Journalists attack witch hunt, defend Gannon

There's A Fourth Estate And A Fifth Estate

BY JOSEPH CURL

James Dale Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, the former White House correspondent for Talon News, set off a firestorm of controversy and introspection last week inside the cramped press work quarters behind the West Wing briefing room.

The unabashedly conservative reporter had already disappeared in a flash of green smoke, drummed out by left-wing bloggers who had set out to expose the personal background of the short, shaved-head man after he asked a particularly right-wing question in a presidential press conference.

The blogospheric probe had gotten ugly—democrats.com charged that Guckert "dabbled in male prostitution rings (through registration of sites like Hotmilitarystud.com [and] Militaryescorts.com," and alleged that "he was bringing male prostitutes into the White House." (Guckert acknowledged registering the gay sites, but said he did so for a client while he was working to set up a Web hosting business in Wilmington, Del. But new pictures that emerged this week tell a different story. Check out http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html.)

Left behind after the smoke cleared were a few fundamental questions: What is a reporter? Does asking biased or loaded questions invalidate a reporter's credentials? Do columnists count? And above all, who gets to decides?

Members of the White House press corps offered some insight last week after Guckert's resignation.

"We all ask all kinds of questions; we all come to the briefing room with different points of view; we all serve different corporate masters," said Terry Moran of ABC News. "I don't know anything about Gannon's—or Guckert's—private life, and frequently he sounded like a shill for the administration. But he also challenged the White House from time to time with pointed questions—from the right. And that always struck me as valuable and necessary."

Moran's point is food for thought. Although Guckert's question to President Bush in the Jan. 26 press conference—about how Bush planned to work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality"—clearly crossed a line, the Talon News reporter occasionally held the president's feet to the fire. Guckert asked questions about GOP discontent over such issues as immigration, pressed the White House on conservative issues and drew out the administration's perspective on Democratic initiatives.

While many White House reporters oppose advocacy journalism in the briefing room, Moran vehemently objected to the course of action that led to Guckert's resignation.

"Whatever the ostensible rationale, it seems clear to me that `Gannon's' personal life was investigated and targeted by some bloggers because they did not like the ideas he expressed in his questions. That is chilling to me," he said.

John Roberts of CBS News agreed that "the liberal blogosphere"—not the White House press corps—drove the onslaught against Gannon. But he also said that Guckert's "presence at the daily briefing was not an issue with me."

"There are other people there with a clear agenda as well," he said.

Judy Keen, the sage White House correspondent for USA Today, closed the loop.

"Gannon—or whatever his name is—certainly isn't the only reporter whose point of view is reflected in their questions. Anyone who regularly attends the gaggles and briefings knows that there are other reporters there whose questions suggest a certain hostility toward the administration," she said.

Regular briefing attendees know that only too well. Helen Thomas, a former reporter turned columnist, despises Bush and once called him "the worst president in all of American history." Her daily rants come from the hard left, including this question during the lead-up to war in Iraq: "The president claims he's compassionate, but he's on the warpath against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Philippines, and this new report he would use nuclear weapons whenever he gets the urge. Is he trying for dictator?"

Few White House reporters dispute the notion that biased questions are asked every day at the briefing—and often, at presidential press conferences or pool sprays. But Keen said there is a deeper question.

"I think the real debate here is over the definition of a reporter: Is someone who writes for an Internet site a journalist? Are opinion writers journalists? The emergence of news-based Web sites and blogs is changing the definition of our business, and these are questions we'll be wrestling with from now on. And who gets to decide who's a journalist and who isn't?"

The White House certainly doesn't want the job.

"I don't think it's the role of the press secretary to get into picking or choosing who gets press credentials," Scott McClellan said. "I've never inserted myself into the process. [Guckert], like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are. The issue comes up -- it becomes, in this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. And there -- it gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room. ... There are a number of people in that room that express their points of view."

The spokesman said he would welcome any input from the White House Correspondents' Association, which represents the press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues. But the association's president, Ron Hutcheson, does not want the organization to be the arbiter of White House credentials.

"I want the association to be an advocate for getting people into the White House, not for keeping people out," he said. While Hutcheson noted that "we don't want someone hijacking the briefing so they can talk about their agenda, from the left or the right," it's not the task of the association to decide who should be allowed to attend daily briefings.

Hutcheson and two other association board members met Tuesday with McClellan to discuss the issue. They made no decisions at the meeting. The full association board plans a Feb. 28 meeting to informally discuss the matter, but Hutcheson said the organization likely will take no official action.

