How low will they go - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2005, 01:52 PM   #46
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:46 PM
The latest on this scandal is that he was also a male prostitiute, a tax dodger, and other white house reporters have stated that he held a regular pass not a daily.

It may not be Rove's plant, but everyone else has denied it. This should be investigated thoroughly, if only as a security risk. The story finally made it to CNN after over a week.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 02:15 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:46 PM
anyone want to hear a really juicy, totally unsubstantiated rumor about how Mr. "Ganon" got inside the press room?

__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:46 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
anyone want to hear a really juicy, totally unsubstantiated rumor about how Mr. "Ganon" got inside the press room?
I do

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 06:54 AM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:46 PM
as i said, this is just a theory/rumor, and total conjecture, but it yields a plausible scenario. what didn’t make sense before was this:

1) allowing a gay escort access to the white house press conferences

2) the constant day passes rather then a longer term pass

3) the fake name and mclellan playing along

4) the sudden creation of talon news (i believe it had been in existence for 4 days before Gannon got a WH pass).

the idea that this was done so that mclellan had a “go to guy” when the heat was on didn’t make much sense - gannon was a timebomb.

let's also talk about Scott McClelland.

this scandal has revived Washington whispers that the supposedly anti-gay Republican Party is really nothing less than a gay affirmative action program -- these days, it looks like a Harvey Fierstein deeply closeted cocktail party. a few months ago, activist Mike Rogers revealed that GOP National Field Director Dan Gurley is gay and sought unsafe sex online. Rogers also revealed that Ken Mehlman, chair of the RNC, is gay.

this week, the Internet news site Raw Story posted allegations that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan may be gay and suggested he is a common fixture at Texas gay bars: "He was often seen in gay clubs in Austin and was comfortable being there," an anonymous source told Raw Story. "He's been seen in places that normal people who are looking for heterosexual relationships are not seen alone."

perhaps gannon either convinced a lover to do him a favor, or maybe he was blackmailing mclellan. if Gannon had some sort of leverage, then the story makes a lot more sense. there might be other explanations, but the blackmail theory makes more sense then the go-to-guy theory.

1) gannon says he’s going to go public about mclellan; that he has proof. he wants out of the escort business and into journalism but he can’t get into the house/senate areas.

2) mclellan tells him to do this talon news site (or has others set that up for him) and then says he’ll call on gannon and get him into the press conferences.

3) they do the fake name to hide gannon’s past.

4) for two years it seems to work fine and then it all falls apart.
it’s just a theory. it could have worked out loads of other ways. but like i said, it makes more sense then the theory that gannon is just a go-to guy

just a conspiracy theory.

but oh-so much fun!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:08 AM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Now I remember, I read that Raw Story thing a few days ago.

Interesting..As The WH Turns

Queer As Press Secretaries

It's irrelevant to me if Scott is gay, but obviously if it leads to blackmail and inappropriate shenanigans re press passes that's not good. Of course if he's straight those things could still happen. But the gay theories are plausible I suppose.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:08 AM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:46 PM
and to further add fuel to this conspiracy, below is a sample of Gannon in action at a 2004 White House press briefing. apparently, McClellan was, as the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin put it: "getting hammered with questions about the 9/11 commission and the possible inappropriate juxtaposition of a visit to a 9/11 memorial with a fundraiser."

then along comes white night Jeff Gannon with administration-blessed access:

McClellan: "Go ahead, Jeff."

Gannon: "Thank you. First of all, I hope the grand jury didn't force you to turn over the wedding card I sent to you and your wife. (Laughter.) Do you see any hypocrisy in the controversy about the President's mention of 9/11 in his ads, when Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt's campaign issued this button, that says, 'Remember Pearl Harbor'? I have a visual aid for folks watching at home."

McClellan: "You're pointing out some historical facts. Obviously, Pearl Harbor was a defining moment back in the period of World War II, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was strongly committed to winning World War II and talked about it frequently."

Gannon: "So you think it certainly is valid that the President does talk about it and --"
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:10 AM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Now I remember, I read that Raw Story thing a few days ago.

