Another White House Press Scandal

  1. Gannongate: Who is Jeff Gannon and how did he gain access to the White House?

    On the surface, this is a scandal made in tabloid heaven: A gay prostitute with a fake name and zero credentials poses as a Bush-adording journalist and gains plum access to White House press events. Dig a little deeper and find Jeff Gannon/aka James Guckert may be linked to the outing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame. Additionally, he seems to have had inside information to several major events of the Bush White House before they were announced to the media, even though he worked for a very small, decidely biased internet news source. How did this guy, who incidentally owes upwards of $20K in back taxes and appeared naked on multiple websites, make it through the security screenings and background checks to sit in the West Wing and accuse Congressional Democrats of "being divorced from reality?"

    On the heels of the Armstrong Williams incident, press accountability and the Bush White House seem to be incompatible. Admittedly, the Gannon scandal makes the payoff of Williams seem almost palatable in comparison. The whole thing is so sleazy it makes me cringe, but at the same time, this is the same administration that successfully ran a campaign of "moral values" with a clear anti-gay message. Hypocrisy of this magnitude can't go unnoticed IMO, nor can the potential that this man is somehow linked to someone inside the White House.

    Read more for yourself:
  2. 13 Comments

  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    OH no say it's not so!
  4. by   Mkue
    The "socks" Berger scandal was more exciting IMO .. it's not everyday someone stuffs classified docs in their pants and socks :chuckle
  5. by   Elenaster
    Quote from Tigerlily
    The "socks" Berger scandal was more exciting IMO .. it's not everyday someone stuffs classified docs in their pants and socks :chuckle
    Those claims were all unsubstantiated and officials investigating found none of the documents to be missing. The Wall Street Journal cleared that up last month.

    In any event, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original topic.
  6. by   Mkue
    Quote from Elenaster
    Those claims were all unsubstantiated and officials investigating found none of the documents to be missing. The Wall Street Journal cleared that up last month.

    In any event, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original topic.
    fftopic: You have to admit it was kind of funny.. eye witnesses saw Berger stuff documents in his pants and socks....sorry, saw the word scandal and immediately thought of Berger..

    okay.. back to original topic..carry on..
  7. by   SmilingBluEyes
    so much scandal in government today, it makes me wonder if it's even worth it to vote frankly. both sides make me want to toss up. But vote, I do. And I now have the right to complain, rofl.
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    Wonder why the "liberal" media hasn't jumped on this?
  9. by   SmilingBluEyes
    too busy covering UN scandals, I imagine.
  10. by   SharonH, RN
    Isn't that something? It's so funny because at the last press conference, he lobbed this really partisan question at Bush, I forget what it was about but it was so clear that he was lapping up to Bush and trying to "save him" from the other members of the media who were doing their job and asking some real questions. My girlfriends and I were so stunned we laughed and said that he was some kind of plant for the White House. Who knew?
  11. by   Mkue
    Quote from spacenurse
    Wonder why the "liberal" media hasn't jumped on this?
    I think the media might still be in shock that the elections in Iraq were so successful, perhaps they are waiting patiently to jump on some bad news post election.

    Just my
  12. by   dphrn
    Quote from spacenurse
    Wonder why the "liberal" media hasn't jumped on this?
    Let's hope they are checking all the facts and finding the whole truth to this story. I will sit on this one before I comment...
  13. by   pickledpepperRN

    Saturday, February 19, 2005

    NEW YORK The prayers of those hoping that real television news might take its cues from Jon Stewart were finally answered on Feb. 9, 2005. A real newsman borrowed a technique from fake news to deliver real news about fake news in prime time.
    .Let me explain.

