Posted on 02/10/2005 5:55:51 AM PST by Pikamax
c
By Joe Strupp and Greg Mitchell
Published: February 10, 2005 updated 10:00 PM ET
NEW YORK Jeff Gannon, the controversial White House correspondent for the obscure Web site Talon News who resigned from his job Tuesday, confirmed late Wednesday, in a phone interview with National Public Radio, that he has been using a false name. A few hours later, Howard Kurtz, writing in The Washington Post, confirmed earlier tips, arising from liberal blogs, that the reporter's real name is indeed James D. Guckert.
Despite the ruse, "Gannon" still managed to gain access to many White House briefings and was one of the few reporters allowed to ask President Bush a (very friendly) question at a press conference two weeks ago.
NPR reported Wednesday that when Gannon was turned down for Capitol Hill credentials--a move first reported by E&P last week--he had used the name James Guckert. He admitted to NPR that Gannon was not his real name, and left it at that.
This "begs further investigation," James Pinkerton, a media critic for Fox News, told the online magazine Salon. He recalled that in the six years he worked for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the White House was "strict about who got in. It's inconceivable to me that the White House, especially after 9/11, gives credentials to people without doing a background check....If [Gannon] was walking around the White House with a pass that had a different name on it than his real name, that's pretty remarkable."
Dan Milbank, the former White House correspondent for The Washington Post, said the "scandal" of the whole episode was that it was blogs, and not the White House, that ultimately exposed Gannon's ruse. Milbank, on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC program, said he'd seen Gannon at the White House as recently as Monday.
Gannon, amazingly, also has ties to the Valerie Plame/CIA scandal.
Adding another twist, NPR's David Folkenflik, in his report Wednesday night, referred to revelations arising from liberal blogs earlier in the day, connecting Gannon to sexual Web sites such as HotMilitaryStud.com, among others.
"These sites are registered to an address in Delaware that's the same as one held by a James Guckert," Folkenflik said. "And that's the name that Gannon used to apply for press credentials on Capitol Hill....As for those Web sites, Gannon said he created them for clients of a software company he used to work for. And Gannon said his Christian faith has enabled him to receive forgiveness for the sins of his past."
The New York Daily News' story on Thursday carried the headline, "Bush press pal quits over gay prostie link." Washington reporter Helen Kennedy wrote: "A conservative ringer who was given a press pass to the White House and lobbed softball questions at President Bush quit yesterday after left-leaning Internet bloggers discovered possible ties to gay prostitution."
On Tuesday, in a message on his Web site (www.jeffgannon.com), Gannon announced: "Because of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life. Thank you to all those who supported me."
E&P has not been able to reach Gannon since.
Gannon's alleged real name, Guckert, had been proposed earlier Wedneday by investigators at DailyKos, Eschaton and other blogs. They also showed that Talon News is run by a Texas GOP activist.
Also Wednesday, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to President Bush asking him to "address the matter" in light of "mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies."
Gannon first gained attention several weeks ago when he asked a question at a presidential press conference that some in the press corps considered so friendly it might have been planted. Later E&P revealed that Gannon had been turned down last year for a congressional press pass because he could not prove his employer was a valid news organization. That denial barred him from receiving a White House "hard pass," allowing regular access to White House press events.
But Gannon had been obtaining daily White House press passes, a situation that had irked some veteran White House reporters who also questioned his credentials or considered him to be too partisan in his questioning.
On Olbermann's program Wednesday night, however, Milbank said he had seen Gannon with a pass and photo I.D. that certainly looked like it was of the permanent variety.
On Thursday, the Boston Globe reports that Gannon told them he had gotten no special consideration at the White House. He had applied for a background check and daily passes under the name on his driver's license, not his "professional name," he said.
Earlier in the day, on CNN, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said that White House spokesman Scott McClellan had told him that "President Bush didn't know who Jeff Gannon was when he called on him at that news conference."
Gannon's original refusal to deny he used a fake name sparked investigations by a number of blogs, that probed his true identity. In addition, those sites posted allegations that Web sites such as hotmilitarystud.com, militaryescorts.com, and militaryescortsm4m.com, were registered to the same owner as Gannon's personal Web site.
"The bloggers," Kurtz writes today, "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.'"
In her letter to President Bush, Rep. Slaughter charged that "it appears that 'Mr. Gannon's' presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration."
Dan Froomkin, the Washington Post columnist, said Wednesday in an online chat, "the heat should be on" Scott McClellan: "Why did he call on Gannon? Did they ever pre-arrange anything? Did they have contact with his parent organization?"
Another intriguing issue is his involvement, along with better known Robert Novak, Judith Miller and others, in the Valerie Plame/CIA episode. His name turned up on a list of reporters targeted for questioning by the federal prosecutor in the case. Froomkin of the The Washington Post wrote last spring that "the reason Gannon is on the list is most likely an attempt to find out who gave him a secret memo that he mentioned in an interview he had with Plame's husband, former ambassador and administration critic Joseph Wilson."
