But, then, I didn’t
know that one of Raw Story’s editors (The gay
one, as opposed to the straight one. Doesn’t
that make us the bisexual press?) merely “claimed”
to have worked for the Boston Globe, or that his age—which
Farah got wrong—was somehow relevant to a story
about Jeff Gannon. Clearly it was, however, since
nobody else’s name in the piece was followed
by his or her age in Farah’s piece. Such shameless
innuendo is indicative of the very kind of hit piece
Farah is accusing his enemies—er, the press,
of.
I also didn’t know that unnamed sources were
unacceptable. In the case of bloggers v. the right,
pundits who have clearly never worked a day as serious
journalists are having a field day trashing unnamed
sources. What this has to do with the Gannon affair,
they are unable to specify. Although Farah has a solid
resume in news, he is not above this ludicrous attack
strategy. Somebody should really tell Judge Robert
W. Sweet to correct his Thursday ruling—a columnist
and radio talk show host says he’s wrong.
Reporters, take note: in order for an anonymous
source to be acceptable, one has to give them a pseudonym
inspired by a popular pornographic film.
I should also note at this point that I know from
experience that Raw Story, at least, does not print
just any bit of scandalous information that comes
its way. We’ve received some very sensationalistic
tips relating to this story and many others from seemingly
reliable sources, which were either unverifiable,
not reasonably relevant to public policy or discourse,
or related to records that would be legally sealed.
And let’s just say that we know from experience
that we vet information better than at least one major
network. Still, the internet stigma sticks. Maybe
that was Drudge’s plan all along.
Yet, strangely, none of these columnists have managed
to mangle the story half as badly as the LA Times.
Everybody who is nobody ironically clings to this
vague notion of credentials in Gannon’s defense.
You know how I got my first press pass? I was friends
with an editor’s daughter. “Credentials”
in the field of media are nothing more than a reflection
of how much the outlet’s editor happens to like
you, and skill and professionalism are only two possible
causes for their support.
In Gannon’s case, his “editors”
were a single GOP bigwig and whoever was giving him
access and leaking him stories from the White House.
That is the real problem here: state run propaganda
masquerading as news, going unchecked by “real
journalists”. And, boy, did his “bosses”
ever like him. He got the invasion of Baghdad four
hours before anyone else. He even bragged about leaking
stories to real reporters. All the praise must have
given him a big head; now, he thinks that it is he,
and not the absurdity of Bush Admin press policy,
that is important.
Just as imprisoned criminals tend to do (or, if
you prefer, like the prison-bitch in fantasies you
could pay him $1200 a weekend to re-create,) Gannon
has imagined himself to be a dangerous martyr. At
least he hasn’t compared himself to Jesus. Yet.
In reality, of course, he is only important because
he was too unimportant to have warranted the access
he was given. Still, he’s decided (like any
member of the oldest profession would,) to cash in
on his undeserved notoriety. So, the master registered
a new website. On it, he claims that his oral service
to President Bush was, “So feared by the left
it had to take [him] down”. I’m sure if
the Left just wanted Jeff to go down, they could have
come up with the $200, but no mind.
Apparently, this desire was because, “It was
horrified that the relentless string of hostile and
a few downright disrespectful questions had been broken.”
So, you see, in his rather warped view of the fourth
estate, the verbal ass-grabbing Gannon called journalism
wasn’t destroying Democracy and replacing public
discussion of national policy with the new Divine
Right; it was restoring civility. Miss Manners might
have been impressed, if Gannon hadn’t in the
same breath praised the President and bashed his opponents.
Gannon calls himself the “voice of the new
media”. If this is true, Orwell was only off
by 20 years. Fortunately, those of us living in the
real world (who have actually bothered to read his
work,) see Jeff as merely an extreme example of what
is wrong with the old media: intellectual weakness,
laziness, and an unwillingness to confront authority
with reality.
But then, one cannot expect a rational defense from
Gannon. The very fact that he prostituted himself,
apparently more for kicks than profit, while working
surrounded by television cameras in the White House,
shows him to be dealing from an incomplete deck.