Taking a hands-off approach was advocated by several correspondents, including Bob Deans, a longtime White House reporter for Cox News Service and former president of the White House Correspondents' Association.

"Even those of us who feel strongly that partisanship doesn't belong in the briefing room were reluctant to try to tell someone else how to craft their questions or to suggest that someone in particular should leave."

Still, he said the daily briefing is "not the place for partisanship—from the left or the right—and it's not a platform for people to come in day after day and espouse their personal or political views. It's not `Crossfire.' "

Deans rejects the notion that all White House reporters bring political baggage to the briefing room.

"There's been a lot of fuzzy talk about this issue in recent days, with commentators warning darkly that all of us had better be worried because somehow none of us is free from partisanship. That's nonsense and it needs to be rejected. Every journalist in that room recognizes that pressing our own biases out of our coverage is a daily work in progress. The point is, it's work we take seriously and we largely succeed.

"When people are watching the White House press briefing they have a right to know that those of us in that room are who we say we are, that we aren't coming in there with some political ax to grind and that we're going to deliver the news straight up without a lot of birdseed. That's the way it is for the vast majority of us in that room. The process suffers when people hijack the daily briefings to advance their own agenda. That does a disservice to our craft, to our credibility, to our mission and to the public we serve.

"Picking and choosing who is and isn't a journalist? That's never been our role. But playing it straight with the public we serve? That's our job. We all take it seriously, and we all suffer when others don't."

Joseph Curl is a white House correspondent for The Washington Times and has covered President Bush since his first inauguration.

Oh, right. Here's a fair and objective piece, from the Reverend Moon-owned Washington Times, which has been the bought-and-paid for premiere mouthpiece of the American Right until Faux News came along to steal the spotlight. But what do you expect from Dougie, whose news sources are entirely of the same ilk, plus all the useful things he gleans from those endless fund-raising scare letters from the RNC! x(

A screed from Dougie will follow this posting, just as soon as he finishes checking under his bed for liberals. . .

>Oh, right. Here's a fair and objective piece, from the

>Reverend Moon-owned Washington Times, which has been the

>bought-and-paid for premiere mouthpiece of the American Right

>until Faux News came along to steal the spotlight.

Actually, the people quoted in that article are White House reporters from ABC, CBS and USA Today. I don't believe that any of them are "from the Reverend Moon-owned Washington Times."

These reporters make the point that Gannon was no different than many other people in the press room in asking questions to promote an ideological agenda. They also make the point that the people doing this have endorsed the repugnant idea that it's now legitimate to research the private sexual activities of reporters who present views that you dislike.

Everyone knows that when you can't defeat a message, you attack the messenger. But you should try to be a little less obvious - or at least a little more accurate - about it.

But I know none of that will matter - facts don't matter to a bloodcrazed lynch mob. JEFF GANNON IS A GAY ESCORT! THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!!

>"There's been a lot of fuzzy talk about this issue in recent

>days, with commentators warning darkly that all of us had

>better be worried because somehow none of us is free from

>partisanship. That's nonsense and it needs to be rejected.

>Every journalist in that room recognizes that pressing our own

>biases out of our coverage is a daily work in progress. The

>point is, it's work we take seriously and we largely succeed.

>

>"When people are watching the White House press briefing they

>have a right to know that those of us in that room are who we

>say we are, that we aren't coming in there with some political

>ax to grind and that we're going to deliver the news straight

>up without a lot of birdseed. That's the way it is for the

>vast majority of us in that room. The process suffers when

>people hijack the daily briefings to advance their own agenda.

>That does a disservice to our craft, to our credibility, to

>our mission and to the public we serve.

>

Exactly.

BG

>

>These reporters make the point that Gannon was no different

>than many other people in the press room in asking questions

>to promote an ideological agenda. They also make the point

>that the people doing this have endorsed the repugnant idea

>that it's now legitimate to research the private sexual

>activities of reporters who present views that you dislike.

>

Doug, that may be true. But the real issue here is not the type of softball questions he was asking, but who was he and how did he get credentialed into the White House press room. That is the real story, not the type of questions that he was asking. He is NOT a journalist or a reporter. He is a paid shill. What we need to know is who is paying him, and why; and why the White House is giving him free access.

>Everyone knows that when you can't defeat a message, you

>attack the messenger. But you should try to be a little less

>obvious - or at least a little more accurate - about it.