The Talon News site today scrubbed its archives of many "Gannon" articles and removed his biography. It said it was already looking for a replacement for its star reporter.
In an e-mail to E&P last Friday, not published until now, Gannon wrote: "Much has been made about whether I use a professional name or not, but I am reluctant to provide information one way or another because of the threats that have been made against my person, property and family in both internet postings ... as well as in e-mails that I have forwarded to law enforcement. I'm sure you understand."
Olbermann on his TV show Wednesday referred to Gannon as "HBO's Ali G, without the satire."
It's in the story: that he claimed to have a degree from a program that didn't exist. Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used "credentials," as that word implies WHITE HOUSE credentials. I mean he claimed to have had a degree from a journalism program that didn't exist---or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he mis-labeled the program that he got the degree from.
......they wouldn't be going after Gannon so hard if they weren't trying to say he was a tool of this WH in the Plame "leak".
This is the MSM's valiant attempt to deflect attention from the CNN's news chief's treasonous remarks about our military in Iraq killing journalists. It's the Clintoon method that they learned at the feet of their master.
Blankley is currently Brock's target.
(This example happens to be from DD1879 -- the form for background investigations up to Top Secret.)
Don't tell the idiots at dailyKOS, though -- let them go crazy chasing their own tails!! LOL!!
149 posted on 02/10/2005 8:25:54 AM PST by TXnMA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1339944/posts?page=149#149
There is some similarity in the faces and the bald/shaved heads, but until you see a full picture of Gannon, you aren't going to be able to tell. Do the bodies match? Can you tell from three head shots?
Dan Rather has been posing as a journalist for how long? The Loser Stream Media is shaking in their boots at their lost influence. There should be bloggers at the White House Briefings.....
IMHO this isn't about Gannon at all. They're just using him to try to get Karl Rove. The proof of this is their tryaing to connect Gannon to the Plame affair.
Catherine Crier and David Brock just finished obsessing about this on her Court TV show. She said, "I don't care whether it's a democrat or a republican...this is wrong!"
It's really fun when our side makes a blunder, (assuming this is), to watch their side try to manufacture a scandal of Clinton proportions. But the real laugh factor pay-off comes when the public don't buy what they're selling.
Wonder what Catherine and David think about CNN's Easton Jordan? Nary a word about real collusion between politicians and their media pals.
!
Since Rove has nothing to do with the Plame affair, that is incorrect. They tried to tie Rove to it to get Bush. That failed so now they're trying to tie Gannon to it to get Bush.
That is failing because the truth always outs and the truth is the Plame business was a get Bush scheme from the start, period.
Oh, did you see Jeff Gannon did an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN about an hour ago...LIVE.
You couldn't tell by the title of the thread, though.
Read this thread for notes: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340582/posts
I was dismayed a couple years ago to find out Catherine Crier is a partisan idiot. What was the issue she was so wrong about? I can't think of it right now, but it had to do with this administration, too. I don't believe her disclaimer about not caring about party affiliation or sympathy or she would take issue with some of the questions other reporters ask.
Coming up on Fox. The panel discusses.
Got it!
Making notes on another thread and will cut and past them here when the segment is done.
Notes on Fox Panel discussion:
Fox panel on it.
Brit cites the Mark Twain example of nom de plume.
Bill Sammon is part of the panel today and is giving background.
He says what this is about is the rest of the press corps is rankled by the conservative tilt from Gannon while they are mostly liberal. He says the clumsily worded question pushed enabled them to pounce with aid of liberal bloggers.
Sammon explains the setting up of sites (by Gannon for a previous employer) that were never launched. Brit says "so he was not a pornographer" and Sammon says "apparently not", this was for a client.
Jeff Birnbaum now picks up and explains how credentials are awarded.
Now Charles Krauthammer...two issues: Should opinion journalists allowed in? Answer: Yes, they should. Brit cites "like Helen Thomas".
Second issue, what journalist entities...online? Yes, like Slate should be allowed. Online outlets should be represented.
I must have missed that; can I have the Cliff Notes?
He described billionaire philanthropist George Soros as "a left wing crank," "a robber baron," "a pirate capitalist" and "a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."
Of course, Brock fails to mention that the "philanthropist" is bankrolling his whole organization. That's failing to expose a conflict of interest, BTW, for all of those fans of journalism.
That group is a nasty piece of work, making no bones of the fact that they target individuals for slime.
But there is good news, for FReeping. They are hiring. :)
Novak is certainly protecting someone we haven't heard of. He claims the guy isn't political, and I belive Novak on that score.
We don't know if he's told the grand jury. We do know he has not been held in contempt like some others but he won't say if he's appeared or not. I don't think we can conclude he's protecting anyone. He may well have testified who his sources were (there were two--non WH).
Well, I predicted this today.....so I guess I am behind the times.
Can Brit Hume be far behind?
Early on on Crossfire, Novak said that IF THEY ASKED HIM, he would name names.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.