His site features a military theme, flaunting the
sexual aspects of masculinity and domination. Remember:
you’re not gay if you’re a “total
TOP”. Gannon’s websites beg to be interpreted
as a celebration of closeted sexuality. “Hot
military studs” are expected to simmer in the
closet, remember. Embracing anti-gay politics could
just be an extreme manifestation of this fetish. Did
“Bulldog” Guckert allow his political
views (and as a result career path,) to be decided
by the one part of the male anatomy least capable
of rational decision-making? Or should I say “both
career paths,” as one was obviously decided
by Jeff’s minor major?
Then again, Jeff also once confused a joke by Rush
Limbaugh for a quote from the Senate Minority Leader.
He could just be an idiot. After all, his actions
hardly show him complicated enough to warrant psychiatric
examination.
In any case, Gannon doesn’t deserve hostility,
but rather pity, compassion, and a one-way ticket
out of the public eye. It was absurd that he was working
in the White House for the simple reason that he lacked
the very qualities that bring one's work into the
public discourse. A sex scandal doesn’t change
that. If he had been a real journalist, the White
House would have had to pay him $240,000 to get the
kind of lip service he provided.
Still, the man has a right to defend himself, and
unlike “Talon News”, I like to examine
both sides (also unlike Talon, I admit that this is
an opinion piece).
"I have not written any anti-gay articles,"
Gannon said after “Talon News” removed
all pieces relating to homosexuality from its site.
But, as he has said, “Once something’s
on the internet, it’s there forever.”
The obvious anti-gay bias evident in coverage of Rick
Santorum’s equation of man-on-man to man-on-dog
friction in Gannon’s 2003 piece, “Santorum
Won't Apologize; AP Reporter Has Kerry Ties,”
could just be confusion caused by Gannon’s online
nickname, “Bulldog”. No similar explanation
could be attributed to Gannon’s 2004 claim that
John Kerry might someday be known as the “first
gay President”. Unless he had an appointment
with Kerry we don’t know about.
Prior to the creation of his blog, Gannon lambasted
those who exposed him in a series of interviews where
his claims were readily accepted by mainstream media.
Among them was his claim that people were bashing
him because he was “a Christian” who had
done “these things in [his] past”. (Remember
that we’re talking about a past that ends somewhere
between November of 2004 and the end of time.)
Now, having studied Christianity, I have gathered
that homosexuality isn’t quite the Biblical
bad that Gannon’s man Bush claims it to be.
The New Testament also features a prostitute as one
of its most sympathetic characters. But do you know
what The Bible has a very, very strong and negative
opinion of? Hypocrisy—especially when it relates
to one’s Christian identity. Just a heads up
that Gannon might want to spend more of that time
on his knees with his hands folded in prayer before
the self-proclaimed “two holiday Christian”
earns his right wing.
Gannon is also trying to play the private person
card, threatening to sue his Nixonian “enemies
list”. Apparently, he feels that appearing before
the President repeatedly in a room full of real reporters,
then publicly opening himself up for scrutiny with
moronic questioning, all the while knowing he had
posted pornographic images of himself online soliciting
business as a prostitute in no way placed himself
in the public domain. If he believes that suit will
fly, the real pimp must have done some serious damage
in the penthouse, if you know what I mean. Legal fees
alone might still scare off a large newspaper, which
would be unlikely to recover those costs from Gannon.
Alas, newspapers in this country have become spineless,
lazy tools of the government, big business, and interest
groups for disseminating propaganda. Gannon isn’t
a problem. He isn’t even a nuisance. Hell, he’s
in way over his head, and that's downright entertaining.
But he is also a symptom of two major problems: a
complacent media, and an administration that behaves
more like an advertising agency than the heart of
our government.
I hate to admit it, but blogging has become necessary
to maintain our democracy. Take a moment to let that
sink in before you head over to Wonkette for the latest
on Cheney’s bulge. There are still eager, capable
reporters out there. The task of making command decisions,
however, is usually given by corporations to “cooler”
heads. In other words, emptier ones. But at least
they have “credentials”.
|
|
