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Lepuchica's post (February 20, 2005 07:00 PM)
...should disqualify anyone (journalists included) from accessing/plying one's trade in the people's Whitehouse.
[Emphasis ADriveler]

At least you are treating everyone equally.

So let's push the envelope a bit. What if a representative from Las Vegas' Bunny Ranch, acting as regional advocate for the industry's legal and civic concerns and totally within her right to inquire, asks policy questions of the administration pertinent to her status and those of her union or industry. Should she be escorted out of the press room? Out of the hall? Out of the building? Out of the city? Is she more qualified because she is heterosexual? Is she more qualified because she was upfront about her "business"? Remember that she probably has a website with lots of questionable displays and does things for men for money.

I'm not advocating the vocation, but she certainly has the right as a legal citizen to ask questions that influence her life and those of others who share the same lifestyle. Maybe, as appointed/elected advocate, she publishes a newsletter and distributes it all over the state. Still not qualified? What if she was a 3rd year liberal arts major specializing in Journalism and minoring in contemporary dance who was only prostituting to pay for college? Still no?

Isn't it interesting that t... (Below threshold)
peapies:

Isn't it interesting that the left seems to suddenly care about security clearances and sexual conduct? uhmmm Clinton (Craig Livingstone) uhmmm

This is HIGHlarious...Sexual McCarthyism, discrimination, prejudice...

You just can't make this shit up. The pretzel twists and hypocrisy is PRICELESS!!!

Gays should be allowed in the military but not in the White House Press Corps according to left. I love it!!!!!

Wonder what the story would be if the WH did deny Gannon/Gurkett or whatever his name is, based on his sexual past! Oh the horrors.

What a sorry bunch of losers, alas, an exposed bunch of sexual identity hating losers, but loosers nonetheless.

Well, JUST ME, it's exactly... (Below threshold)
wfgn:

Well, JUST ME, it's exactly what I would have said if I had the ability to write English so nicely. I'm new here, but I'll stay (xml)

Clive: As already stated, w... (Below threshold)
julie:

Clive: As already stated, why go to other websites when you people always come here? I mean my God, look at the number of comments! You've been swarming this place nonstop. Oh, and AD asked you a question. Don't pretend you didn't read it. At least have the courtsey of apologizing.

Lepuchica: Once again, tell me under what authority do you have the right to suspend someone's 1rst Amend. rights? Under what authority does the Whitehouse have the right to suspend Talon News & their employee's 1rst Amend. rights?

Because you "think" it should disqualify someone isn't going to with stand constitutional scrutiny. So, either admit you want to suspend the first amendment or shut up.

Isn't it interesting tha... (Below threshold)
julie:

Isn't it interesting that the left seems to suddenly care about security clearances

Yeah, considering the number of times they called for Bush to be assasinated!

JulieI was think of ... (Below threshold)
Peapies:

Julie
I was think of that slob Craig Livingstone...but you of course made a brilliant point! Thanks

Ah, you all seem to have dr... (Below threshold)
Scaredy Cat:

Ah, you all seem to have driven away poor Clive by your ruthless determination to address the facts, correct false information, and call him on stealing other people's work. What meanies.

I'm late to the show, but I wanted to point out that if by merely discussing it Wizbang makes this Gannon thing a story, then J.'s cat is a huge story, as is some blonde bimbo's cell phone.

julie, I was thinking the s... (Below threshold)

julie, I was thinking the same thing. what? Are they worried for the President's safety???? LOL!
What a joke. Like I posted on another site. If we start a witchhunt like this on every reporter from the white house from Bush to Clinton to Reagan, we would probably find a whole mess of nasty things. So , the left can just give it a rest. These guys aren't running for office and the media lost credibility a long time ago.

"julie, I was thinking the ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"julie, I was thinking the same thing. what? Are they worried for the President's safety?"

I am wondering what threat they actually think a prostitute poses? Other than the fact that in most jurisdictions it is illegal, I just don't rank prostitutes up there with people who pose a real threat to the president or society.

I just don't rank prosti... (Below threshold)
julie:

I just don't rank prostitutes up there with people who pose a real threat to the president or society.

Somebody please explain to the moonbats that:
JG's 8 1/2 " DOES NOT FIRE REAL BULLETS!

So you post in a l... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So you post in a left-wing echo chamber. Good for you. I thought the left might realize that what they hear on their sites is not necessarily the reality for the country.

Well, if it's like Kos, they'd be banned for saying something contradictory.
-=Mike

RE: julie's post (February ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: julie's post (February 20, 2005 10:16 PM)
Somebody please explain to the moonbats that:
JG's 8 1/2 " DOES NOT FIRE REAL BULLETS!

So in other words, are you saying he's firing blanks? That's not very nice. ;)

I suggest that every time t... (Below threshold)
Mark:

I suggest that every time the Lefty bloggers show their hypocrisy by complaining about something that they would complain just as loudly about the opposite as in: "OMG they let a Gay Escort into a press briefing" vs "OMG they stopped a Gay reporter from going to a press briefing" or "The President said 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas' he's out of touch" vs "Bush said 'Merry Christmas' - THEOCRACY!" - we just respond by saying "Guckert". A secondary definition could be "PIG IN A POKE" unless of course any of those lefty bloggers were ever his clients when he was a Gay Escort then it would be "A POKE IN A...." well you get the idea. Sorry I couldn't resist.


Isn't it interesting tha... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Isn't it interesting that the left seems to suddenly care about security clearances

Yeah, considering the number of times they called for Bush to be assasinated!

