While everyone was paying attention to the exit of Abu Gonzales (took long enough, didn’t it?), it seems that James Dale Guckert has wormed his way back into the spotlight (here).
You remember Guckert, don’t you? If not by his real name, then his adopted alias of “Jeff Gannon,” then?
Well, in case anyone has forgotten, I’ll let Leonard Pitts, Jr. explain once more in this column from February 2005…
Three weeks later, I'm still waiting for a good explanation of what Jeff Gannon was doing in the White House. And for you to be upset about it.Or, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd once asked…
Gannon is the fellow who made himself memorable during last month's presidential news conference by asking about Democratic pessimism regarding the nation's economy.
Specifically, he asked if President Bush could work with ``people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.''
The unusually partisan phrasing prompted reporters and liberal groups to ask the same question: Who is this guy?
Well, it turns out that Gannon is not really Gannon. James Guckert says he prefers that pseudonym for ''commercial'' reasons.
It also turns out that a company he owns is the registered owner of several sexually suggestive Web addresses. Hotmilitarystud.com, to name just one.
Most curious of all, though, is that it turns out he is not really a reporter, at least not if that term still denotes a disinterested observer of events. Rather, Guckert writes for a website, talonnews.com, which is linked to another site, GOPUSA.com. That site serves, as you might gather, to promote the Republican Party.
Guckert resigned last week, saying he and his family have been threatened and harassed. If true, that is deplorable.
But it's also deplorable that he was ever seated in the White House briefing room. As to how that happened, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has pleaded ignorance, saying that, ``In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist.''
Which is patently ridiculous. Contrary to the press secretary's Hamlet-like agonizing, it's not all that hard to know who is and is not a reporter.
If an individual reports for a recognized media outlet that observes customary standards of journalistic integrity -- even if it tends to view the world through a conservative or liberal editorial prism -- that person is a reporter.
But if the person works for an outlet that simply promotes, or advocates for, one political party or another, then the line between reporter and shill has been well and truly crossed.
It's not brain surgery. So you'll have to forgive me for not extending the benefit of the doubt to McClellan.
My problem is that he speaks for an administration with a long record of manipulating truth and propagandizing the public.
These are the folks who pay pundits to say nice things about them.
The ones who pressure scientists to change science that conflicts with political goals.
The ones who ignore their own experts when confronted with information they'd rather not believe.
And this is a president whose press conferences occur with only slightly more frequency than ice storms do in Key West, who ducks hard questions posed by actual reporters, preferring to bat slow pitches tossed by citizens prescreened for their support.
So planting a party stooge among the real reporters hardly seems out of character.
The thing is, a government that is not scrutinized by an energetic and adversarial press is a government that is not accountable for its actions. A government that is allowed to create its own reality is a government that can get away with anything.
So where is our outrage?
Frankly, the only thing more galling than the brazenness with which the White House abrogates the public's right to know is the sheep-like docility with which we accept it, with which we become complicitous in our own hoodwinking.
When the history of this era is written, people will wonder why we didn't challenge its excesses, why we didn't know the things we should have.
If you're still around, remember the uproar you do not hear right this moment and tell them the truth.
Ignorance was easier.
I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' (“Jeff Gannon”) is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?Also, Times columnist Frank Rich notes here (probably "behind the wall" now) that Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Keith Olbermann's show “Countdown” that Gannon "was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership" (the fact that Milbank reported that explains why Gannon would take a cut at him).
And I love the line that Gannon’s work “has never been discredited.” I don’t know about that; all I know is that it was never taken seriously either.
And regarding the fact that (if White House press secretary Scott McClellan was to be believed at that time, a big “if” I know) nobody seemed to know who was responsible for issuing Gannon’s credentials, Joe Conason noted the following here (again, from February 2005)…
Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville.And Guckert came from the Western PA suburbs, where Chester County voters favored Dubya by a margin of about 10,000 over John Kerry in 2004.
Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart -- or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal (as Conason notes, Gannon/Guckert also played a minor role, believe it or not, in the outing of Valerie Plame).
Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps -- and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now.
I wonder how many of them feel about that act of monumental idiocy today?