Daily Kos

Gannongate: A Conspiracy of Silence!

by RobertInWisconsin

Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:43:09 PM PDT

I. Am. Pissed.

Royally.

Really.

I'm glad I didn't give up 4-letter words for Lent.  If you happened to, I'd suggest closing this browser window and averting your eyes.

What in the FUCK is going on here?

Eleven fucking days - 264 hours - since the Gannon story broke the bank and - and - and Where Is Our Fucking Media?

This is a conspiracy of silence, folks.  There is No Other Way around it.  This is complete and utter bullshit.

Since the Gannon story broke, how many various stories have there been in the newswires and in the major dailies?  Thousands.  How many thousands?  Tens, probably.  Do I like to ask, and answer, rhetorical questions?  Certainly.

Now just today, I've seen wire headlines saying things like -

  • Preview of Michael Jackson Strategy
  • Man Who Invented Intermittent Wiper Blades Dies (I shit you not!)
  • Boston Arena May Be Named For Derek Jeter
  • Ice Fishermen Rescued On Lake Erie
  • Squirrel Treated By Animal Therapy Specialists For Seasonal Affective Disorder

Earlier today, five members of the United States Freakin' Senate wrote a letter to the President of the U S of fuckin' A demanding an explanation for The Case Of The Gay Prostitute With No Journalism Background Getting Into the Elite White House Press Corps.

There they are.  There are the signatures -

  • Dick Durbin, the author.
  • Frank Lautenberg, the esteemed senator from Joisey.
  • Harry Reid, the goddam minority leader of the Senate.
  • Edward M. `Ted' Kennedy.   (Yes THAT Edward M. `Ted' Kennedy.)
  • And there's John Kerry.  John Freakin' Kerry!  Remember him?  The Democratic nominee for President who pulled more votes on November 2 than any other Democrat in history?

If you got your news from the wires, the dailies, the TV news, or the radio - YOU WOULD NOT FUCKING KNOW ABOUT THIS LETTER.

Are you kidding me?  Am I entertaining you?  You think I'm funny?  What am I to you, a fucking CLOWN?

Where is the goddam media coverage of this letter?  Never mind the freakin' Gannon story itself.

Where is the freakin' coverage?  (Never mind the fact that releasing the letter on a Friday is a `fox pass' of the terrible kind.)  

Where is ONE wire story about this letter to the president from 5 of the most well-known and influential United States Senators?  (OK, 3.)

This. Is. Bullshit.

The media shies away from sex scandals?  Suuuure.  Like white shies away from rice.  Who the FUCK sez the media doesn't `do' sex scandals???  They do `em all the time and they jam them down our throats (oops, bad visual) every minute of every day after day after day, whenever another juicy one comes along.

I remember Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and The Pizza Delivery and The Thong-Snapping and The Wagging Finger and `I Did Not Have' and `Is Is' and The Blue Dress and Linda `John Goodman' Tripp and Whitman's Leaves of Grass.

I remember Gary Condit and Chandra Levy and The Jog in The Park and The Parents.

I remember Governor McGreevey and Golan Cipel and The Wife And Baby and The Resignation.

I remember Gary Hart and Donna Rice and The Boat Named Monkey Business and The Media Challenge and The End.

I remember Jack Ryan and Wife Jeri and The Sex Clubs and Exhibitionist Sex and Alan Keyes.

And now, here we have -

  • The Gay Prostitute in The Elite White House Press Corps
  • The Question and The President
  • The `Groundhog Daily Pass'
  • The Photos and The Profiles
  • The Mystery:  Who's The John Who Got Him In Like Flynn?

Why is this not on the freakin' front pages of every major newspaper with hourly updates on the TV networks and randy jokes on the radio stations?

Why isn't Jeff Gannon on the lips of every American in every state?  (Okay, bad visual.  My bad.)

What the FUCK is going on here?

Hey, I've got a little quiz for you:

If
five prominent United States Senators sending a letter to the President about a male prostitute with no journalism background getting into the elite White House press corps every day post 9/11 for more than two years to lob softballs at the president
were to fall in a forest with nobody around to hear it,
would it make a sound?

< Crickets >

SAY IT!
SAY IT!!
SAY IT!!!

[UPDATED] I'm so furious that not only can I see the whites of my own eyes in my computer monitor - I broke a cardinal rule of blogging and neglected to include the link to the Senators' letter to the Prez - here it is courtesy of RawStory.com -

Page 1

Page 2

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 271 comments

  •  Don't hold back Robert (4.00 / 4)

    tell us how you really feel?  ;-)

    Great rant.  You've summed up my feelings on this matter.

    Check out & buy my work at Meredith Klinger Photography

    by mlk on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:43:16 PM PDT

    •  Actually (4.00 / 79)

      it being Lent and all, I am really trying to work on my anger management. Really.

      Otherwise this diary would've been much, much, much worse in terms of foul language.

      Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!

      by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:44:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Recommend this diary (4.00 / 7)

        Because now the story is not just about James D Guckert aka "Jeff Gannon." The story is now about the media blackout surrounding this story. By the way, I love the "I remember"- that's good speechwriting. We all need to copy and paste that line into LTEs in our local papers! I will also mention that I think I have accurately assesed the real reluctance of the media below- the fear that they or their friends or co-workers are in Guckert's little black book.

        by Joe Willy on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:39:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What is a picture of nothing? (4.00 / 6)

          How do you get the media to cover the story that they're not covering a story?  It sounds like a Monty Python skit.  I'm not laughing, though.

          by b2witte on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:07:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then they write paragraphs like this... (4.00 / 2)

            From MSNBC

            The exchange illustrated more about the state of freedom in Russia than met the eye. While Putin travels around with a contingent of reporters just as Bush does, the Kremlin press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.

            Can you imagine a reporter typing this up with everything we have discovered recently and honestly believing there is a remarkable difference between the Kremlin press pool and ours?!?

            I'm left speechless by this pablum. "Those poor rooskies... too bad they don't have a vigorous press pool like we do!"

