Salon.com skewers the mainstream media for ignoring the Guckert story

Eric Boehlert in Salon.com:

Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House -- without undergoing a full-blown security background check -- in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard. Yet as of Thursday, ABC News, which produces "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight With Peter Jennings," "Nightline," "This Week," "20/20" and "Primetime Live," has not reported one word about the three-week-running scandal. Neither has CBS News ("The Early Show," "The CBS Evening News," "60 Minutes," "60 Minutes Wednesday" and "Face the Nation"). NBC and its entire family of morning, evening and weekend news programs have addressed the story only three times....

Meanwhile on the newsstands, through Thursday, there had been no meaningful coverage in USA Today or in the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Detroit Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Francisco Chronicle, Indianapolis Star, Denver Post, Oakland Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer, to name a few that have effectively boycotted the White House press office scandal....

As for the editorial pages, it's curious that the nation's five largest papers, all pillars of the media establishment (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today), have been silent on the Guckert saga -- especially when dailies in more out-of-the-way places such as Tulsa, Okla.; Bangor, Maine; Niagara Falls, N.Y.; Augusta County, Va.; and Pensacola, Fla., have all deemed the story troubling enough to require attention, as noted by Media Matters for America, a liberal advocacy group that first raised questions about Guckert and Talon News....

Read the rest of this post...

End of the day open thread

Gnite Read the rest of this post...

Biden refuses to sign Durbin letter re: Gannon

Raw Story has the latest on the letter Senator Durbin plans to send to the White House, demanding an investigation of the Gannon affair. And the latest is that while numerous senators like Kerry, Reid, and Kennedy are signing the letter, Biden is refusing.

What makes this interesting is that Biden went on Bill Maher last week and CALLED for a congressional investigation. Then he spoke to the SF Chronicle editorial board yesterday and AGAIN called for a congressional investigation. But now that another Senator is actually writing the president and demanding an investigation, Biden won't sign on.

Apparently, we've had some feedback from folks who have called his office to inquire about this - one person writes:

I called his(Senator Biden) office to recheck my facts, his staffer said he wants:
a) a justice department investigation; or
b)a Congressional inquiry/hearings/ judiciary committee hearings.

"He just doesn't want the White House investigating itself" per Biden's staffer at 11:45am today.

This is why he isn't signing Durbin's letter. He still wants an investigation but not the way that letter has it being done. This was a follow up call to the one I posted at the end of the last thread.

I can perhaps understand that reasoning, but Senator, you fight with the letter you've got. This is the letter we have. It's from the leadership. At the current time it's the best letter we're going to get. Rather than haggling over the details while this scandal slips us away from us, and give the appearance of your not supporting your leadership and your grassroots on the Gannon issue, why not just hold your nose and sign the damn letter? The point of the letter is to make a statement of Democratic resolve on the severity of the situation the Gannon scandal presents. It's not to haggle over who does the investigation.

Please, Senator Biden. Some of us have been very impressed by you on TV, even though our friends told us not to trust you. We'd like to trust you. Do the right thing.

Feel free to give the senator a holler:
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov Read the rest of this post...

Special thanks to the Freeway blogger

Apparently, this has been up along a highway out west for 6 hours now LOL. I had no idea until Freeway just emailed me. Check out his site, he's amazing - note he's planning a special freeway blogging to mark the upcoming death of the 1500th US soldier in Iraq, more here. If you're a reporter, this guy would make a fascinating article.

Read the rest of this post...

Gannon might be interviewing on Keith Olbermann next

On MSNBC. Hard to tell what's going on - Olbermann is doing the topic, but not sure if Guckert is interviewing. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Another busy day. Have at it. Read the rest of this post...

We have a pornographic mystery on our hands

It seems that several of the live male prostitution profiles linked to Jeff Gannon have now been taken off the Internet. In addition, the Web archive of the main escort site, usmcpt.com, has now been erased (but have no fear, we have copies of everything). All of this is quite odd since Gannon has been implying that his linkage to male prostitution is all just crazy conspiracy talk. If so, then why did the hooker using the actual profiles remove them? I mean, you can't buy this kind of publicity.

