Replies

I seemed pretty sure because the article seemed pretty sure.

Sure of this?

The bloggers also have linked to a since-withdrawn America Online photo of a man who appears to be Gannon, posing in his underwear, with a screen name bearing the initials "JDG."

Let's see if I have this straight; BLOGS are saying it was him, so Howie Kurtz is right?

Are you new to this?

Let's see if I have this straight; BLOGS are saying it was him, so Howie Kurtz is right?

Hmmmm .. does this mean that bloggers can go after anyone who has a photo of a reporter they don't like???

WOW ...

A lot of the allegations in Howard Kurtz' article are rehashed from the allegations made on Daily Koz and the other lefty websites. I saw the AOL picture while lurking on Koz's website last night after an early thread on this got pulled. It did bear a resemblance to Jeff Gannon.

They leftie part of blogosphere has been investigating Jeff Gannon for a few weeks, after his question at the President's news conference. They're trying to "prove" he's a Bush plant or somehow has ties to the "evil" Karl Rove by googling up a storm. The problem is they have no real proof -- just random bits of information gleaned from the Internet proving nothing.

That the Washington Post would pick this up isn't much of a surprise. In a way, it's good news. It shows that the mainstream media is losing its monopoly on controlling what is reported. In the old days, the New York Times would print something or Walter Cronkite would say something and other media outlets would follow, no questions asked. With Algore's invention of the Internet, the New York Times and CBS no longer have as much control over the media agenda as they used to. And the mainstream media lurks here and on Drudge too.

If you have issues with me or Kurtz or want to smear all 'blogs' like the rest of the MSM, google away and demonstrate it's a load of b.s. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the MSM is wrong. It's been wrong before. But I doubt it is in this instance.

As to your request that I delineate exactly what makes me think you don't have any problem with Jeff Gannon's behavior, you posted "What exactly is there for Jeff Gannon to hide, since you seem so familiar with him?" You implied that YOU think there is nothing to hide stated in the article. That is why I ask you to post those photos, because you evidently think that the behavior cited in the article is NOT something to hide. But you knew that.

I HOPE that it's all Kurtz puffing, that this man resigned for no reason. I'd LIKE to think otherwise. But I don't, because I doubt that even the MSM would have posted this about the pictures from thin air. You ask if "I'm new to this." I'm not so new I've missed experiencing your posts before. It's obvious you care very intensely that Gannon not have anything said against him, and I believe it's simply because he's a fellow traveler in the conservative ranks. Early experience with you demonstrated to me that you simply find unacceptable any criticism of Republicans, merited or no.

Unfortunately, I occasionally make the mistake of thinking some folks like yourself will realize that's wrongheaded. Rest assured, I will not make that error with you again, or post to you again. I apologize for affronting you with that which you find so offensive.

You've defended other Republicans in the same bulldog fashion, and while I appreciate that you believe yourself to be a loyal conservative in your own way, your regular attacks on those who criticize this man, or any who disagree with deviation from conservative principles, are as misguided as those tossed around by liberals who did not brook any criticism of Bill Clinton simply because he was their standardbearer. I agree Gannon was basically stalked, and would have been attacked for ANY reason that the Rats could dig up, but that doesn't mean that the criticism here is automatically unwarranted, or that people who are Republicans should be barred from comment because you expect blanket approval of every Republican. Reasonable criticism within the GOP ranks is important to maintain party principles.

It is not an insult to the GOP or this man to say that today, it's not smart to post pictures of you in your undies on the web and then present yourself as a public figure without expecting your enemies to dig dirt. If they will find it, and you don't want it exposed, you're simply better off not being a public figure. You disagree with that, as well as the idea that anyone who would criticize Republicans could be remotely conservative--in both cases, regardless of ANY evidence contrary. I don't care to extend discussion with you, because you can't grasp that criticism of behavior or policy is not the same thing as criticism of the person.