Friday, February 18, 2005

"Jeff Gannon" and Bush-dynasty government

Okay, the "Jeff Gannon" thing is definitely a big deal. This whole scandal reeks to high heaven.

Joe Conason has been on the case:

Gannon: The early years Salon 02/18/05

Long before "Jeff Gannon" became a household pseudonym in the nation's capital, he had earned considerable recognition among the political elites of South Dakota. During that state's closely contested Senate race last year, the Talon News writer -- whose real name is now known to be James Dale Guckert -- dug his claws deep into Tom Daschle, the former Senate minority leader narrowly defeated by Republican John Thune.

'Liberal' media silent about Guckert saga WorkingforChange.com 02/16/05

Salon's Eric Boehlert and Sidney Blumenthal have also been taking it on.

Midnight Cowboy in the garden of Bush and evil by Sidney Blumenthal Salon 02/17/05

The Bush White House is the most opaque, allowing the least access for reporters, in living memory. All news organizations have significant economic interests subject to government regulation. Every organization seems to be intimidated, and reporters who have done stories the administration finds discomfiting have received threats about their careers. The administration has its own quasi-official state TV network in Fox News; hundreds of right-wing radio shows, conservative newspapers and journals, and Internet sites coordinate with the Republican apparatus.

Lifting the heavy Puritan curtain draping Bush's Washington reveals enlightening scenes of its decadent anthropology. Even as Guckert's true colors were revealed, the administration issued orders that the words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" be removed from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention. But the transparent hypocrisy of conservative "values" hardly deters a ruthless government.

The experiment of inserting an agent directly into the White House press corps was a daring operation. Guckert's "legend," in the language of espionage, was that he was a news director, and his "false flag" was journalism. Until his exposure, this midnight cowboy in the garden of Bush and evil proved marginally useful for the White House. But the affair's longer-run implication is the Republican effort to sideline an independent press and undermine its legitimacy. "Spin" seems too quaint. "In this day and age," said McClellan, waxing philosophical about the Gannon affair, "when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist." The problem is not that the White House press secretary cannot distinguish who is or is not a journalist; it is that there are no journalists, just the gaming of the system for the concentration of power.

"Jeff Gannon's" incredible access by Eric Boehlert Salon 02/17/05

Noting that "Gannon" was allowed in to a White House press briefing in February 2003, Boehlert writes:

But what's significant about the February 2003 date is that Talon did not even exist then. The organization was created in late March 2003, and began publishing online in early April 2003. Gannon, a jack of all trades who spent time in the military as well as working at an auto repair shop (not to mention escorting), has already stated publicly that Talon News was his first job in journalism. That means he wasn't working for any other news outlet in February 2003 when he was spotted by C-Span cameras inside the White House briefing room. And that means Guckert was ushered into the White House press room in February 2003 for a briefing despite the fact he was not a journalist.

Whereas it was once suspected that White House press officials in charge of doling out coveted press passes went easy on Guckert, a Republican partisan working for an amateurish news outlet who would routinely ask softball questions, it now appears those same unnamed White House officials simply ignored all established credential standards -- including detailed security guidelines -- and gave Guckert White House access, even though he had no professional standing whatsoever.

If there seems to be a disproportionate number of Salon references on this, it's because our sad excuse for a press corps is trying to avoid covering it.

The following link is to some original reporting by John Arovosis of AmericaBlog: I don't know his credentials or track record on other stories, but he's done very well so far in digging up material on the "Gannon" story: Gannon reportedly knew about Iraq attack four hours before it happened 02/18/05. According to Arovosis' information, "Gannon" was telling people four hours before Bush's official announcement the he was going to war with Iraq in 2003 that Bush was going to do just that. Inside information? Loose lips, as in the Second World War saying, "loose lips sink ships"? Or a good guess? I mean, at that moment, an announcement by Bush that he was not going to war would have been far more surprising. His post raises some serious questions.

Keep in mind on this one that Arovisis is quoting a single, anonymous source for the main claim in his post. This one is straight blogosphere, not a story with professional journalistic vetting. As much as I badmouth our Potemkin press corps - and "Jeff Gannon" the fake reporter with the fake name is about as Potemkin as it gets - the idea and practice of professional journalism is far from dead, even with the US press.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There's an interesting photo of Bush rubbing a bald man's head on Progressive Review's homepage (www.prorev.com).  Talk about "divorced from reality."

Anonymous said...

Bruce,

I hope your optimism about the survival of prefessional journalism is well-founded.  My own impression is that we are seeing the end of professionalism in every sphere of public life, from medicine to journalism to my own profession of accounting.  

The idealism and integrity needed to sustain professionalism are not in evidence today, with only the rarest and most strikingly quaint exceptions.

What amazes me is that a President whose guiding instincts are proclaimed to be driven by a profound religious devotion should be guilty of so much cynicism.  His spiritual bases should be repelled by tactics that align more clearly with a down-and-dirty "ends justifies all means" philosophy than with anything remotely high-minded.

Perhaps politics is inevitably a dirty game, and perhaps Bush is not unique in this regard.  But I cannot avoid the conclusion that this President has undermined and polarized the culture.  We have been FOX-ified.  Pretend reporters selling fake news to people who want nothing more than Bill O'Reilly and Bugs Bunny.

I remember during the Monica Lewinsky flap how Republicans asked where was the outrage.  Not to make an excuse for Clinton's tawdry behavior, but has the experience of the past four years not been ten times worse for America?

I fear that the failures of our mainstream media and the apparent demise of professional journalism may be permanent and irreparable.  And with all branches of our government under the power of one man who is himself beholden to a coalition of the most anti-democratic and illiberal forces of a theocratic right-wing, the loss of the fourth estate is a terrible blow to the last best hope on earth.

Neil