INDCJournal: Leftie Pundits Ruthlessly Out Partisan Conservative Journalist: Feel Proud of Themselves <strong><em>(UPDATED with Analysis of the More Serious Charges)</em></strong>

« Ultimate Fighting Championship #51: "Revenge of the Bloggers" | Main | Great Quote »

February 09, 2005

Leftie Pundits Ruthlessly Out Partisan Conservative Journalist: Feel Proud of Themselves (UPDATED with Analysis of the More Serious Charges)

Posted by Bill

My reaction to this Jeff Gannon "scandal:" "So?"

Brainster boils it down:

What it's really about? The liberals like to claim that it's hypocrisy, but you know how that goes; if you're a liberal gay journalist people would be horrified at the notion of "outing" you to the world like this, but if you're a conservative gay journalist it's quite alright. This is not about gay or straight, this is about liberal or conservative.
And who are they fired up about being gay? No offense to Mr Gannon, but he's a nobody. Hey, so am I for that matter. So if you're a little guy, and you're gay, and you're conservative... well, according to the tolerant left, you're fair game. And not only that, but worthy of being swarmed by the biggest bloggers on the left for signs of homosexuality.

The fact that the guy used a nom de plume on his press credentials is probably noteworthy (UPDATE - Untrue - "White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Guckert ... was cleared on a day-by-day basis to attend briefings and used his real name."), but I'm unaware of how his sexual orientation or personal life is some "gotcha" moment.

Come to think of it, the depraved triumphalism by these leftie bloggers sort of explains the need for a pseudonym.

UPDATE: GayPatriot makes a good point:

But what really troubles me... is the automatic jump to conclusion about people based on innuendo and rumor-mongering (by John Aravosis and Michael Rogers). This seems to be the same type of "outing" campaign, just with different sets of circumstances. To what end is "exposing" this guy going to advance the liberal cause besides embarassing the President which seems to be their only talking point lately.

... but I question part of this:

That being said, if this guy was in fact a job-drifter and possible male prostitute (!!!) then what on earth was the White House thinking in giving him a press pass and access to the White House in this day and age of terrorism?

The "job-drifter" label seems to be based off of snarky blogger commentary on the man's published bio that lists a variety of past occupations; I don't see how that's relevant. If the guy was a prostitute, the illegal activity should certainly invalidate him for security credentials: very newsworthy. But if he merely owned porn URL's, I'm still not sure how this is highly relevant, except from the standpoint of titallation and political embarrassment of a straight-laced conservative administration - if someone pulled strings to get him access.

The guy is not a very notable figure. Perhaps I'm missing something.

UPDATE: Talk about jumping the gun! Democratic Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (apparently fresh from reading Kos), issues a press release demanding a White House explanation and repeating the most damaging, uconfirmed charges:

According to several credible reports, "Mr. Gannon" has been repeatedly credentialed as a member of the White House press corps by your office and has been regularly called upon in White House press briefings by your Press Secretary Scott McClellan, despite the fact evidence shows that "Mr. Gannon" is a Republican political operative (What does this mean? -- Ed), uses a false name, has phony or questionable journalistic credentials (Again, what does this mean? By what standard? -- Ed), is known for plagiarizing much of the "news" he reports, and according to several web reports, may have ties to the promotion of the prostitution of military personnel.

This is premature. Not to mention politically ineffective.

UPDATE: Full disclosure, I have a very informal (unpaid) relationship with Rightalk Radio (where Gannon had a show - they are also one of my advertisers through BlogAds), though that has no conscious impact on my analysis of this case.

UPDATE: If true, this charge regarding plagiarism is serious and certainly newsworthy:

Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon, who accused his colleagues in the press corps of "work[ing] off of the talking points" provided by Democrats, has used Bush administration and Republican National Committee (RNC) documents and releases in his Talon "news reports" verbatim and without attribution. In at least two of his articles, Gannon lifted more than half of the text directly from GOP "fact sheets." Moreover, as Media Matters for America has pointed out, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh proclaimed that Gannon repeated a fabricated assertion of Limbaugh's in a question he asked of President Bush at a January 26 press conference.