Fortunately, we have screen captures of everything, and one of the profiles is still live - I just grabbed this screen capture of it, not to be salacious, but to prove that this is not someone's "distant past" we're talking about, it's someone's present (once you're at that site, you have to poke around to find it:

Read the rest of this post...

Hannity, Hannity, make me a match...

The Center for American Progress found out that Sean Hannity is running a dating service on his Web site (I am not kidding). They pulled some of the best ads and reprinted them on their site.

Here's one of my favorites (I am NOT making this up, I checked Hannity's dating page and these are real profiles):


Center for American Progress has found a few other good ones, check them out. Read the rest of this post...

Gannon launches a blog!

UPDATE: Yes, we know this is him because it's the same Web address he was using while working at Talon News, and he answers emails addressed to him at this address. We have other proof as well, this is him. He pulled his site after he resigned. He's now relaunched it, with a vengeance apparently. I can't imagine Karl Rove is very happy right now.

He's out of his mind.

Ok, I'm reading Jeff Gannon's new blog, and it's simply amazing. Some of the best tidbits I've already found:

Jeff says: Immediately the questions about how I got into the briefing room began to be asked. After all, I had 'no journalistic credentials' despite the fact that I had written over 500 articles for Talon News over a two-year period.

John says: Uh, TODAY you've written over 500 articles, supposedly. The day you walked in the door of the White House, how many had you written? Any? Not to mention, you weren't even working for Talon News when you first walked in the White House as a "journalist."

Jeff says: They dug deep for dirt, dredging up things long past and erecting a fantasy world worthy of a Vince Flynn novel.

John says: Things long past? Like currently LIVE solicitations for prostitution that we found on the Web, still online today?

Jeff says: What they found is domain names and sexy pictures from which sprung rumors and conspiracy theories.

John says: What we found was an entire Web site on which you were apparently selling yourself as an escort - the site included x-rated photos, including an entire series of you urinating. That site remained live for several months AFTER you had started covering the White House. What we found were 7 other online profiles of you selling yourself as a prostitute for $200 an hour and $1200 a weekend, at least one of which is still live today (others were just taken down a few days ago). Which part of this conspiracy theory isn't true? Of course, we don't know because you were asked for comment before the story even ran and you refused to respond, and you still refuse to respond.

Jeff says: If I had been a liberal reporter with the salacious past now attributed to me, I would be the Grand Marshall of the next Gay Pride Parade as well as a media darling, able to give softball interviews.

John says: If you were a liberal reporter you'd have been run out of town by FOX News, the Washington Times, and every single Republican in Congress, and the president would be up for impeachment. If you were a liberal reporter you wouldn't work for, and aid and abet, people who hate you and who want to deny your very humanity.

Jeff says: But because I am a conservative, they continue to try to smear me with allegations of behavior that they otherwise would vigorously defend.

John says: No, Jeff, we wouldn't defend a gay hooker who was writing articles defending Rick Santorum's comments equating gays with man-dog sex, and we wouldn't defend a gay hooker who wrote for a news service that recently referred to Matthew Shepard horrible murder as a "so-called 'hate crime,'" in a clear effort to diminish that horrendous crime.

Jeff says: This is not to say that I have not made mistakes in the past. Like all of us have at one time or another, I made poor choices and exercised bad judgment. But I believe in a forgiving God who changed my life. It was through that renewal that I went on to have a career as a reporter and further blessed to become a White House correspondent.

John says: Really? So, since you now found God and imply that you're born-again, then we can assume that it is NOT you who is currently selling those male prostitution Web addresses, including militaryescortsM4M.com, on Afternic for $7500 a pop?

Jeff says: The Left is [sic] always celebrates about second chances, except when it comes to conservatives. The only exception to that rule is when a conservative goes over to the dark side, like David Brock did.