            It boggles the mind.

            by Gryn on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:58:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Being an optimist I'm wanting (none / 0)

              to think that this is a BIG story that they haven't got a handle on yet.

              There are a number of complications.  However Guckert got in, somebody had to be paying him.  And the people paying him had to be making money somehow.  While they are pretending that all of their contributors were volunteers and they reject the notion that they were being funded by the RNC, the reality, that they are making money hand over fist by collecting and selling names and addresses to directmail lists is not something they want to reveal either.  

              And the MSM may well be reluctant to tackle that subject because making money off of people who get on lists by anwering polls and visiting web sites is an enterprise that the MSM is doing its best to get into.  So, if they don't handle it just right, they risk being accused of going after a competitor.

              What complicates the matter even more is that the direct mail people, Bruce Eberle in particular, are trying to move into the adult media arena--i.e. porn on cable.  That's what the Free Speech Coalition has been pushing for. (The Free Speech Foundation, of which Gannon claimed to be the executive director, doesn't exist, but the Free Speech Coalition certainly does.  They've been involved in law suits with Ashcroft for a couple of years).  But, it's likely that some of the other clients of Eberle and GOPUSA, like the Parent Television Council and the Joe Gibbs Youth for Tomorrow Foundation, would not be happy to learn that the people who were handling their fundraising are into pushing porn on cable.

              Let me just say that I hope that people who seem to have no scruples about dealing with sleaze have nothing but good intentions towards the Youth for Tommorow Foundation, which runs a home for wayward boys, the Young America's Foundation, the Boys Scouts and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington.  No doubt they are simply interested in recruiting future Republicans.  But some people might be suspicious about the apparent conflict of interest.

               

              How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

              by hannah on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:35:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not a complete blackout... (4.00 / 3)

            From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...

            "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

            by DC Pol Sci on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 01:10:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  solution: (4.00 / 3)

          democrats and liberals need to buy more media outlets. Period. Dont expect right-wing owner media to do anyone any favors. The right has a media monpoloy because the big media players are sympathetic to the conservative cause.

          by notthegop on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 02:17:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They can't go after one of their own. (none / 1)

          Anyone else's sex life is a headline.

          Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

          by mattes on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:46:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You leave that nice Mr. Gannon alone! (4.00 / 2)

        David Corn has told us twice now that there is nothing to this story.  That's good enough for me. We should drop it.  

        The nice Mr. Corn even says that the nice Mr. Gannon was not really violently anti-gay.... just slightly.  So we should back off, because we are being mean to him.  

        DLC=RNC-30years

        by hardleft on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:02:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  David Corn (none / 0)

          WTF is going on with him lately?

          Do I need to add 'The Nation' to the growing of list of media I won't read/watch/listen to?

          by diana04 on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:52:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It gets really tricky now... (none / 0)

          Because PCness doesn't allow taking Gannon to task, as he's protected material.

          With Drudge (and his former friend that exposed him), and now Gannon, are supposely Gay the Right knows they can't (and won't) be touched too harshly. Just like during the McCarthy years when a Jewish homosexual helped Senator McCarthy with the censorship (and being one of his most vocal supporters). Built in protection -- a long term deal with the Right.

          Now how do folks get to Bush or through the media with a built in safety net????

          The media isn't going to touch it with a 10 foot pole, not only because Gannon is protected, but they don't want to rock the boat of their own plants (and maybe hidden investigators). They might be backing off to keep all this under the radar.

          But that's where the blogs are suppose to level the status quo. So don't depend on the media to air the truth (they're interested in $$$$ first), do it yourself -- and litter the internet with it.

          BTW, if folks would make blogs without the cuss words the exposure will get through the word filters too, and increase exposure. Just a tip. ;)

          It's not what you see that's suspect, but how you interpret what you see -- Isaac Asimov

          by ChrisXP on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:07:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  PCness (none / 0)

            Clever, no? Bush and Colin and Condi and Gonzales so you can't touch this but they aren't really is a bind so evil it boggles the mind.

            I just want ONE Republican to break ranks. Just one. What, is there not One righteous honorable right wing congressperson who has respect for the truth?

            nah. I am so naive.

            On Wisconsin also. Thank you, Robert.

            A society of sheep must beget in time a government of wolves. Bertrand de Jouvenel

            by Little Red Hen on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:37:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Covert attempt (none / 0)

              What they're doing is using tokenism to the extreme. You'll also will see they're drawing heavily on Catholics to fill their ranks.

              It's religion that's the glue, not much else.

              So when they prop up their token appointments, they can use their color and show, "See, we are for diversity?" It's like Fox News has done with their NJ judge commentator (also a Catholic), so they can show there's a judge that speaks Neo-Con Republican lingo.

              Take a look at Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and see what glue keeps them, ah, faithful. It's clever way to wedge the race issue, and if Blacks (and other minorities) finally figure out the scam, they'll understand why they smell fish but haven't located the source yet (it's hidden just below the surface, just like Gannon right among the "sharks" of the "liberal media elite").

              Wake up folks and connect the dots. Republicans (especially Neo-Cons are into following orders from their demi-gods. And Catholics are faithful to patriarchs. It ensures little defections, because who wants to be excommunicated? See how and why trying to get Kerry excommunicated was a way they revealed that ploy right under everyone's noses????).

              Let's see....use Gays, use minority and majority Catholics, use Ann Coulter (she's the feminazi example), and you get a better idea of the ploys at each group's expense. Everyone's expendable, and the real WASP culprits don't even get their hands dirty.

              It's not what you see that's suspect, but how you interpret what you see -- Isaac Asimov

              by ChrisXP on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:12:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Guess you picked the wrong time to stop (4.00 / 4)

        sniffin' glue...just had to throw in the line from Airplane.

        Wow...I gave up alcohol for Lent, but not swearing.

        So all I have to say is:

        FUCK YA!

        "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

        by grannyhelen on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:27:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent (none / 0)

        Anger management!!!