UPDATE: This long, involved Kos post discusses how Gannon may have received leaked classified documents regarding Joe Wilson's wife. Most of the Kossacks have a problem with the fact that Talon News "push(es) the partisan politics meme" in White House press conferences. This is a subjective argument about ideology that left and right bloggers make all the time, and I'm sure they're right about his affinity for rightie talking points, but it's not exactly an "ah-ha!" moment.

Another assertion bandied about is that he was "planted" by the White House. This may or may not be true, but thus far I've seen no one offer any proof.

And the potentially most serious offense (beyond plagiarism) is that Gannon was leaked covert documents (along with Robert Novak) about Valerie Plame (Joe Wilson's wife). Put together with the accusation that he was some sort of White House plant, this paints an insidious picture of conspiracy, propagandizing, ethics violations, etc. INDC commenter "millowent" got me thinking:

this IS the liberal rathergate. If rathergate was sputnik, gannongate is explorer I.
i think the real story about gannon, if it pans out, may have to do with the valerie plame disclosure--why was the memo possibly leaked to him by the WH? and if gannon really was a "plant" at the WH, that would be a huge story.

Yes, if these allegations are true, it would be big. But the first roadblock in this conspiracy is that no one seems to have offered proof that the White House consciously "planted" or initiated Gannon or Talon News's existence - the assertions are all based around "timing" and political associations of Talon News folks (that I've read thus far). Given the precedent of the Armstrong Williams flap, it's possible that this speculation could be correct, but without any proof the assertions are just that - speculation.

The second question is whether Gannon was leaked the documents. As the Kos contributor "spiderleaf" outlines in the Joe Wilson document leak timeline, Gannon never seemed to write about any inside knowledge of the document when or after the story broke. Far down the timeline, "spiderleaf" references an article by Gannon (written months after the story broke) as evidence he was leaked sensitive information:

Except, once Gannon thought the storm had passed, he reveals that he was leaked the memo, or at least told of its contents

Based on these quotes from Gannon's piece (I've duplicated Kos's highlighting):

The classified document that slipped out sometime after the meeting put her name before the public, albeit a small group of inside-the-beltway types, but effectively ended the notion that she was still covert.

"A small group of Beltway types." I'm not sure that this indicates that Gannon's implicating himself.

I raised all of these questions with Wilson in October 2003 in an interview for Talon News. Since I was aware of the INR report, I confronted him about it.

This passage tells us that Gannon was "aware" of the report in October. The report was leaked and written about by Bob Novak in July. By the time Gannon interviewed Wilson in October, the Wall Street Journal had written an overview of the memo earlier in the month - it was common knowledge. I was "aware of the INR report" as well.

And the last, more damning passage:

What is difficult to understand is the reason that the CIA would want to discredit this report. The first clue came when the agents from the FBI came to my home in March 2003 to question me in connection to the leak probe. I was flattered to think that I was important enough to be included among the luminaries like Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews who were also named in a Justice Department subpoena of records from the White House. But most of the questions were about the INR report. They wanted to know where I got it and what I knew about it. Of course, as a journalist there wasn't much I could say without revealing my sources. I'm sure they were not satisfied, but it made me wonder why they were so interested in a document the CIA said was false.

This passage does seem to imply that Gannon was leaked a copy of the report, though he doesn't come out and say it and doesn't stipulate when. But you want my honest opinion? To me it reads like he is bragging to his readers about his stature, making implications to his importance as a "journalist" and "inside the beltway" player. Why? Because if he'd been previously leaked the report, by the information presented in the Kos timeline, he never used any of its information or indicated knowledge that was outside the public domain. The only mention that is supposedly damning (according to Kos) about report details is a paraphrased October repetition of its contents in an interview with Wilson, after the Wall Street Journal had already published the same information.

