Posted on 02/19/2005 5:25:40 AM PST by FairOpinion
The following is the transcript of the Friday night CNN interview of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert by Anderson Cooper.
COOPER: There are many questions that have been raised about whether or not -- people raising the specter that you are somehow a White House plant. Are you a White House plant? Were you (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
GANNON: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, how I came to be at the White House is I asked to attend a briefing. I asked the White House Press Office. They gave me a daily pass to get in.
COOPER: This liberal group, Media Matters, which I'm sure you know well about. They have been very critical about you, really looked into this probably closer than just about anybody. They say that essentially, you are not a real reporter. And it's not even a question of being an advocate, that you have directly lifted large segments of your reports directly from White House press releases.
GANNON: All my stories were usually titled "White House Says," "President Bush Wants," and I relied on transcripts from the briefings, I relied on press releases that were sent to the press for the purpose of accurately portraying what the White House believed or wanted.
COOPER: But using the term "reporting" implies some sort of vetting, some sort of research, some sort of -- I mean, that's called faxing or Xeroxing, if you are just lifting transcripts and putting them into an article.
GANNON: If I am communicating to my readers exactly what the White House believes on any certain issue, that's reporting to them an unvarnished, unfiltered version of what they believe.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediainfo.com ...
It's an embarrassment all ways around. One gay blogger is vicious but no dumb, he has the photos and they are Gannon's. By photos I mean it's gay guys exchanging info for hook ups
But I'm sure Cooper holds a higher opinion of Dan Rather, the guy that tried to sell fiction as fact.
But whatever Gannon is or was, does not invalidate his perfectily reasonable questions. THAT is what really upsets the libs -- notice they are NOT asking him about the questions he asked, they don't want him to repeat them.
People should be talking about "The question, that the liberal media couldn't stand":
"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
The MSM will jump on any conservative like stink on you know what. They are not biased though!
Too true.
I, for one, will not and cannot defend this guy. Forget the lies of the left the hype and all that crap and you've still got a sordid, creepy little story.
I wish the guy (guckert) good luck in the future and I hope that he learned a lesson from all this.
Remember James being a male prostitute is a bad bad idea and kind of yukky too.
While the MSM is plainly biased and self-serving, this whole "Gannon" mess could have been easily avoided.
I wonder how many in the liberal MSM have sordid backgrounds, which never get exposed, or if they did, all other "journalists" would jump to their defense, saying, what I said, that whoever they are or were does NOT invalidate their questions and articles.
Remember James being a male prostitute is a bad bad idea and kind of yukky too.
___________________
From what I could tell his internet stud photos were all from 1999. Some were captured from defunct websites via the way back machine. I wouldn't be surprised if Gannon had gotten out of that gay lifestyle. There are fine Christan organizations that help guys to leave it behind, heard one such ex-gay on the radio just last week.
"does NOT invalidate their questions and articles"
I think it does if they are writing and professing to be pro-family and secretly selling themselves as a Gay Marine Escort (that really pisses me off by the way).
Remember the Clinton White House with lots of punk staffers working there who couldn't pass national security requirements. So they worked there for years under constantly renewed temporary passes. Word was out that drug convictions were the problem for most.
Let's be really honest here. If there was a hint that Al Franken used to be a rentboy, we'd make damn sure that info got out.
"Gannon" sure as hell didn't understand what he was doing when he decided to challenge the Media Establishment...but I daresay he's learning.
It's political hardball. If you can't play with the big boys, stay home.
So the reporters in the MSM want the White House to investigate the backgrounds of each and every one of them? Their position is the White House should dig into their pasts, their personal lives, before allowing them to participate in the press corps?
Let me see if I have this correct:
If you take press releases and talking points from a Democratic White House and/or Democratic National Committee and re-print them under your by-line it is news.
If you take press releases and talking points from a Republican White House and/or Republican National Committee and re-print them under your by-line it is not news.
Oh, I see now ……….
I am a bit dissapointed to be honest.
I personally think Gannon/Guckert was a fraud on several levels. If he asked conservative questions it would have been fine. He asked softballs.
Some people here don't see the difference. A hack/plant asks "How can you work with people divorced from reality?" a conservative reporter would ask about the border, about taxes, about the UN, etc.