        AspiringtobethepersonmydogthinksIam

        by FOYI on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:09:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  AMEN! (none / 0)

        I guess it's just not sexy enough. Perharps some of those photos of Gannon.....

        "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie"

        by Little Hamster on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:53:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Can't Ignore the Facts Forever (none / 0)

        Ignoring the story will get harder as more and more facts come out.  So I encourage everyone to please take a look at the new Gannon/Guckert timeline put together by kossak "silence" (yes, I'm a volunteer pimp on this and he/she is the "anti-conspiracy of silence").  This timeline will be crucial in teasing out all the cross-ties between Guckert and GOPUSA and the White House, and the more eyes that look at it and think about it the more we can add to it.  I think the timeline eventually will prove the key to identifying Guckert's Patron in the White House and the wider scandal of "covert propaganda" being paid for by US taxpayers.

        Fuzzy only works for pets.

        by NotFuzzy on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:08:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are not alone (3.66 / 3)

      On Wednesday there was an excellent interview on BuzzFlash with Mark Crispin Miller where he shouts the same line (but I think he did give up the 4-letters for Lent)

      Mainstream Media's Blind Eye Towards the Gannongate Sex Scandal

      Mark Crispin Miller: The media's bizarre avoidance of this very juicy story makes a few things very clear--or I should say, very clear again.

      First of all, it's further proof that there is no "liberal bias" in the US corporate press--none whatsoever. It also reconfirms the fact that this media system is not simply "sensationalistic," and therefore apt to print whatever lurid stories its employees can dig up. There is a tabloid element, of course, but it works according to a double standard that is more ideological than commercial.

      Simply put, the US media reports sex scandals only when they seem to tar "the left," i.e., the Democratic party. As long as they involve the Democrats, the press is clearly willing to report such scandals even when they're fabricated.

      On the other hand, the press goes deaf and blind to "moral" scandals that involve Republicans, no matter how egregious and well-documented.

      I'm a firm believer in scream therapy, Robert.  Don't hold back and like a lot of other posters here, remember Watergate didn't break in a month.

      Claws beat Skin Take Back America

      by polydactyl on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:41:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your title says it all. (4.00 / 2)

    What we have to do is probe the reason WHY We have to keep asking questions. Why is there no real coverage on this story? What are you afraid of? Keep it up non-stop, just like the right does when they get pissed at something. Remember the Regan movie, no let up from the right. Remember Rather and the TANG memo, no let up. We have to be just as relentless in emailing and outright haunting them until they say ENOUGH, and do something. Since the people who watch Fox don't care, and will still watch Fox, we need to concentrate on MSNBC and CNN, if they want to improve their ratings, they need to give us what we want. We are the audience who is up for grabs, all 56 million of us. Want to bet we don't watch Fox. We need to let them know this. We don't want Michael Jackson, we want Gannon?Guckert.

    by Vera Lofaro on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:49:38 PM PDT

    •  CNN (none / 0)

      Aaron Brown is probably sick of hearing from me by now. :)

      "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

      by catnip on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:15:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great! Here's the 14th letter I sent the NYT: (4.00 / 5)

        How tragic to witness your paper becoming  part of the Rove propaganda machine.  Why are you all such cowards?

        I have to read the blogs to find out what's really going on. Maybe you should try it.... DailyKos and Americablog.org would be good places to start.

        After 24 years, I've stopped purchasing the Sunday Times because I don't want to waste my money on lies. And I am only one of thousands who feel this way.

        Your paper has forever been soiled.

        A former reader in Atlanta.

        by Southern Bird on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:11:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a general rule (none / 0)

          you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar, but in this case I don't think it will matter much.  

          NYT has put out its token Maureen Dowd piece (has she been allowed to do a follow-up? Why not? lots more material here), to assuage its liberal readers, and will now probably sit back quietly and wait to see which way the political weather is changing, before doing anything more.

          Remember how NYT behaved before Iraq War. Sensationalistic and highly inaccurate un-sourced (from felon Chalabi we later learned) Judith Miller "pro-war" stories were flying out fast and furious.

          Even the most "liberal" of the established media, is unlikely to be a muckraking 'leader' in this story.  They will be a 'sophisticated intelligent' follower after(if) the G/G story breaks out through a combination of independent investigations (done by the alternative/interactive media and bloggers), and a groundswell of  political pressure from the "great unwashed" public, and effective action from a coalition of un-bought Republican and unbought Democrat politicians.  

          by shumard on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:52:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Paul Krugman is the only reason (none / 1)

            I click online to read the NYTimes now.  He still has a conscience, thank god, and I wish he would devote EVERY column he writes from now on to the subject of how the silence of the NYT is becoming one of the biggest scandals in our history.  

            The media as we've known it has become obsolete. "Nice" won't work anymore, we need to fucking RANT RANT RANT RANT!

            Long live Paul Krugman, and I look forward to reading his book about his experience at the NYT some day, along with reading his BLOG...

            by Southern Bird on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:11:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  So, you've written him? (none / 0)

        Has he answered? Sadly, I took him off my list. Couldn't forgive his performance during Aravosis interview. And did you see him the other night with Bill Maher? Bill was almost a Republican tonight, by the way. He's swallowed the "secret" tape. Thinks Bush might really be "a nice guy" if that's what he says in private.

        If Aaron writes, will you let us know?

        by jane 2000 on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:11:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no (none / 0)

          I never expect a real answer from CNN. I did see bits of the Bill Maher interview but I don't get HBO, so I can't watch Bill in action anymore. I like him, but our opinions do differ on many issues. Oh well. He's got his agenda and I've got mine. C'est la vie!

          "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

          by catnip on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:24:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I took Aaron Brown off my list after Amy Goodman (4.00 / 2)

           on Democracy Now  in april 2003, did a 50 min interview interview with Brown concerning  CNN's over the top pro-War cheerleading coverage of the Iraq invasion.

