The president is famous for his relationship with the media. While past presidents like Nixon would write letters to testy journalists or favor ones who were somewhat more aggreeable, the president has re-written the rules when it comes to how to handle the press corps at press conferences. First, the president ignored UPI reporter Helen Thomas and in a break from tradition, refused to allow her to thank the president on behalf of the press corps which has become a tradition for her to do. After so many years of great reporting, she then went on to become a columnist after being passed over for lesser journalists questions. The current administration also rightly caught some flak for paying Armstrong Williams to peddle NCLB and other educational Bush issues in his syndicated columns. It's one thing for a columnist to have a position, but to be awarded for it? Now it turns out that the White House issued a press release to Jeff Gannon, a man who has no legitimate media credentials and who may been involved in some level in the Valerie Plame leak case. This is a guy who couldn't get a congressional press badge, but was evidently issued one by the white house. Not only that, but the guy was implicated in being involved in a gay escort service This episode is eerily similar to another incident in the 1980s.

Questions for debate:

1.)With Fox news and talk radio in their pocket, why does the administration feel that they have to plant fake reporters in press conferences?

2.)Is this not a big deal? If not, would it be different if Clinton had done it?

3.)Who would do a better job for the people in terms of asking the president questions-Helen Thomas or Jeff Gannon?

1.)With Fox news and talk radio in their pocket, why does the administration feel that they have to plant fake reporters in press conferences?

I see two things at work here.

First is a never ending Republican lust for power. The White House, both Houses of Congress, majorities in a majority of state governments and possible near tem appointments that might tip the balance of power on the Supreme Court are simply not enough. Where will Rove and company stop? Total eradication of the opposition? Control of the press is the next logical step

Second, despite the immense power, I sense paranoia within the Bush administration similar to that of Nixon during his 1972 reelection bid. This regime sold us a war under false pretenses and now must pay people to push the dubious value of No Child Left Behind. Now we have planted questions. Keep the people in the dark and half informed. If we don’ the walls of Jericho might fall around Bushdom.

2.)Is this not a big deal? If not, would it be different if Clinton had done it?

Anytime anyone interferes with the free flow of information to and from the press, it is a serious mater. Had this happened under Clinton, Rush and the other right-wing clowns would have had a conniption fit.

3.)Who would do a better job for the people in terms of asking the president questions-Helen Thomas or Jeff Gannon?

Helen Thomas was around for a long time and breathed humor into presidential press briefings. Gannon is like someone once described a mackerel in he moon light. He stinks and he shines.

The press was very critical to Bill Clinton's treatment of them, Clinton being a Washington outsider, did not know how to treat the press properly. Most notably when he blocked their access to a corridor where the press traditionally could stop and question staffers moving from one area of the white house to the next. When Bill Clinton asked David Gergen, a republican, to come work for him, one of the first things Gergen did was restore the press' access to the corridor.

Clinton talks about his press relations in his autobiography My Life. Also, David Gergen gives very incitefull observations in his book Eyewitness to Power. One of Gergen's observations is how Clinton had a "running feud" since the 1992 New Hampshire primary with the press.

David Gergen is a national treasure. He’s served four presidents—Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. He is an honest and thoughtful journalist.

Unfortunately Eyewitness to Power starts with Nixon and ends with Clinton. Hopefully he will publish a revised edition that includes George W. Bush.

I would like to get his take on:

A: Bush’s Management of Press Conferences as told by Ron Suskind

Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty once said on [i]Hardball[i/] that Bush was the most managed President in modern times. This apparently extends to the Presidents news conferences. According to an article by Suskind:



http://www.dailytrojan.com/main.cfm?includ...&storyid=656561

B. The Armstrong Williams Scandal

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...hitehouse_x.htm

C. The Jeff Gannon Plant Documented in Nebraska’s Original Post

I personally think Bush treats the press and controversies like Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon as he has questions of his personal life—ignore it and hope it goes away. Unfortunately it usually has.

BTW: I suppose comparison to Clinton is intersting, but Clinton is no longer President. What Bush has done the last four years and will do the next four years is much more important.

1.)With Fox news and talk radio in their pocket, why does the administration feel that they have to plant fake reporters in press conferences?

Maybe because of gaffes like this:


If it’s not scripted this president will shoot himself in the foot at almost every opportunity and Karl Rove isn’t about to have a peg leg for a president. It’s simple: Bush struggles if he doesn’t have the answers before the questions are asked.

2.)Is this not a big deal? If not, would it be different if Clinton had done it?

It "should" be a huge deal, especially after all the finger pointing from Rathergate. Manipulating the White House press conference sounds a bit like suppressing free speech. For this critical part of our system (accountability) to carry weight it can’t be perceived as rigged. But this group has been trampling all over our civil liberties so its business as usual.

If this had happened under Clinton I can't imagine the depths of how far Rush would have sunk. I'm sure we could have expected him to scare the rest of his fellow homophobes with a feeble connection between Gannon's lifestyle and his misdeeds.

Well, it we're going to ask loaded questions...With CNN, The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media in their back pocket, why do liberals find one conservative hack in the White House such an outrage? Just to put it in another light, no disrespect intended...I don't like the fact that the administration did this, but methinks there be too much protesting .