>

No, this messenger needs to be attacked. And he brought all of this onto himslef. Doug, you seem like a reasonably intellignet man, and there is really no way that you can think that this whole episode does not stink up the place. This is not about the ideology of the questions, but who the questioner is. If he is an honest hard working journalist, why does he continue to lie and equivacate in interviews? There is much more to this story, and we will see it soon.

>But I know none of that will matter - facts don't matter to a

>bloodcrazed lynch mob. JEFF GANNON IS A GAY ESCORT! THAT'S

>ALL THAT MATTERS!!

>

No, that isn't what matters. What matters is how a gay escort got White House press credentials! Doug you may want to ignore the real issue, but there is just no way this is going away, and there is absolutely no justification for it.

This is going to be fun.

Transcript of CNN Interview with the Reporter Formerly Known as Gannon

By E&P Staff

Published: February 19, 2005 12:15 AM ET

NEW YORK The following is the transcript of the Friday night CNN interview of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert by Anderson Cooper.

COOPER: I spoke with Jeff Gannon earlier this evening. I started by asking him why he doesn't use his real name.

Video clip:

GANNON: I use a pseudonym, because my real name is very difficult to pronounce, to remember, and to spell. And many people who have been talking about me on television have yet to pronounce it correctly.

COOPER: But I mean, your real name is James and you used the pseudonym Jeff.

GANNON: Yes.

COOPER: How is James so much harder than Jeff?

GANNON: No, no, I meant my last name.

COOPER: Well, your real last name is Guckert, and the pseudonym you used is Gannon.

GANNON: Yes. It's easier to pronounce, to remember, and to spell.

COOPER: But when you would go into the White House to get a pass for a briefing, you would use the name James Guckert.

GANNON: Yes, because that's the name on my driver's license.

COOPER: And then -- but then you would switch to Jeff Gannon to ask questions?

GANNON: Because that is the name that I do my reporting under. It's not uncommon for journalists, authors, actors, to have pseudonyms.

COOPER: There are those who have said that the reason perhaps you are using a different name is that there is stuff from your past that you did not want people to know about or find out about.

GANNON: How I'll address that is that I have made mistakes in my past. And these are all of a very personal and private nature that have been -- that have been all brought to the surface by people who disagreed with the question I asked at the presidential press conference several weeks ago. And is -- the effect of this has been that we seem to have established a new standard for journalists in this country, where if someone disagrees with you, then your personal life, your private life, and anything you have ever done in the past is going to be brought up for public inspection.

COOPER: What your critics say, though, is that while a lot of this may be politically motivated, that liberal bloggers who didn't like the question you ask or don't like you in general are targeting you and revealing things about your personal life, that there are legitimate questions to ask. And in fact, they say that things in your personal life in fact just point to, A, a certain level of hypocrisy on your own part, but also serious questions about the White House vetting process.

GANNON: Well, I can't speak to the White House vetting process. All I can say is that they received all of the information that was asked for, that they ask every journalist for who applies for a daily pass into the White House. I suppose that they don't -- they aren't interested in reporters' sexual history either.

COOPER: Let me give you a chance just to respond to what you want to respond to. You had previously stated that you had registered a number of pornographic Web sites for a private client. That's what you had said publicly. You said the sites were never activated. A man now has talked to The Washington Post, who said that you had essentially paid him to create some Web sites for an escort service, and you are yourself offering yourself as an escort.

GANNON: Well, like I said, there's a lot of things being said about me out there. A lot of things that have nothing to do with the reporting I have done for the last two years.

COOPER: Your critics bring up your past, that whether or not you did work as an escort as going to your credibility, that you know, should somebody who perhaps was working as an escort was getting access to the White House and being passed along through the Secret Service. Was your employer aware of your past activities?

GANNON: My employer was never at any time aware of anything in my past beyond the writings I did, because, frankly, it isn't relevant to the job I was asked to do, which was to be a reporter.

COOPER: Was anyone at the White House aware of your private activities?

GANNON: I would say that -- I would say no, absolutely, categorically no.

COOPER: There are many questions that have been raised about whether or not -- people raising the specter that you are somehow a White House plant. Are you a White House plant? Were you (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

GANNON: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, how I came to be at the White House is I asked to attend a briefing. I asked the White House Press Office. They gave me a daily pass to get in.

COOPER: When was that?

GANNON: I don't recall, but it was -- I think somewhere in the neighborhood of two years ago.

COOPER: Because in -- was that for Talon News?

GANNON: At the time, it was called something else, but it -- the name was changed to Talon News shortly thereafter.

COOPER: What was it called at the time?