          Brown came across to me as being irritable/imperious, defensive and dissembling, while speaking with Amy and Steve Rendall, senior analyst at FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

          He strongly defended the corporate broadcasting position after that inteview. I have regarded everything he has said since that interview, on the subjects of Iraq and Bush policies, with a large grain of salt. He is not independent on these subjects at least.

          Judge for yourself from the link above  

          by shumard on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:42:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did you read Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s book? (none / 0)

            In it he tells how he was cancelled by Aaron Brown, because Brown thought his appearance would be "Bush Bashing". Kennedy was scheduled to come on and talk about the environment. I am getting sick of Aaron Brown these days, he is boring.

            by Vera Lofaro on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:21:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  CNN (4.00 / 3)


        A search on CNN.com shows only one article on Gannon or Guckert.  That was back on 2/10 when the facts were first coming out.  No follow up online.  Simply amazing.  

        You would think that they would be cognizant that they were just screwed by a very successful smear campaign from the other side.  They lost an executive for a comment that he immediately retracted (never mind that there is video from 2004 that shows American troops apparently targeting a reporter).  They are willing to sacrifice their own to the masters the serve (so to speak), but won't dare to pressure anyone on a scandal full of acts both illegal and unethical.

        by Nihilvor on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:29:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  For comparison purposes (3.75 / 4)

          I did a little check in Lexis-Nexis, comparing coverage of the Gary Hart story with coverage of the Jeff Gannon story.  It's pretty telling.

          Now, keep in mind that the "Major Newspapers" archive at Nexis tends to be much less complete once you go back before 1990.  Even so, in the first two weeks of coverage of Hart's escapade, 163 stories came out in the papers that comprise this archive, plus 18 additional magazine articles.

          By comparison, only 23 newspaper articles -- and a paltry 2 magazine articles (both, ironically, in The National Review) -- came on in the first two weeks of Gannon coverage.  (Things got a little better during the third week, but that still only pushed it to 60 newspaper and 5 magazine articles.)

          What a specific frame of reference?  In 1987, Newsweek devoted three articles -- and over 5,000 words -- to Hart's affair.  Newsweek on Gannon?  1 "article," and just 176 words.

          But maybe the following tidbit is the most telling of all:  I Googled "Guckert," "silence" and "media" and came up with 24,400 citations; "Guckert," "investigative" and "reporter" ... just 8,620.

          Truly, the media's refusal to grapple with lies, distortions and cover-ups of the Bush Administration has got to be THE story of the past four years.

          by Symbiotic on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 11:59:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Gannon must be the epicenter of an (4.00 / 5)

      explosive story. I suspect everyone has been given a memo saying not to touch the story. If only someone would leak the memo to propagannon or Kos. There must be a few journalists out there who really agree with us.
      There is a huge, huge audience for a liberal news organization (and even one that would actually just do its proper job). If there were an avowedly liberal TV network on the dial between CNN and MSNBC, it would immediately get several million viewers, if not ten million. These corporations are so devoted to the Bush ideology that they would give that opportunity for profit up.

      by lecsmith on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:20:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If everyone has gotten such a memo, (none / 0)

        they all must originate in some central source that the instructions come from.  I wonder what that central source is, and how its instructions are communicated.

        After the fall of the Third Reich, people were finally able to see the instructions that went out from Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:39:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Media Control (none / 0)

        And this is why Democrats will never, ever be able to simply buy an existing content cartel media outlet, as some here have advocated. The people that own these outlets don't care about profit anymore. What they care about is control. Control over culture, over the views of the populace, over our future. Anything - anything - that jeopardizes that control is crushed instantly and decisively. That was Dean's crime - he made noises about re-regulating media, and was friendly towards Lessig's stance on copyright. And for that, the media has sought to destroy him.

        Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

        by RHunter on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:33:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ted Turner? (none / 0)

        I seem to recall comments here at Kos that Ted Turner doesn't like the current state of cable news and is a liberal himself.

        Mr. Turner, I think its time for you to get back into the cable news business.  Heaven knows you've got the money.  You lost your baby, CNN, to the RWCM some time ago.  Now we need an opposing voice.

        Please????

        I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

        by blue drop on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:27:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you know what this is all about..? (none / 0)

      It isn't Arnie who is going to be the first non-native American president.  It is Rupert Murdoch.  (That's a joke, Joyce - or is it?)

      Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae. Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

      by Truckle on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:04:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You got it! (none / 0)

        20-25 years ago, my friends and I used to play a game, "If you could kill one person in the world with no consequences to yourself, who would it be?", and all my friends would say, "Reagan", but I always said "Rupert Murdoch". He was the most dangerous person in the US then, and I'd say the same today except that he's been joined by so many, many dangerous allies.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:30:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And... (none / 0)

          I sincerely apologise for our Australian contribution to your problems.  I only ask you to note that he left because Aus. would not let him get away with it and that the US welcomed him an allowed him to buy a citizenship.

          Sorry If I am a bit smarmy, but I seem to be being beaten up simply because I'm not a yank.  Almost everyone who has dumped on me has then repeated my ideas.  Well, I guess I should be proud that I got at least partly through.

          Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae. Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

          by Truckle on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:57:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're not responsible (none / 0)

            for Murdoch any more than I'm responsible for Bush. And now I know, that when I'm on my way out of the US as a refugee, that if I go to Australia I won't have to deal with him any more!

            The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

            by sidnora on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:11:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Probably going to get in more shit here.... (none / 0)

              Actually, I do think I (and you) are responsible.  But not to blame.  I'm not to blame for the fact that my lawn grows longer but I am responbsible for seeing it cut.

              Bit if you leave the US as a refugee - donb't come here.  Ten years ago we one of the fairest and most liberal statre on Earth.  We were known for being in the forefront of human rights.  When we morally castigated someone we had a fair bit of moral authority.

              Now we are the world's laughing stock.  Our PM openly defies us and we have given in.  Between brown-nose Johhny and the F.T.A. I am now a criminal  and can have my house taken from me and my kids just because I watch a DVD that I have bought from the retail outlet down the road ['Cos I don't do MacOS or XP, I have to use DeCSS].  That's just the beginning of the story.