Why would a low-profile journalist sit on bombshell info? To stay out of jail, perhaps - or because he never had it. The Kossacks could be right about Gannon getting the report - I can't make a judgment either way and the man's own words vaguely imply it - but as of yet, there is no definitive evidence of either the fact that he received classified info or that he was planted by the Bush Administration.

And given the fact that he's a rather minor, minor media player (I'd never even heard of him before last week), I have my doubts. If Talon's existence was a Rovian plot, it was an amateurish Rovian plot. That being said, we'll see what the hounds come up with. If they produce evidence of a conspiracy, it would be a big deal.

Posted by Bill at February 9, 2005 04:31 PM | TrackBack (11)

Comments

You know, I may be married with children, but I'm thinking of a little you, a little me, some cicrus midgets and a vat of Joy-lube.

Whaddaya say?

Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at February 9, 2005 04:52 PM

Is that a proposition? Will Kos find out?

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 9, 2005 05:00 PM

Judging by where Slaughter got her information "a Niagara Falls reporter" I really would question this whole thing.
As she represents the area in which I was born and raised, the local newspaper there is well, let's just say they have a hard time reading the comics let alone get a story straight!

Posted by: TIM C at February 9, 2005 05:12 PM

Thanks for the link, Bill! As best as I can figure out, the left seems to have assumed that Talon News is funded by the Texas GOP, hence the claim that he's an operative of the party. I don't really know the truth of it, or of some of the other wilder charges (like military prostitution).

Posted by: Pat Curley at February 9, 2005 05:16 PM

If the plagiarism charge pans out, he sounds like he's a poor journalist in general. Nail him on this point and release the bipartisan hounds.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at February 9, 2005 05:22 PM

Dan Rather: fake but accurate.
Jeff Gannon: just another conservative hypocrite.
(if that sounded redundant to you, don't worry about not getting the rest of the joke.)

Posted by: tee bee at February 9, 2005 05:41 PM

The libs have blog envy, the poor darlings. Leave them alone, Bill, and let 'em have their little made-up scandal. They want to play, too! ;)

One thing is for sure: they can't do it like conservative bloggers.

Posted by: La_Shawn at February 9, 2005 06:13 PM

They want to play, too!

Ha. This is Atrios's Rathergate.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 9, 2005 06:20 PM

I was debating this with a liberal friend, and there seems to be an effort to tie this together with Armstrong Williams, etc. by suggesting Gannon was an obvious propaganda plant from the White House due to (a) his lack of credentials and (b) his softball questions.

I pointed out that a Rove-ian plot would likely not involve choosing a plant involved in pimping (if those allegations are true) and that (b) is an example of getting sucked into a non causa pro causa fallacy.

Posted by: Hubris at February 9, 2005 06:27 PM

In the following groups of objects, mark the one that DOES NOT BELONG

cup
cat
dog

chair
ice cream
bed

Dan Rather
Eason Jordan
Jeff Gannon
----
Guess we should send dKos, Astrios, et al, back to first grade seeing as they've flunked this test.

Posted by: Darleen at February 9, 2005 09:06 PM

Gays have been pulling this shit for years. They bitch & moan about how intolerant society is, then gleefully attack any gay who disagrees with them, even stooping to these kinds of personal attacks. The man's personal life is of NO relevance, it's just hypocrisy masquerading as politics. But most gays are political adolescent, which is partly why they have no influence. You want to be taken seriously, grow up, learn how to debate the points, and stop being so fucking INTOLERANT

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 9, 2005 09:31 PM

Jeff's right -- malicious outings of gay conservatives seems to be Chapter One of the LeftGay playbook.