GANNON: It was called GOPUSA.

COOPER: So -- and that's owned by a Republican activist, Bobby Eberle?

GANNON: It's owned by Bobby Eberle.

COOPER: The first record we have now of you actually being at a White House press briefing was on February 28, 2003, as you said, before Talon News even existed. So why were you given a White House pass?

GANNON: I was given a White House -- well, you will have to ask the White House that. But I asked to attend the White House briefing because I was -- you know, because I wanted to report on the activities there.

COOPER: But GOPUSA is not a news organization.

GANNON: Well, we were -- we were -- we had established a news division, and it was later renamed Talon News.

COOPER: Because this is news to just about everybody. You know, Talon News wasn't registered I think until, well, March 29 of 2003. I think the first articles didn't appear until April 1. So I guess the questions that are being raised why were you at -- allowed to go to a White House briefing if you are working for GOPUSA, which is a clearly partisan organization?

GANNON: There are many, many organizations, many people that are allowed to attend the White House briefings. I don't know the criteria they use.

COOPER: But you weren't even publishing anything. You weren't reporting anything.

GANNON: Well, actually, I was at the time.

COOPER: When was the first article you ever published?

GANNON: Well, you're -- I don't know that, because I'm here in your studio here. And I don't know the answer to specific dates. All I can tell you is that -- and frankly, all these questions about Talon News and GOPUSA, you need to ask them about that, because I don't represent them any longer.

COOPER: Yeah, we've asked them. They refuse to talk about it.

GANNON: Well, I mean, they would be the ultimate authority on that.

COOPER: This liberal group, Media Matters, which I'm sure you know well about. They have been very critical about you, really looked into this probably closer than just about anybody. They say that essentially, you are not a real reporter. And it's not even a question of being an advocate, that you have directly lifted large segments of your reports directly from White House press releases.

GANNON: All my stories were usually titled "White House Says," "President Bush Wants," and I relied on transcripts from the briefings, I relied on press releases that were sent to the press for the purpose of accurately portraying what the White House believed or wanted.

COOPER: But using the term "reporting" implies some sort of vetting, some sort of research, some sort of -- I mean, that's called faxing or Xeroxing, if you are just lifting transcripts and putting them into an article.

GANNON: If I am communicating to my readers exactly what the White House believes on any certain issue, that's reporting to them an unvarnished, unfiltered version of what they believe.

COOPER: Did you receive information from the White House that others didn't get?

GANNON: Absolutely not.

COOPER: So there was an article in which you interviewed Ambassador Joe Wilson, and you implied that you had seen a CIA classified document in which Valerie Plame ...

GANNON: I didn't do that at all. I didn't do that at all. If you read the question, and I provided -- my article was actually a transcript of my conversation with Ambassador Wilson -- I made reference to a memo. And this ...

COOPER: How did you know about that memo?

GANNON: Well, this memo was referred to in a Wall Street Journal article a week earlier.

COOPER: So that wasn't based on any information that you had been given by the White House?

GANNON: I was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else, for that matter.

COOPER: You have been very clear that you believe this is politically motivated. And I think just about everyone probably agrees with that, that you asked that question, it was a softball, and liberal bloggers went after you to find out what they could in the public domain about you. But isn't that -- and you say that's unfair. Isn't that -- aren't those the same techniques that you yourself used as a reporter that sort of -- to publish innuendo, to publish advocacy-driven, politically motivated reports?

GANNON: Well, I don't see it that way. But what was -- what's been done to me is far in excess of what has ever been done to any other journalist that I could remember. My life has been turned inside out and upside down. And, again, it makes us all wonder that if someone disagrees with you, that is now your personal life fair game? And I'm hoping that fair-minded people will stand up and say that what's been done to me is wrong, and that -- that people's personal lives have no impact on their ability to be a journalist, you know. Why should my past prevent me from having a future?

COOPER: Appreciate you being with us. Jeff Gannon, thanks very much.

GANNON: Thanks so much

I saw this interview on AC360 the other night and was surprised to see Jeff nee James actually on air. Throughout the interview Jeff/James was thoroughly flustered, kept stammering and had the rapid eye blinking so often times associated with lying, covering up and being uncomfortable with the situation. At times it was so distracting I almost felt bad for him, but this famewhore needs to be given a reality check.

His PR person must have it in for him, because Anderson Cooper really did tear into Jeff's responses and did not let him off the hook at all.

Part of me thinks Jeff nee James just wanted some time to stare into AC's baby blues.