              No man, don't come here as a refugee.  Bush got here first and he is not going to let go.

              Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae. Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

              by Truckle on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 03:50:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow! (none / 0)

                I do feel some responsibility for Bush, in that I took a 30-year vacation from political activism to live my personal life, and I know lots of others that did the same. But I don't think, even in our worst nightmares, that we could have guessed were in store for what we've gotten in the last 4 years. We are all awake again, believe me.

                But I guess I don't know enough about Murdoch's rise in Australia to understand how it might have been enabled by your lack of political engagement/awareness. I do know about Howard's victory in the face of public opposition, but not much more than that, and I don't understand any of your references to being a criminal and DVDs. But I would be interested in learning more - feel free to e-mail me if you like. Just make sure to use a very clear subject line, I delete everything from unfamiliar senders that looks even remotely like spam.

                The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

                by sidnora on Sun Feb 27, 2005 at 10:19:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We don't have a fair use doctrine here. (none / 0)

                  So I violate US laws by using a software decoder (DeCSS - google it) to watch DVDs.  The new FTA makes me subject to US laws on the matter without giving me the US protections.

                  Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae. Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

                  by Truckle on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 10:40:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Circumstantial Evidence.... (none / 0)

      The only likely way of bringing Bush down is to prove this...
      There is some circumstantial evidence that Bush himself was Gannon's 'lover', isn't there? Did you see that sequence of Bush rubbing bald heads? Kitty Kelley's book talking about his gay college exploits..... Can you think of more?
      Am I too far out in left field?

      by CanadaWest on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:35:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  for profit media (none / 1)

    That means you want news thats cheap to produce such as the OJ Simpson case was.  Two FREE talking heads and a camera, done.  No travel expenses, no overhead.  G/G would take money.  Its not cheap to do Investigative journalism.  

    THats why they push MJ.  Two FREE talking heads and a camera!!  Instant News done on the cheap.

    I completely agree with your diary BTW, Im pissed also.

    by ksecus on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:51:47 PM PDT

  •  when are we Dems going to (4.00 / 5)

    get our own media on cable and network tv? I live from paycheck to paycheck but I would gladly donate what I could to some kind of fund to start one.

    "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." --Dante

    by arkdem on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:53:20 PM PDT

  •  Take it a step further (3.20 / 5)

    If the media won't report about Gannon, can we really trust their coverage of 9/11?  Did a 757 really hit the Pentagon?  How come the original hole was only 15 feet across?  Where is the photographic evidence?  Pictures easily found on the web tell a different story.  I wish bloggers would put their energy into this much bigger story too.

    by Portland 92 on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:56:30 PM PDT

    •  I agree! (none / 0)

      I've watched the video footage that supposedly proves it was a plane many times - and it just didn't prove it for me.

      by AskQuestions on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:05:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  BULLSHIT FALSE OPPO ALERT! (4.00 / 3)

      Here, for those who want to hitch your wagon tot his load of shit.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:06:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are apparently hostile (none / 0)

        to rationale inquiry.
        And thus must resort to ridicule.
        Too bad

        by tomchampagne on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:25:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not at all.. (none / 0)

          I just don't go for pathetic false opposition which is used to smear legitimate discussion and dissent against the failure of this administration, in particular leading up to and including its actions (or lack there of) on September 11th.

          The claims that a commercial aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon are so rife with bullshit and stupidity as to be able to drive a 757 through them.

          You make yourselves and anyone pointing out the real problems wit the response that day, and in the weeks and months leading up to it, out to be fools.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:56:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You may want to review the evidence (none / 0)

            before you make such a sweeping charge against people who are interested in free inquiry into the events of 9/11.  The fact is, there are fundamental problems with narrative that we have been asked to believe without question.  This includes the question of what  struck the Pentagon -- based on
            the physical evidence.

            I have no idea what you mean by "false opposition."  But what I find pathetic is the
            complete lack of tolerance of some for the legitimate
            inquiry into these matters.

            by tomchampagne on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have reviewed plenty of "evidence" (none / 0)

              If you have no idea what false opposition is, then educate yourself.

              You can find it "pathetic" all you want that I vehemently draw the line at entertaining crack-pot theories such as "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon"... but such "inquiry" is not "legitimate" and in fact are the perfect vehicles to derail what are legitimate lines of enquiry on the numerous failings of this administration prior to, during and after the attacks.

              That is precisely the point, and why I give no quarter to people who push (knowingly or unknowingly) such activities.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Wanna win in '08...?

              Put your money where your mouth is.

              by Lestatdelc on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:48:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I thought you were linking (4.00 / 2)

        to a picture of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

        You must admit that it is a bit strange that someone in NY managed to snap a picture of the first plane hitting the WTC and the second one is on film, and yet a half hour or so later with a planeload of people calling family members reporting that their plane had been hijacked, and reports being aired that a passenger plane was flying low over DC that nobody got a picture.  Not saying that the absence of a photo proves anything, but it is curious.

        (btw - I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the plane did crash into the Pentagon -- and unless the wreckage of that plane is found somewhere else, it's the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn.  But we might want to hold off for a while before declaring it as fact.)  

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:01:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh I'm so relieved (none / 1)

          I couldn't stop grieving for all those folks killed on that flight, but turns out they're all OK! Hey! I know, lets organize a bake sale to welcome them back to the DC area! What time are they due to arrive from...wherever it was they actually went...personally I think they all took that whole "road trip" thing a bit too far.

          Quit pissing on Robert's supreme rant, the kind of rant you pickle heads who believe in "alternate" 9/11 theories can't even dream of formulating, even if it meant a chance to twiddle the dials on the juice box hooked up to Rumsfeld's testicles.

          Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

          by mrblifil on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:24:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You seem very eager to believe (none / 1)

            what you've been told regarding 9/11.
            Perhaps you should believe that the Press is
            doing an excellent job of covering Gannon, too.  

            by tomchampagne on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:49:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is exactly the sort of (none / 1)

              pathetic crap and overreach and potential false oppo bullshit that I reject. Nice way to draw lines between the legitimate investigation and inquirer into the White House press corp and the Guckkert/Gannon scandal and conflating it with believing that magically a real commercial flight just disappeared and some fabricated cover story complete with firing missiles at the Pentagon as a giant conspiracy.

              This is precisely why the false oppos shit has to be called out and shut down.

              "See, these crazy libs going after Gannon and the President are so nuts they also believe that the Pentagon wasn't attacked on 9/11"

              That is the door you are opening. And if you want to crawl out on that limb, be my guest but I will clearly and vigorously call attention to the fact I want nothing to do with your crack-pot bullshit crap, and you do not in any way represent the majority of progressive liberals or people with legitmate and valid criticisms and stand in real opposition to the disasters and danger this administration and those who support it, are to our nation and the world.

              You want to make extraordinary claims, you better have extraodinary hard evidence. The "questions" raised by these false oppo clowns doesn't even hold up to 2 minutes worth of serious objective examination.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Wanna win in '08...?

              Put your money where your mouth is.

              by Lestatdelc on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:07:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I suggest that before you (none / 0)

                continue the tirade, you read David Ray
                Griffin's critique on the official account.
                The forward of his first book "The New Pearl
                Harbor" is by Richard Falk, professor emeritus of law at Princeton University.  It has also been
                recommended by acclaimed historian Howard Zinn, and Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of political science at Bucknell.

                It may open your eyes, but you may choose to keep them shut if you prefer.

                by tomchampagne on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:31:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have read the chapter concerning flight 77 (none / 0)

                  And it is crap.

                  I could care less of the Zinn (who has some dodgy minor points in his own People's History of the United States) or Prof. from University's have GENERAL praise for the questions it raises in OTHER part of the book, or as a whole, or not.

                  There are serious questions about the culpability of the Gov. before, during and after the attack, many of which are touched on by the book, that should be raised and discussed.

                  But to trot out the crack-pot speculation that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 completely undermines and obliterates such valid lines of inquiry on the ineptitude, mistakes and culpability of the Gov. up to, during and after the attacks.

                  This is precisely why false oppo works and is used time and time again.

                  There is nothing substantive in the "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" nonsense, even as covered in Chapter Two of Ray's book. It is selective, makes subtle yet significant leaps and omissions.

                  BTW, you might want to look at the security camera footage, you can see the fucking plane as it careens into the building.

                  Camera sequence:

                  Single frame I have outlined were you see the plane:

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Wanna win in '08...?

                  Put your money where your mouth is.

                  by Lestatdelc on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:10:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Did you read my comment? (4.00 / 3)

            Exactly where did I say that I believe an "alternate" 9/11 theory?  And where did I say anything about the plane being intact and the passengers alive?  They're all dead and went down with the plane either into the Pentagon or somewhere else.  The only difference between you and me is that you accept as irrefutable facts what you have heard about Flt #77 and I accept it as the most likely scenario but am not willing to elevate it to fact given who was running the Pentagon and who is running the media at this time.  I'm open to those who can present solid facts about it, but not those who present nothing but idle speculation.

            Lots of people in this country accepted as fact that Iraq had WMD (and a surprising number still accept it).  I was absolutely sure that Saddam didn't have diddly squat.  So, I don't think I'm exactly a picklehead.    

            What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

            by Marie on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 10:26:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  A VERY close friend of mine (none / 0)

          worked in the Pentagon. He was a lifer army person (now retired). As it happens his work (recruitment) made him close friends with many who were there. He verifies the plane crash.

          fact does not require fiction for balance

          by mollyd on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:05:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't trust it (none / 1)

      I believed the official story at first. But there are too many inconsistencies, too many things that Bush is hiding. It's clear that, at a minimum, they could have tried to circumvent the attacks and they chose to do NOTHING.
      Now all I am trying to figure out is what was their motivation for ignoring the warnings? Did they want the attack to happen? Or were they just so arrogant and so believed in their own view that they dissed every piece of information that related to the Clinton worldview? In all honesty, there are so many oddities about how they behaved that day that I think they did know. There I said it.

      by lecsmith on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:25:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, you can't trust the media (none / 0)

      which is what fuels conspiracy theories.  But I don't think this one will run.  There have been two excellent, and apparently disinterested, documentaries on BBC television that to my mind disposed of both the grassy knoll and the too-small-a-hole-in-the-Pentagon, respectively, with convincing computer simulations to support each.  It is so easy to build up a mystery, like the story about flying bumblebees  ("no-one can explain how a bumblebee can fly, it is aerodynamically impossible"), but they can.

      I'm as happy to wear a tinfoil hat as anyone, but one of the biggest problems of a non-independent press is not the lies per se but the fact there is no way telling lies from truth.  They both look the same. Chase the wrong conspiracy - or the wrong part of the conspiracy - and all conspiracy theories are discredited.

      My gut tells me there is something wrong with this Gannon thing though.  All those scrubbed websites.

      But a null hypothesis is usually the strongest way to make a case.

      by Febble on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:59:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did the TV shows (none / 0)

        explain where the wreckage of the plane
        went? It's not on the lawn (well, there are
        a couple of small pieces) and it is not in the building.  

        And I also find it beyond bizarre this plane could be in the air over an hour, not be intercepted, and penetrate the most heavily guarded airspace in the world.  

        by tomchampagne on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 08:48:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  OF Course the MSM tells the 911 truth! (none / 1)

      And so does Bobby Eberle (GOPUSA Ceo and G/G's boss), who was an eye-witness to the actual event of  Flight AA77 hitting  the Pentagon.  Just like the President Said!