Posted by: McGehee at February 9, 2005 10:07 PM

bill, thanks for weighing in on this issue. kos et al. are indeed going a bit overboard, but their "opposition" are 24/7 eason jordan. i'd like some more back and forth. this IS the liberal rathergate. If rathergate was sputnik, gannongate is explorer I.

i think the real story about gannon, if it pans out, may have to do with the valerie plame disclosure--why was the memo possibly leaked to him by the WH? and if gannon really was a "plant" at the WH, that would be a huge story.

the fact that gannon used a pseudonym is bizarre. he claimed in his npr interview that he chose a name with more commercial appeal. it seems the real reason is he wanted to hide his identity is -- I have no idea!! its kind of hard to hide your identity if you are attending daily WH briefings. I can't think of any reason why he (or any other journalist) wouldn't just be himself.

Posted by: milowent at February 10, 2005 01:02 AM

This is one of those, "I-could-care-less" scandals. The guy uses a nome-de-guerre to write under: big deal. Several years ago he - or someone poseing as him - registered some kinky-sounding domains but never never activated them. Again, big deal.

The significance, if any of this is that the Internet is cruel; it chews up false data and spits it back out; it exposes even the *slightest* flaws in a person for all to see. Doesn't matter if you're "somebody" like Dan Rather or a nobody like Bill Gannon; it will get you in the end.

Posted by: Orion at February 10, 2005 02:27 AM

Don't see why the Gannon or who ever he is should have had any trouble gettting credentialed for the White House. What his name may not have been much of a reporter. but the White House press corp standards are low, very low. Terry Moran isn't much of a reporter and Helen Thomas isn't even a reporter at all.

I mean what this Gannon fellow doing wrong that Thomas is doing right>

David

Posted by: David at February 10, 2005 06:42 AM

I wish someone would call lefties on their phony definition of hypocrisy.

For example:
Renouncing white privilege after growing up in it is saintly, but Clarence Thomas is a despicable hypocrite for opposing affirmative action when he himself may have benefited from it.

The accuser in such cases is the hypocrite, not the accused.

Posted by: boris at February 10, 2005 09:04 AM

Isn't Kos treading awfully close to slander & libel here?

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 10, 2005 09:50 AM

Isn't Kos treading awfully close to slander & libel here?

Sure, but many bloggers walk that line, including righties during rathergate. I tried to stay relatively far away from TOO much speculation, largely because there were enough objective facts to deal with.

But the big difference here is the typical Kossack/Willisian/Atrios-like tendency to make conspiratorial speculation that leeches into the leftie groundwater supply as fact.

If they are right - and who knows? - they would have something. But thus far, it's mostly smoke, and it's going to be awful difficult to find the fire, if it exists.

If I were these folks, I'd be more careful with the accusations and assertions until I had a murder weapon. A disclaimer or three would suffice.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 10, 2005 10:16 AM

Interesting update, Bill. What I think you've done is show that if anyone leaked anything to Gannon - he then acted more responsibly with that information than 99.99% of journalists would and have to date.

Could anyone invent a more meaningless "scandal"?

Posted by: Roberts at February 10, 2005 12:12 PM

Darleeen writes: In the following groups of objects, mark the one that DOES NOT BELONG

cup
cat
dog .. does not belong (my cat drinks his milk out of a cup, not a dog)

chair
ice cream
bed .. does not belong (I eat ice cream in my chair, it gets in my beard if I try to eat it in bed).

Dan Rather
Eason Jordan .. does not belong (news executive with a big mouth, who could never possibly be mistaken for a journalist, no matter how poor)
Jeff Gannon

How did I do?

Posted by: Krusty Krab at February 10, 2005 12:32 PM

Jesus, can't the left find something better to do than beat up on Gannon who up until now was practically a nobody, even amongst conservatives. He is obviously being attacked because of his conservative background. Moreover, his apparent homosexuality is being used to belittle him. Leftwing fascism is an irony best served with a twist of homophobia I guess. This whole thing is so contrived it's pathetic.