    .On "Countdown," a nightly news hour on MSNBC, the anchor, Keith Olbermann, led off with a bit in the classic style of Stewart's classic "Daily Show": a rapid-fire montage of sharply edited video bites illustrating the apparent idiocy of those in Washington. In this case, the eight clips stretched over a year in the White House briefing room - from February 2004 to late last month - and all featured a reporter named "Jeff." In most of them, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, says "Go ahead, Jeff," and "Jeff" responds with a softball question intended not to elicit information but to boost President George W. Bush and smear his political opponents. In the last clip, "Jeff" is quizzing the president himself, in his first post-inaugural press conference of Jan. 26. Referring to Harry Reid and Hillary Rodham Clinton, "Jeff" asks, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
    .If we did not live in a time when the news culture itself is divorced from reality, the story might end there: "Jeff," you'd assume, was a lapdog reporter from a legitimate, if right-wing, news organization like Fox, and you'd get some predictable yuks from watching a compressed video anthology of his kissing up to power. But as Olbermann explained, "Jeff Gannon," the star of the montage, was a newsman no more real than a "Senior White House Correspondent" like Stephen Colbert on "The Daily Show." Yet the video broadcast by Olbermann was not fake. "Jeff" was in the real White House, and he did have those exchanges with the real McClellan and the real Bush.
    ."Jeff Gannon's" real name is James Guckert. His employer was a Web site called Talon News, staffed mostly by volunteer Republican activists. Media Matters for America, the liberal press monitor that has done the most exhaustive research into the case, discovered that Talon's "news" often consists of recycled Republican National Committee and White House press releases, and its content frequently overlaps with another partisan site, GOPUSA, with which it shares its owner, a Texas delegate to the 2000 Republican convention. Nonetheless, for nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Olbermann's show, he "was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership."
    .How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day. Though McClellan told Editor & Publisher magazine that he didn't know until recently that Guckert was using an alias, Bruce Bartlett, a White House veteran of the Reagan-Bush I era, wrote on the nonpartisan journalism Web site Romenesko that "if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." (Otherwise, it would be a rather amazing post-9/11 security breach.)

    .By my count, "Jeff Gannon" is now at least the sixth "journalist"to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's "marriage" initiatives. The other four have played real newsmen on TV. Before Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers - the Woodward and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports pretending to "sort through the details" of the administration's Medicare prescription-drug plan in 2004. Such "reports," some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal "covert propaganda" by the Government Accountability Office.

    .The money that paid for both the Ryan-Garcia news packages and the Armstrong Williams contract was siphoned through the same huge public relations firm, Ketchum Communications, which itself filtered the funds through subcontractors. A new report by Congressional Democrats finds that Ketchum has received $97 million of the administration's total $250 million PR kitty, of which the Williams and Ryan-Garcia scams would account for only a fraction. We have yet to learn precisely where the rest of it ended up.

    .Even now, we know that the fake news generated by the six known shills is only a small piece of the administration's overall propaganda effort. Bush wasn't entirely joking when he called the notoriously meek March 6, 2003, White House press conference on the eve of the Iraq invasion "scripted" while it was still going on. Everything is scripted.

    .There were the pre-fab "Ask President Bush" town hall-style meetings during last year's campaign. A Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence, intended to provide propagandistic news items, some of them possibly false, to foreign news media was shut down in 2002 when it became a political liability. But much more quietly, another Pentagon propaganda arm, the Pentagon Channel, has recently been added as a free channel for American viewers of the Dish Network.

    .It is a brilliant strategy. When the Bush administration isn't using taxpayers' money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government.

    .Conservatives, who supposedly deplore postmodernism, are now welcoming in a brave new world in which it's a given that there can be no empirical reality in news, only the reality you want to hear (or they want you to hear). For a case in point, you needed only switch to CNN on the day after Olbermann did his fake-news-style story on the fake reporter in the White House press corps.

    ."Jeff Gannon" had decided to give an exclusive TV interview to a sober practitioner of real news, Wolf Blitzer. Given this journalistic opportunity, the anchor asked questions almost as soft as those "Jeff" himself had asked in the White House. Blitzer didn't question Guckert's outrageous assertion that he adopted a fake name because "Jeff Gannon is easier to pronounce and easier to remember." (Is "Jeff" easier to pronounce than his real first name, Jim?) Blitzer never questioned Gannon/Guckert's assertion that Talon News "is a separate, independent news division" of GOPUSA.

    .The "real" news from CNN was no news at all, but it's not as if any of its competitors did much better. The "Jeff Gannon" story got less attention than another media frenzy - that set off by the veteran news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned from CNN after speaking recklessly at a panel discussion at Davos, where he apparently implied, at least in passing, that American troops deliberately targeted reporters. Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances? As Olbermann demonstrated when he borrowed a sharp "Daily Show" tool to puncture the "Jeff Gannon" case, the only road back to reality may be to fight fake with fake.
  14. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from spacenurse
    Wonder why the "liberal" media hasn't jumped on this?
    Perhaps because they don't like largely covering scandals that involve their own establishment? I'm not just alking "liberal" media here - I'm talkgn media in general.

    Kinda like how Rather-gate wasn't all that big.

    The big-shot editors don't want the public to suspect that they can be as crooked as the politicians - that money still talks and the bottom line means more than the truth. They rather close ranks and pretend to ignore it than face the reality and deal with it.

    We've had a whole host of corrupt journalists - what was the name of the NYTimes reporter caught for plagiarising?