Interesting..As The WH Turns

Queer As Press Secretaries

It's irrelevant to me if Scott is gay, but obviously if it leads to blackmail and inappropriate shenanigans re press passes that's not good. Of course if he's straight those things could still happen. But the gay theories are plausible I suppose.

and this is what can be so fun about Washington.

last year, the guy who cuts my hair insisted that Scott was gay.

and lo and behold ... perhaps (and, again, this is all RUMOR! INNUENDO! NON-FACT! like WMDs in Iraq ...) he was right.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:14 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Hairdressers always have all the dirt

So Scott is married?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:34 AM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Hairdressers always have all the dirt

So Scott is married?

no idea ... it often doesn't make much of a difference, and i don't think it's commented on, and if Gannon was a plant, or a blackmailer, than maybe he agreed to mention Scott's wedding as part of the deal or something.

truth is, no clue.

but why not speculate?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:39 AM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:46 PM
I see your point(what the connection could be about Gannon mentioning that), I just wouldn't want to offend anyone who is gay by speculating about that sort of thing, if they would be offended by that. Maybe I'm just being too paranoid or something..

On a totally irrelevant side note, I wish Kyan Douglas could be my hairdresser
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 12:33 PM   #56
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 06:46 PM
Hmm...when it comes to plausibility, i think that the "plant" theory is more believable than the potential "blackmailing" theory. That's a weird thing to ask as a blackmailer: "I want access to White House press conferences so i can make you guys look good. If you don't do it, i'll show everyone nekkid pictures of you and another guy."

The fact that so many of Gannon's questions were softballs (no pun intended) provides some credence to the plant theory.

Even if WH is completely innocent here from any wrongdoing, the perception that they did something is getting more and more ingrained.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 01:44 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:46 PM
http://mgrant8.blogspot.com/2005/02/...continues.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/17/125328/435
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 03:02 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
Hmm...when it comes to plausibility, i think that the "plant" theory is more believable than the potential "blackmailing" theory. That's a weird thing to ask as a blackmailer: "I want access to White House press conferences so i can make you guys look good. If you don't do it, i'll show everyone nekkid pictures of you and another guy."

The fact that so many of Gannon's questions were softballs (no pun intended) provides some credence to the plant theory.

yeah, but say someone wanted to switch careers and get out of, you know, prostitution.

and there's much, much more money to be made in Right Wing "journalism" than there is in actual jouranlism.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:54 PM   #59
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:46 PM
LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/ar...rint&position=

The White House Stages Its 'Daily Show'

HE prayers of those hoping that real television news might take its cues from Jon Stewart were finally answered on Feb. 9, 2005. A real newsman borrowed a technique from fake news to deliver real news about fake news in prime time.

Let me explain.

On "Countdown," a nightly news hour on MSNBC, the anchor, Keith Olbermann, led off with a classic "Daily Show"-style bit: a rapid-fire montage of sharply edited video bites illustrating the apparent idiocy of those in Washington. In this case, the eight clips stretched over a year in the White House briefing room - from February 2004 to late last month - and all featured a reporter named "Jeff." In most of them, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, says "Go ahead, Jeff," and "Jeff" responds with a softball question intended not to elicit information but to boost President Bush and smear his political opponents. In the last clip, "Jeff" is quizzing the president himself, in his first post-inaugural press conference of Jan. 26. Referring to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, "Jeff" asks, "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

If we did not live in a time when the news culture itself is divorced from reality, the story might end there: "Jeff," you'd assume, was a lapdog reporter from a legitimate, if right-wing, news organization like Fox, and you'd get some predictable yuks from watching a compressed video anthology of his kissing up to power. But as Mr. Olbermann explained, "Jeff Gannon," the star of the montage, was a newsman no more real than a "Senior White House Correspondent" like Stephen Colbert on "The Daily Show" and he worked for a news organization no more real than The Onion. Yet the video broadcast by Mr. Olbermann was not fake. "Jeff" was in the real White House, and he did have those exchanges with the real Mr. McClellan and the real Mr. Bush.

"Jeff Gannon's" real name is James D. Guckert. His employer was a Web site called Talon News, staffed mostly by volunteer Republican activists. Media Matters for America, the liberal press monitor that has done the most exhaustive research into the case, discovered that Talon's "news" often consists of recycled Republican National Committee and White House press releases, and its content frequently overlaps with another partisan site, GOPUSA, with which it shares its owner, a Texas delegate to the 2000 Republican convention. Nonetheless, for nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Mr. Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on Mr. Olbermann's show, he "was representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership."

How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like "Kerry Could Become First Gay President," is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day. Though Mr. McClellan told Editor & Publisher magazine that he didn't know until recently that Mr. Guckert was using an alias, Bruce Bartlett, a White House veteran of the Reagan-Bush I era, wrote on the nonpartisan journalism Web site Romenesko, that "if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover." (Otherwise, it would be a rather amazing post-9/11 security breach.)