No it isn't...And yes it would be, because I'm a hyprocrite, next question [kidding]. No, I wouldn't be anymore upset if Clinton did it, except to the point of pointing out the fact that Clinton didn't need anymore help, he had the rest of the media.

Helen Thomas...Which isn't to say that she doesn't have a bias, she is just a fairer and balanced-er journalist.

CP

Probably because this story will ultimately end up being deeper than "just a conservative hack in the press pool" CP.

If you'll recall this story was originally broken in the blogosphere with the most noteable insights coming from DailyKos. Now you can say what you want about that blog being left leaning and it would be true, they are and they don't hide it. However they did break the story and they continue to dig deeper providing people with good information.

There was a story written on Feb 18th that describes some of the other angles in this story here. A long read but well worth it if you actually care about learning where this story might be going next weeks before it actually gets reported.

I don't think we quite know the true extent of Gannon's involvement at the White House but I do know that you'll likely hear about it first through the blogosphere and not the main stream media.

So perhaps the reason "we liberals" are in "such an outrage" is because we have been paying attention to the reseach that has come in and continue to come in and we know it goes deeper - the rest of the world will probably accept that as fact in a few weeks time.

Furthermore, I would think that the blatant manipulation of the media would be something to be concerned about regardless of your political affiliation. I know that I'd be a little more than ticked if John Kerry had some liberal plant in the press room controlling the questions yet like everything else, Bush gets a pass on everything regardless of what it is.

A couple of things...When I said "liberals" and used it in a general sense, I was doing so in order to counter the original semi-loaded question at the beginning of the thread. Second, and I'm sure you didn't intend this, but, "we have been paying attention to the research that has come in", That isn't to say that no one else has, right? Again, I'm sure that's not what you meant by that. Just wondering.

Just so you know, I don't like this anymore than you do. I don't think that this was a very smart or moral thing for the Administration to do, I do, however think, that as of right now, it's not much of a story. If you are right, in saying that it'll progress, I'll be right with you in the outrage-o-meter.

CP

I think this is quickly becoming a "big deal" because as I said thigns are starting to unravel. There is now an official request into the GAO from both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Rules Committee to investigate Gannon - source.


Also in that blog entry there is breaking news about the Plame case, the US Attroney's office may subpoena Gannon's daily diaries (the existence of them became known yesterday) for the case.

Leaving aside the issues of wether this guy was a real reporter and his "night job" as a gay prostitute, I think the core issue here is how a man using an alias got a secret service clearance. The secret service is supposed to be above political tampering as it's responsible for the personal security of the highest in the land, past and present. Their security checks on people with access to the White House should be flawless. So how did they miss something as obvious as that the name the guy used on his application was false?.

Apologies if this sounds flippant, but Larry King (CNN), Geraldo Rivera (Fox) Michael Savage (MSNBC) and even Wolf Blitzer (CNN) are working under pseudonyms. I'm not sure if they have legally changed their names or not, but I wonder whether they would have gotten a day pass from the White House immediately upon the change.

The problem Carlito isn't that he got a Press Pass, it is that he was denied a hard pass yet continued to get daily passes for two years.

I'd highly suggest watching the developments over at DailyKos. Gannon recently wrote on his blog that he will entertain questions from both conservative and liberal bloggers. The following is a press release containing the questions posed by those at DailyKos - link.

If you want to learn more about this don't look to the mainstream media, watch for the answers to these questions.

Looks like things are heating up for good ol' Gannon. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter just released this press release today. It has been signed by 26 people.


The best part is, if the Republicans try to vote this down it will make them look very guilty. We'll see how this develops, they have 14 days to comply. The details of the resolution are in the press release.

I'm sure the American people will sleep well tonight knowing that Waxman and his clowns are investigating this very serious matter. I know I will because while they are fooling around chasing shadows in the night they at least won't be putting their grubby little hands on my wallet. I say, go for it!

Oh, and while they're at it, I'd like to know who let the crazy aunt in the attic into the White House.

This appears to be the latest proof for the adage "Politics make for strange bedfellows" (pun obviously intended). I wonder who he slept with to get the clearance. If it were a woman, that question might even have been asked sooner. But since this fellow is a gay prostitute-er-"escort"...

I'll bet Karl Rove has something to do with it. It's doubtful that much if anything going on in the White House doesn't reach his ear or have to meet with his approval.

You know, it's not so much that "liberals find one conservative hack in the White House such an outrage," it's that this particular administration is riddled with so much anomalous behavior, one example clearly being the President's refusal to allow the Press Corps to ask questions that he might not have a pat answer for. Someone knew that this guy did not have the accreditation required of the journalists in the Press Room, and yet Gannon mysteriously received day passes for two years. And what about his familiarity with the Valerie Plame outing?

I know it's like second nature for some to poo-poo the protestations of those to the ideological left of them, but these are legitimate questions on legitimate issues, and the present administration has never been as forthcoming with answers as many of us would like them to be.

I would say the question of the possible security risk (to the President) in the Press Room has never been serious in the case of this "Gannon" person. Otherwise, why would he have received daily passes in the first place? No, there is a lot that this administration is not telling us, as usual.