Posted by: Presstopia at February 10, 2005 01:54 PM

It shows liberal diversity. Having previously shown they have room for anti-Semitism, now they're welcoming homophobia. Let's hope Gannon takes Kos to da bank

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 10, 2005 09:17 PM

Dan Rather: Attributed "attacks" on him pointing out the basis of his story was crudely forged memos to "partisan political operatives"; stonewalled investigation; to this day maintains story was "rock-solid." Huge blow to CBS News' credibility.

Mary Mapes: Chief architect of forged memos. Accepted no blame, still pretends crude forgeries were real and she was a victim. Even bigger blow to CBS News' credibility.

Eason Jordan: Claimed U.S. military targeted journalists. Later claimed that he actually meant someone said the U.S. was targeting journalists (and even sent some newspeople to the back of the cafeteria line! the horror!). Still proudly serving a failing network whose founder compares successful networks to Hitler. It would be a huge blow to CNN's credibility if they had any viewers left who didn't already believe the US military intentionally targets not only journalists but civilians, children, puppies, kittens, stuffed animals, and the handicapped (and all for "fun").

Jeff Gannon: Resigned, immediately, over charges he likes Bush, changed his name, and worked in software. A devastating blow to his dozens of readers and to the credibility of his 3 part-time Web consultants, whose journalistic credibility may be forever shattered.

Posted by: TallDave at February 10, 2005 10:39 PM

beautifulatrocities: From the left's perspective a gay man who is conservative (like blacks who are conservative) exhibits prima facie mental illness.

I also thought GayPatriot made some excellent points about "outing" and raised the only real issue in the story: security risk.

Posted by: TallDave at February 10, 2005 10:56 PM

Gannon?

OMFG!!!!!

THEY GOT GANNON!!!

GANNON!!!!!!!

WE'VE LOST GANNONNNNNNN!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ray Midge at February 11, 2005 01:21 AM

I am sure that I am not alone in this opinion here and that is that I regard Karl Rove as someone far more intelligent and capable than "this" being "a Rovian" masterplot at work (you're right as to the amateurish nature of the whole thing). The very thought of that...it's just, I mean, it is just so TIN FOIL HAT-ESQUE by those who may allude as such.

Posted by: -S- at February 11, 2005 07:07 AM

It also seems very much to me, all things written having been read this morning (as much as I can locate, anyway), to be quite the manufactured expose. As in, it bears a quite elaborately "hey, he's covert over there" quality to it, like the left really, really needed a "Kos Rathergate" and so, hey, there's this...

I wasn't ever quite sold on the original conservativeguy's website "conservativism," but whom am I to judge, just saying that it would not at all surprise me if there was a bit of double indemnity going on here. Worth considering, not that I want to provide any fodder to the miserable KOS, whose site and politics I find to be repulsive. Sorry to be so blunt, opinion here.

Posted by: -S- at February 11, 2005 07:23 AM

No, it's not about "liberal" or "conservative." It's about honesty and dishonesty. It's about competence and incompetence. It's about truth and the "plausible deniability" and spin doctoring that's replaced it. We don't care if Gannon/Guckert likes to smoke the flesh cigar. It's not about that. Nor is it about the Bush Madministration paying/enabling yet another worthless conservative hack to shill their agenda like snake oil. We all know that's how things work in the White House of Sand and Fog.

It's about the hypocrisy of an Administration that had allowed some talentless, gay hack like "Gannon" access to the "President" considering the GOP's past and ongoing track record toward gays. And, if hypocrisy isn't the issue, then how about gross incompetence in matters of security and sourcing information? Pick the lesser of two evils. It's what the GOP is good at, these days, anyway.

And McClellan certainly called Gannon "Jeff" during press conferences, so don't try to pull the wool over our eyes with that crap, pal. McClellan never knew that Gannon's real name was Guckert.

And, in case you still harbor illusions that Jeffy isn't or wasn't a male prostitute, see the photographic evidence here: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html