      Bobbie Eberle; Gannon's boss and CEO of GOPUSA

      in 2004:

      "It was a beautiful Tuesday morning in Washington, DC. The sky was blue; the air was crisp; and millions of Americans were making their way to their jobs just like they did on any other day. But this was no ordinary day. In fact it was a day that would change my life and change the course of American history. On this day, September 11, 2001, I rode with the top down in my friend's convertible along the highway toward the Pentagon. As I listened in disbelief to the radio reports of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, I was snapped back into reality by the roar of jet engines only a couple hundred feet above my head. Flight 77 then crashed in front of my eyes in a fiery explosion into the Pentagon."

      and 2003:

      "With the Pentagon in sight, the roar of jet engines quickly filled the air. I looked over my left shoulder and saw the aircraft only a couple hundred feet over head. It was so loud and so low and so fast, and I knew in an instant that something was terribly wrong. I wanted to scream, but the only words that would come out were 'Oh no.' A few seconds later, American Airlines Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon and exploded in a burst of flame right in front of my eyes."

      If GOPUSA Says it, it is GOLD.

       

      by shumard on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:09:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At first I was suspicious too, (none / 1)

      and I had seen that "famous" Internet video, but then I came across some other information, together with eyewitness accounts, here, here, and here.

      From the first site:

      Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.

      This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as the Israeli Spy Ring and its connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers. So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares doubt the official story.

      I really don't know what to believe, but it's worth reading. The main point, in any case, is that there are dozens of eyewitness accounts, which all talk about a passenger plane.

      "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

      by Donna in Rome on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:48:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They are all Karl Rove's whores, period. (4.00 / 8)

    Except for Keith, of course.

    by Southern Bird on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 05:57:48 PM PDT

    •  You like KO a lot apparently, (none / 0)

      and your comment seems to recommend him here, strongly.

      What can you tell us about Olberman's background and resume, before he was hired by NBC(owned by GE)?

      What especially are you impressed about him?

      by shumard on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 09:48:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WingNut Daily gets it. (3.95 / 20)

    They have had an editorial this week, and now this piece by Bill Press that is scathing. Who would've thunk it??

    Just try getting past the White House gate using a pseudonym, especially after Sept. 11. As conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett wrote: "If Gannon was using an alias, White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." Bush aides, in other words, ordered the Secret Service to let this imposter in. Where's the outrage from the media?

    You think that's bad? It gets worse. It was soon revealed that, before posing as a White House reporter, Guckert was posing nude, offering his services as a male prostitute on one of three websites he commissioned: Hotmilitarystuds.com, Militaryescorts.com and Meetlocalmen.com. Guckert calls himself an "aggressive, verbal, dominant top" and an "ex-USMC jock, available for hourly, overnight, weekend or longer travel." His special weekend rate was $1,200. In graphic terms, he even describes his "weapon," which he also displays, ready for action, in a spread-eagle photo. Once so exposed, Guckert quit the White House and is now selling himself as a public speaker.

    Again, where's the outrage from the media? Can you imagine the uproar if this had happened under Bill Clinton? Cable news channels would be pumping it 24x7. The New York Times would demand Clinton's resignation. Republicans in Congress would be screaming about how President Clinton poisoned our children's minds by exposing them to a gay prostitute. And Ken Starr would be back in business.

    Instead, the Bush White House forces the Secret Service to allow a former male prostitute into the White House so he can play reporter and lob softball questions to the president - and what do we get? Silence from the mainstream media. Silence from Republicans in Congress. Support for Guckert from many conservative commentators, who accuse liberal bloggers of anti-gay bias. And the scandal disappears from the radar screen.

    If that's not a double-standard, I don't know what is. Why aren't the mainstream media making a big deal of this story? Why aren't they demanding a White House apology? Or a congressional investigation? Because they have no backbone, that's why. They're afraid of the Bush White House. And they've let Bush get away with everything, from lying about weapons of mass destruction to pampering a male prostitute.

    Please, no more complaints about the liberal media. Today's White House reporters are in Bush's pocket.

    Wow. As far as I know, no other publication outside of the lefty blogs has laid it out there this bluntly. Maybe it'll wake up some of the Bush-worshippin', gun'totin', homo-hatin' Red Staters who read WorldNet Daily.

    Idiots of the world, ignite!

    by susanp on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:02:13 PM PDT

    •  Columns like this one, from people like this one, (4.00 / 8)

      are sometimes the only things that give me hope for the future of fairness, justice, and civilized discourse in our government. If we, and Bill Press, can so vehemently agree on something that is inexplicity controversial, there is hope.

      Liberal parenting funnies at The Hausfrau Blog

      by jamfan on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:09:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent rant (none / 0)

      and good piece by Bill Press, I emailed him to say so.

      Are the MSM holding back because the Gannon/Guckert story has raised more questions so far than it has answered?     Are they not reporting about it because so far it is hard to see where it leads, or where it will stop?

      I think so.  It seems to me that a lot of the MSM reporting these days is hobbled by this need - for legal reasons sometimes it is argued - to have a clear resolution to a story before there is "anything to report."

      It might also be giving the MSM conniption fits over the "fair and balanced" principle that seems to drive them these days.  That is, there is no clearly defined "other side" to go to for quotes to balance out the story - Gannon/Guckert, "the callboy" as the German press named him, is a loose cannon and McClellan prevaricates.  So with only "one side of the story" to report, they can't report!

      by AskQuestions on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:17:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The MSM is embarrassed... (3.66 / 3)

        Here they were, sitting in the White House press room, day in and day out. They knew this guy was a shady, creepy character. Yet they do nothing. They're reporters and they do nothing. The story is literally under their noses, right in front of them, in back and to the left and right. And they did nothing. Why? Laziness. Fear. Instructions from their supervisors. Who knows? But now they're pissed cause the bloggers, who are NOT in the press room every day, scooped a story from right under their noses. Most journalists, especially those in D.C., are petulant whining babies who are way too impressed with themselves that they are covering the White House. They forget to do their job and instead revel in ugly displays of lapdog-ism such as the White House Press Correspondents dinner and other displays of excess. Just do your damn jobs!!

        i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

        by missreporter on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 04:30:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How do we know ... (none / 0)

      jg/jg is a "former" male prostitute?

      Given the world as it it, might this INCREASE demand for his services among a select group?

      Certainly want to read about that in the deposition transcripts.

      Give me treason or give me tactile.

      For the satire impaired, they really are filth.

      by gogol on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 07:21:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He didn't use a pseudonym at the gate (none / 0)

      Don't overreach... which this WingNut Daily piece has... strawmen.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 08:08:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. World Net Daily. (none / 1)

      I can't believe they allowed that. My all-time favorite WND article had a guy trying to prove that evolution is bunk and his main piece of evidence was the present day existence of sea monsters. I am not making this up.

      For WND to post a column like that when even the major networks won't - what happens to the snakes when you lift up the rock too fast?

      by movie buff on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 09:17:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most on the right (none / 0)

        don't want a Washington/Wall Street dictatorship anymore than we do. The trick is how to get the half-cooked frogs out there to jump out of the pot before we are are made side dishes in the cordon crapaud? Surely, the SusanG NYBri method is the most promising so far.

        The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

        by semiot on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:14:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Press pass process? (none / 0)

      Raymond Mokhiber has a long interview on Democracy Now... Talking about the worsening of politicial favor in the WH press room under Bush, and how he had to jump through hoops to get a press pass.

      Read my diary on the spin of Mohkiber by MClellan and the MSM.

      -even while they cite his reporting in their stories!

      ha!

      If you love Bush, Vote John McCain '08

      by biscobosco on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:47:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unintentionally Funny Dept. (none / 0)

      Guckert calls himself an "aggressive, verbal, dominant top."

      Verbal? Where the hell did that come from? Given his writing... I mean zeroxing skills, I wonder if his patter during the Act was all lifted. Verbal indeed.

      And then 2/27/33 happened, and that changed everything.

      by Julian on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 10:15:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I tried my best to give you all (4.00 / 3)

    a link to this, but it's just not in me. Go to salon.com and read Eric Boehlert's "See no Gannon, Hear No Gannon, Speak No Gannon." Salon is subscription, but you can read for one day free if you watch a 30-second ad.

    There are no good answers to the questions your diary raises, but the article speculates. Surely something will happen to shame them into claiming this story.

    I have a theory, in light of Guckert's new ego-tripping website, that he's loving all the attention and he wants more. I'm sure you've thought about that. Can this be exploited, or would it be better just to ignore him, and continue with the good work you all are doing behind the scenes? Obviously, those diaries suggesting we bring G. over to the left had an effect. Now, he's crowing about it. I want him to know that he's a pathetic embarrassment of a human being. I want the mainstream media to know they've lost all credibility now. How to show them that?

    by jane 2000 on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:03:06 PM PDT

  •  asdf (4.00 / 3)

    Just commenting to get your number of commments up so more people will read this diary (do other people tend to be more likely to read a diary with lots of comments?)

    Just reading this was emotional cathartic and I think this diary is a public service.  I'm sure to wake cursing in the middle of the night far less often for having read this.

    Think you have all the answers? prove it

    by Snuffleupagus on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:03:11 PM PDT

  •  New Yorker went to print with Gannon, et al (3.80 / 5)

    The Gannon story  - all of it - along with other propaganda efforts, is discussed in the current New Yorker's 'Talk of The Town' section: NEWSHOUNDS, New Yorker, 2005-02-28

    Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

    by Kimberley on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:08:53 PM PDT

    •  Well, Rove pegged 'us' correctly (4.00 / 3)

      short term attention span-create and spin another story-Mike Jackson the Oscars- the plague. 'We'll forget about it'- I have posted several diaries of new connections and they get ignored- Jeff Gannon -is the smallest piece of this puzzle. That's why the story is fading. Dig, people, deeper- and keep ranring and reminding the rest of us!

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 12:35:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually (none / 0)

        they span out the taping 'scandal' that didn't really have anything interesting in it, and try to play that up just after the G/G story started getting press.

        "...what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want." --- Paul Krugman

        by puppet10 on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 05:09:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Talk of the Town is insufficient (none / 0)

      How hard would it be to dispatch someone to cover the story in full detail, for a full length article? Mags like New Yorker and Vanity Fair are a possible hope for wakening the MSM from their torpor.

      Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

      by mrblifil on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 06:45:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very token coverage of gannon (4.00 / 2)

    But not enough to make any impact on the great unwashed public's consciousness. My guess is the Maureen Dowds and the Ken Olbermans are allowed to say a bit of truth here and there merely to pacify the truth/freedom loving rabble-rousers (that would be us), until they(we) can be distracted/diverted to the next Bush outrage.

    You don't see any of the WH press corps, who sat right next to G/G in the WH briefing room and at press conferences for two years, speaking or writing about G/G, either plus or minus,  do you.  So far there is total blackout from the "independent honest professional" journalists with first hand knowledge of G/G.

    Where is NPR's Don Gaunyay[phonetic], or MSNBC/Fox/CNN's many 'crack' White House heathers and harrys? Why are they also muzzled?

    What puzzles/surprises/frightens me is that even perennial Bush antagonists in the press corps like Helen Thomas and Russell M---[blocking on his last name, but he frequenly used to tussle with Ari Fleischer] are not writing or talking about this story, in any way.

    Nothing there? Or is overwhelming pressure being brought to bear on/by the corporate media to strangle the G/G story in the cradle?

    by shumard on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:10:11 PM PDT

  •  The depth of the silence (4.00 / 7)

    is in direct inverse relation to the importance of the story....As I have mentioned elsewhere, Watergate took over a year to break through exactly this sort of silence.  Those of us who were trying to bring attention to it were looked at as Freaks, Aliens, and Unmurcan.  Take comfort in the deafening silence--it is a measure of the storm to come.

    ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

    by bibble on Fri Feb 25, 2005 at 06:16:32 PM PDT