Julie, which people on the left who called for Bush's assasination are now concerned about security clearances?

How many writers for the Onion get WH passes?

RE: mantis's post (February... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: mantis's post (February 21, 2005 03:43 PM)
Julie, which people on the left who called for Bush's assasination are now concerned about security clearances?

Julie might have been trying to be gracious and merely tag them (whoever they are) as hypocrites as opposed to assassin advocates. But we can always return to the original assumption that those on the Left that wanted Bush assassinated still want him assassinated and would gladly exclude security checks and would, if possible, recruit the unhinged and hand out Uzis. Would that provide more comfort to the argument? [Now where's that "evil grin" emoticon?]

How many writers for the Onion get WH passes?
The Onion is a comedy outfit (mind you, a brilliantly terrific one) and does not desire, as far as I'm aware, a real Q&A with the President. Your argument is one of apples and oranges. However, should they want access, they deserve every opportunity to get a day pass just like any other journalist. They may even be called to pose a question though that is unlikely. As such it seems much more efficient for their mission to read the transcript, view the tape, and editorialize as appropriate.

Hey Mantis since you are he... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Hey Mantis since you are here why don't you answer my question.

Exactly what risk does a prostitute pose to the president in the briefing room?

Just Me,I think a pr... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Just Me,
I think a prostitute in the briefing room poses no real threat or risk to the president or anyone else. As far as I know Gannon was not convicted of any criminal behavior relating to prostitution (or anything else for that matter), and the fact that he had once maintained a website should not preclude him from access. Sorry, I can't defend anyone who says a prostitute is a risk. An embarassment? Sure, but not a risk. I do think, however, that the quality of his questions and the nature of his employer do beg the question, why was this guy given access so often and for so long (including before Talon news even existed). I've been hearing stories lately about how difficult it is for reporters from other small organizations (arguably more legitimate than Talon) to get into the briefing room. I think the sex crap is diverting all the attention from what may be a legit story. However I do not think a website constitutes "private life" and by drawing attention to it others are somehow invading Gannon's privacy. They are, however, following an irrellevant lead.

It wasn't his personal life... (Below threshold)
afriend:

It wasn't his personal life--being a prostitute was his business. He continued to do it while also posing as a reporter in the White House pressroom. He also received scoops that he then fed to others--why?

There's a difference. And thank god he wasn't a Timothy McVeigh, which he might well have been. I think you might be singing a different tune then.

Sorry AnonymousDrivel,... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

Sorry AnonymousDrivel,

For not responding earlier to your outrage! I was over at AMERICAblog waiting for julie and GW to show. Guess they can talk the talk here, but...

Now, I don't even consider them my equal, a worthy adversary. Cause just like you AD, I come here to debate, vastly outnumbered, fending off vitriol, hypocrisy and distortions - but, I hold my own.

Of course, it helps to have truth on your side.

As for your scurrilous accusations of plagiarism - bite me! I've only completed my first week at Talon News 'Journalist' Training School, and I only know how to 'cut & paste'! Most of the 'sessions' have been held in a local bathhouse, and it's trouble enough trying to keep my towel tied around my waist!

Posted by: Clive "Plagiaris... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Posted by: Clive "Plagiarist" Tolson at February 20, 2005 06:15 PM

Your post started off well enough with the simple "Sorry..." (which I would have accepted with admitted reticence) but deteriorated from there.

This was the best apology you could come up with in about a day and a half [your last visit to this thread: Clive Tolson at February 20, 2005 06:15 PM] and well after the offense? You divert attention and refer to julie and GW - wholly irrelevent to the issue at hand. Next you try to patronize me with some nonsense about debating skills and "worthy" adversaries. Next you call my "accusation" "scurrilous", request that I "bite [you]", and change the topic again to incorporate the gay innuendo meme.

That's one twisted apology. You should have stayed true to your comment that "it helps to have truth on your side" before padding your defense.

You plagiarized, tried to weasel out of the shame, and somehow managed to blame others for your transgression. Color me unimpressed. Your moniker still stands.

I understand that you put yourself in an uncomfortable and embarrassing situation, and I know that it's sometimes difficult to right a wrong. It's just that you seem to have exacerbated the mistake.

Seriously. What if the shoe were on the other foot and I plagiarized your statements and twisted them to mean the exact opposite of what they intended to illustrate? Then what if I ignored you when my offense was discovered? Then what if I presented the same "thoughtful" (my quotes) response to you that you presented to me? Would you accept that?

I'd wager from your online persona that you would not. You can wager from my online persona that I will not. We'll let the readers decide who is being fair, honest, conciliatory, and reasonable and who is not. Anyone want to take that wager? Clive, I suggest you stand pat.

As far as I'm concerned AD,... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

As far as I'm concerned AD,

Then your Lefty friends digging up dirt on Jeff Gannon are plagiarists, too! Media Matters lifted whole sections of his plagiarism of WH briefing memos - that ain't right!

Btw, what I wrote was just an opinion, and not an apology. Furthermore, anything written on the web is in the public domain. How do I know you didn't copy someone else?

You don't come across as the type that can be so intuitive and insightful...

RE: Clive "Fill-in-the-Blan... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Clive "Fill-in-the-Blank" Tolson's post (February 23, 2005 01:45 AM)
...anything written on the web is in the public domain.

Ah ha ha! And you probably think all software and music accessible by network connection is free too. Clueless freeloader perchance? Just askin'.

Try extended duplication of works of well known authors or other online commercial entities and test that hypothesis. "Fair Use" provides some cover but there is a limit. If you had integrity, you'd recognize the difference.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy