In addition to all the ongoing hard research and soft speculation, two things have occurred to me. One, that the aptly-named Plame and PropaGannon, or Gannongate, monikers be changed to reflect the mainstreaming of the story and consensus that Gannon himself is now an obstacle to the real investigation. Two, that a designated place (here or on the forthcoming dedicated site) be established to catalogue the statements, lies, and contradictions that come out as people (especially those within the Administration) are questioned on this.
First, we are always talking about framing. We need to re-frame this investigation, because, for all the reasons described elsewhere, this is not about Gannon. Who cares if he never gets another job? Or if Talon News disappears? He is out there trying to make this story about him. To paraphrase Carly Simon,
You're so vain you prob'ly think this investigation is about you, don't you?. This is about
how he got access: access to the Press Room, access to McClellan himself, access to confidential documents. These are things he couldn't have done on his own, and investigation will lead to others being involved. So Gannon should no longer be the target, even in name.
While I am loath to suggest anything to SusanG, mlk, NYBri, and the others who have worked so hard, so prudently, and so ethically, can I respectfully suggest we find a new name? If we all start using it, it will help shift the MSM focus away from Gannon. And if it is catchy enough, it will become the primary way this is framed when it is reported on in the next weeks.
My (spur-of-the-moment) suggestions:
Instant Access
Instant Access for Fake Reporter
Who Feeds the Plants?
Plame and the Plant
Access: Washington
Reporter-on-Order
Rent-a-Reporter
Shill Shocker
Fake on the Take?
Suddenly Schmoozin'
Okay, so some of those are better than others. You do better ;)
Second, it occurs to me that we should also be cataloguing the lies being told and discrepancies that come up between people's statements - in real time and in a visible, designated place. Such a resource would be an uncluttered place that would serve several purposes: to ensure lies, once made, cannot be easily explained away later; to point out that lies indicate a cover-up and a cover-up indicates something unethical and/or illegal was done; and to be able to point Congresspersons and journalists to the statements of those involved in order to provoke specific, much-needed questions. "To what district did you report these death threats?" "You said your policy is to check regular publishing status. But Talon News was only days old when you granted Guckert daily passes. So why were you wrong about your own policy and why is it your policy to accept reporters from apparently fake news agencies?"
Maybe post some here to start, but somewhere else more visible and more accessible would be ideal. To start the ball rolling:
Guckert said he was stalked to church despite being a self-proclaimed "two-holiday Christian." Atrios.
Guckert said Talon News has 700,000 hits daily though this is patently untrue.
More importantly, the administration has begun to lie to cover its (potentially deep) tracks:
McClellan said My understanding was, when he started coming to the White House about two years ago, the staff asked to see that it -- that he represented a news organization that published regularly. And they showed that, so he was cleared and has been cleared ever since based on that time. This is also patently untrue, since Talon News was days old when Guckert was first given a daily pass.
Also, Dana Milbank has said that he and others recall Guckert with a hard pass. Guckert and McClellan claim he was only issued a daily pass. Discrepancy that the White House is obliged to clarify (obliged because it should be trivial to do so, won't leak anything remotely classifiable, and would directly speak to the administration's role in the matter).
In response to the question: So he was being cleared under James Guckert, or whatever his name is? McClellan said My understanding, yes. But others clearly knew him as Gannon. Were his passes issued to Gannon or Guckert? Discrepancy that the White House is obliged to clarify, for the same reasons above.
I'm sure there are more. Focus on Administration lies, less on Guckert. Again, the point is to provide a jumping-off point for those who get some voice, be they radio call-ins, letter-writers, Congressperson-callers, the Congresspersons themselves, and of course (don't hold your breath, though) journalists. Lies and discrepancies are things that are not easily taken back, whereas who did/knew what and when can be obscured by wordplay.