By my count, "Jeff Gannon" is now at least the sixth "journalist" (four of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's "marriage" initiatives. The other four have played real newsmen on TV. Before Mr. Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers - the Woodward and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports ("In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting," went the script) pretending to "sort through the details" of the administration's Medicare prescription-drug plan in 2004. Such "reports," some of which found their way into news packages distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal "covert propaganda" by the Government Accountability Office.

The money that paid for both the Ryan-Garcia news packages and the Armstrong Williams contract was siphoned through the same huge public relations firm, Ketchum Communications, which itself filtered the funds through subcontractors. A new report by Congressional Democrats finds that Ketchum has received $97 million of the administration's total $250 million P.R. kitty, of which the Williams and Ryan-Garcia scams would account for only a fraction. We have yet to learn precisely where the rest of it ended up.

Even now, we know that the fake news generated by the six known shills is only a small piece of the administration's overall propaganda effort. President Bush wasn't entirely joking when he called the notoriously meek March 6, 2003, White House press conference on the eve of the Iraq invasion "scripted" while it was still going on. (And "Jeff Gannon" apparently wasn't even at that one). Everything is scripted.

The pre-fab "Ask President Bush" town hall-style meetings held during last year's campaign (typical question: "Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?") were carefully designed for television so that, as Kenneth R. Bazinet wrote last summer in New York's Daily News, "unsuspecting viewers" tuning in their local news might get the false impression they were "watching a completely open forum." A Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence, intended to provide propagandistic news items, some of them possibly false, to foreign news media was shut down in 2002 when it became an embarrassing political liability. But much more quietly, another Pentagon propaganda arm, the Pentagon Channel, has recently been added as a free channel for American viewers of the Dish Network. Can a Social Security Channel be far behind?

It is a brilliant strategy. When the Bush administration isn't using taxpayers' money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post discovered that even at an inaugural ball he was assigned "minders" - attractive women who wouldn't give him their full names - to let the revelers know that Big Brother was watching should they be tempted to say anything remotely off message.

The inability of real journalists to penetrate this White House is not all the White House's fault. The errors of real news organizations have played perfectly into the administration's insidious efforts to blur the boundaries between the fake and the real and thereby demolish the whole notion that there could possibly be an objective and accurate free press. Conservatives, who supposedly deplore post-modernism, are now welcoming in a brave new world in which it's a given that there can be no empirical reality in news, only the reality you want to hear (or they want you to hear). The frequent fecklessness of the Beltway gang does little to penetrate this Washington smokescreen. For a case in point, you needed only switch to CNN on the day after Mr. Olbermann did his fake-news-style story on the fake reporter in the White House press corps.

"Jeff Gannon" had decided to give an exclusive TV interview to a sober practitioner of by-the-book real news, Wolf Blitzer. Given this journalistic opportunity, the anchor asked questions almost as soft as those "Jeff" himself had asked in the White House. Mr. Blitzer didn't question Mr. Guckert's outrageous assertion that he adopted a fake name because "Jeff Gannon is easier to pronounce and easier to remember." (Is "Jeff" easier to pronounce than his real first name, Jim?). Mr. Blitzer never questioned Gannon/Guckert's assertion that Talon News "is a separate, independent news division" of GOPUSA. Only in a brief follow-up interview a day later did he ask Gannon/Guckert to explain why he was questioned by the F.B.I. in the case that may send legitimate reporters to jail: Mr. Guckert has at times implied that he either saw or possessed a classified memo identifying Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative. Might that memo have come from the same officials who looked after "Jeff Gannon's" press credentials? Did Mr. Guckert have any connection with CNN's own Robert Novak, whose publication of Ms. Plame's name started this investigation in the first place? The anchor didn't go there.

The "real" news from CNN was no news at all, but it's not as if any of its competitors did much better. The "Jeff Gannon" story got less attention than another media frenzy - that set off by the veteran news executive Eason Jordan, who resigned from CNN after speaking recklessly at a panel discussion at Davos, where he apparently implied, at least in passing, that American troops deliberately targeted reporters. Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances? With real news this timid, the appointment of Jon Stewart to take over Dan Rather's chair at CBS News could be just the jolt television journalism needs. As Mr. Olbermann demonstrated when he borrowed a sharp "Daily Show" tool to puncture the "Jeff Gannon" case, the only road back to reality may be to fight fake with fake.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 05:10 PM   #60
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 06:46 PM
Great story, Scarletwine. Thanks for posting that.

It'll be interesting to see if this does end up having a "sex" angle. I wonder if the media (and Wolf Blitzer) will show the same, um, journalistic lust as they did during the Monica affair.
__________________

__________________
Judah is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com