John says: I know David Brock. David Brock is my friend. You are no David Brock. David came clean with and about his past. David came clean with the fact that he worked for, and abetted, people who hated who he was, what he was. Have you?

Jeff says: These people may have exposed some of my human failings but they have also revealed their own hypocrisy.

John says: What failings? You just denied them. Read the rest of this post...

Mr. Fitzgerald, are you listening?

Democratic Underground has discovered a few of Gannon's old postings on a conservative Web site bulletin board on which he writes:

"I am one of the only conservatives in the regular White House press corps."

Then, in response to a statement by someone else who tells Gannon "may your tribe increase!" Gannon writes:

"Not likely! There are many obstacles for admittance."

1. What did Gannon mean when he wrote that he was in the "regular White House press corps"? He told the media, and the White House confirmed, that he simply got day passes to the White House. I thought day passes were for media who do not attend on a regular basis, not the White House press corps, no? I mean, if someone with a day pass could be a "regular" attendee in the White House press corps, then why do they have hard passes at all?

2. Gannon in his recent interviews, and the White House, led us to believe that it was a cakewalk for anyone to walk in off the street and get a day pass (simply email the night before with you social security number, then show up at the gate the next morning with your driver's license).

Yet, now Gannon himself implies that he had to go through "many obstacles for admittance." Really? What were those obstacles and how did he surmount them? Obviously, Gannon's not suggesting that having to provide his driver's license and his social at the front gate were somehow "obstacles." So what were these apparently tough-to-conquer obstacles? And how did Gannon surmount them, all on his own? And why did the White House, and Gannon himself, tell us recently that it was pretty easy to walk in?



What we're seeing here is that every time Gannon speaks, more questions arise. It's increasingly clear that you simply can't trust what he says, as it changes daily and with the wind. Possibly the most trustworthy source of information about this entire affair is Gannon's personal diary that, according to an interview he gave to Editor & Publisher, he's been keeping since early 2003. Assuming the existence of this so-called diary isn't just another exaggeration, it could prove one of the only pieces of evidence not tainted by Gannon's penchant for spinning a tale whenever he faced with a press op.

Let's hope US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is taking note.

UPDATE: DailyKos had apparently found this a while back, didn't realize. But the analysis still stands. :-) Read the rest of this post...

Video: Gannon on Today show, today

Crooks and Liars has the video.

Yet again, the entire interview is him implying that much of the info we've uncovered is wrong. He gets asked about the Web addresses he registered, and says there's a lot of misinformation out there. Gets asked 'were you an escort,' he replies there's a lot of misinformation.

Well, with all due respect, your answers sound like, well, misinformation. Your answers are clearly an attempt to cast doubt on whether you registered the Web addresses and whether you solicited work as an escort/prostitute. The facts say you did. You have refused, to date, to simply say it isn't true, if it is in fact not true.

And finally, I contacted you for comment, before my story linking you to escort services ran, and you didn't respond. I mean, if all of this weren't true, why in God's name wouldn't you respond and say "it's just not true"? Instead, you chose to let the story get bigger and bigger for three weeks now, and still you're not coming clean on the main allegations - rather, you're simply letting the story grow while all the while suggesting major parts of it aren't true.

Key questions surrounding this story remain either unanswered, or your answers keep changing. Then you tell us that you had no ties to the White House, that they had no hand in your work, and we're to believe that THIS time you're not giving us an answer that's going to change in a week when we uncover more evidence. And you wonder why people smell a larger story? Read the rest of this post...

And the cartoons keep coming...

Read the rest of this post...

FOX News enters the fray

Sure, it's only their Web site, but still. They actually published a decent story. More importantly, now their readership/viewership is learning about the story, which only helps it grow. Read the rest of this post...

SF Chronicle lead editorial on Ganonn-gate

SF Chronicle, lead editorial:

Whether Gannon, whose real name is James D. Guckert, was a White House "plant'' may never be known because officials in the Bush administration have taken great pains to distance themselves from the controversy. But passive denials only increase the lack of credibility to explanations of how the White House credentialed Guckert, even though he was representing a pseudo-news operation, using an alias and was linked to X-rated Web sites....

It's hard to say which is worse: That the White House had no idea who it was allowing to be within shouting distance of the president -- or that it knew exactly who Jeff Gannon was and why he was there.

Read the rest of this post...

Gannon/Guckert Today Show Transcript

Thanks to cadejo4 from the comments, MSNBC has a transcript of the interview:

Brown: You have said that you registered a number of pornographic Web sites. Is that accurate?

Gannon: Well, I registered a number of domain names, that some have suggested are…

Brown: Pornographic Web sites.

Gannon: Well, yes.

Brown: Did you advertise yourself as a gay, male escort for hire on a Web site?

Gannon: I cannot go into those specifics. I can tell you that there is a lot of misinformation out there. There's a lot of fabrication out there, and a lot of misinformation.

Brown: Why can't you then clear it up right now? The cameras are rolling.

Gannon: As I've said, I've been advised not to get into the specifics out there. Is there some truth out there? Yes. Is there a lot of falsehood out there? Absolutely.

Read the rest of this post...

Jeff/Jim does the Today Show

Jeff/Jim really is becoming a media whore, too.

This morning, Campbell Brown did a taped piece featuring an interview with Gannon/Guckert. She did a pretty good job. After he gave the lame excuse about changing his name, she told him the name isn't that hard to say.

Brown asked him about his hooker past, which he wouldn't answer. He did say there was some truth and a lot of falsehood about him.

It was more of the same from him. He sure intimated he was consulting an attorney and there was more to come.

Campbell concluded by mentioning that Dems were calling for investigations. The way she did her segment sure made it clear they were needed.

After the piece, Matt Lauer said this was a bizarre yet fascinating story.

Yes, Matt, it is. And it is about time that the MSM really started paying attention. Read the rest of this post...

Atlanta-Journal Constitution reports on Dems demanding investigation, subpoena

From the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Thursday edition:

Reporter's role questioned
Democrats want to expand inquiry of alleged propaganda

By EUNICE MOSCOSO
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/24/05

WASHINGTON — Two prominent House Democrats urged the Government Accountability Office on Wednesday to investigate whether the Bush administration broke a law against using federal money for propaganda by giving what they called "pre-packaged stories" to former reporter James Guckert.

The lawmakers also said that a federal prosecutor investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name should subpoena Guckert's journal. Guckert, who used the pseudonym Jeff Gannon at White House briefings for two years, is one of the reporters questioned about the leak of a CIA memo disclosing the identity of Plame, the wife of Bush war critic and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson....

Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and House minority whip, is also circulating a letter to colleagues that asks the Bush administration how Guckert was able to gain access to White House press briefings with a false name and no journalism background, Editor & Publisher magazine reported Wednesday....

Read the rest of this post...

Thu. Washington Post gossip piece on Guckert

I just had to post this. Goodnight now.

From the Reliable Source - the must-read gossip page of the Washington Post:

C'mon, Just a Few More Minutes of Fame?

• Trolling for a date: James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) is angling for an invite to the gala White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in April, saying his recent notoriety qualifies him as a great guest. "There is still time," he told Editor & Publisher this week. "There is always someone there trying to make news. Maybe this year it is going to be me." He also revealed that he's trying to line up paid speaking gigs, telling the trade mag: "There are people who are definitely interested in some of my behind-the-scenes work in the press room."

Yes, this is the same guy who, after being linked to gay escort sites a couple of weeks ago, posted on JeffGannon.com: "In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life."

Meanwhile yesterday, Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.) and Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) asked the Government Accountability Office to expand its investigation of illegal government propaganda efforts by looking into Guckert's work as a White House reporter for the Web sites Talon News and GOPUSA. They claimed the administration "gave prepacked print stories to Mr. Guckert, which he reprinted wholesale."

Read the rest of this post...