That is my big point. He was bashing democrats, which I am all for, but he wasn't there to report or ask conservative questions that would hold the feet to the fire of the administration.
It would be like during a Clinton adminsistration briefing, the liberal counterpart just asking Clinton why he was so dreamy, instead of asking him tough questions on NAFTA, Welfare Reform, the death penalty etc.
Gannon was no "conservative" reporter. He was a hooker, who at the age of 47, decided to whore himself out somewhere else.
"So the reporters in the MSM want the White House to investigate the backgrounds of each and every one of them? Their position is the White House should dig into their pasts, their personal lives, before allowing them to participate in the press corps?"
Excellent point. If the WH did that, they would be screaming, that their First Amendment rights are being violated, that the WH is only allowing those, whose personal lives they approve of.
McClellan regularly called on the man.
Not clear if he's still there.
But notice the media studiously ignoring that so called reporter who also got a pass to the White House press corps.
What is the matter with asking an actual QUESTION, instead of levying an accusation, under the pretense of asking a question?
I think the left has started something that should keep going. These kooks from the left that supposedly reports the news should be as closely examined and investigated as politicians. Most of them have a personal stake in government in some form or the other and most of them have lots of skeletons in their closets. I personally do not think 25% of the MSM could stand up to any scrutiny if it were done right.Lets get it on,it is time to take away their free pass and to expose them and their families personally. It seems as though lawyers,judges and news media have special privileges that the rest of us don't.
Big time. The democrates invented the term to "bork" but it is used by both sides now. Gannon is a casualty in a culture war.
Two questions:
Is Gannon not continuing to go by the name of Gannon?
What is the question that he asked that got the Libs' panties all bunched up?
bump
Nor can I or will I defend him, either. For example, he did not deny the following question, rather made an attempt at deflecting the reality of what he did and does:
COOPER: Let me give you a chance just to respond to what you want to respond to. You had previously stated that you had registered a number of pornographic Web sites for a private client. That's what you had said publicly. You said the sites were never activated. A man now has talked to The Washington Post, who said that you had essentially paid him to create some Web sites for an escort service, and you are yourself offering yourself as an escort.GANNON: Well, like I said, there's a lot of things being said about me out there. A lot of things that have nothing to do with the reporting I have done for the last two years.
It is also my understanding that Guckert publicly condemned homosexuality, yet I haven't read that he's stopped those behaviors, himself. What is there to defend about Guckert and his behavior?
Of course, the liberal media really doesn't care that Guckert's a homosexual, as they promote the pro-homosexual agenda that has become more brazen and prolific in the past 12 years.....they went after his sordid past (and continued involvement) in what conservatives, especially conservative Christians, are against.
make that: "...Bush Friendly Reporter Formerly Known as Gannonn"
It's a perfectly reasonable question!
LOL.......the entire clinton white house would never have been allowed into the building!!!
ok, here are some actual questions he could have asked.
What is the White House's opinion on the food for oil scandal?
What is the budget going to be next year for Border Patrol?
etc...
Those aren't accusations, they are conservative questions.
Gannon is still using that name. Lots of writers use pseudonyms.
The question, that broke the camel's back for the Dems is this:
"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
I agree with the thoughts behind the question, but I maintain that it was hamfisted and puerile to ask it at a Presidential press conference.
It was like painting a bulls-eye on his back. Oh well...reap the whirlwind.
A. A 'Bush-friendly' reporter is allowed into the press corp?
B. A homosexual is supporting the enemy?
C. Unqualified journalist in the White House.
Answer: A & B
(See what happens when blacks or homosexuals try to leave the proverbial democrat plantation!)
We likely wouldn't have the means to. The network of pinko gay activists and bloggers did the detective work for the lazy lame stream press and pressed their research on them
Pinko gays are vicious when it comes to outing someone who they feel is a traitor to the gay agenda. The republican congressman north of me is a low key gay and the lefties try to out him from time to time. But he's half out anyway so it doesn't work
That was Jeff Gannon's introduction to a question. I hear opposite type intros all the time from the usual MSM crew in the White House press corps
By George, you've got it!
Well, it beats the questions *I* would ask at a Presidential press conference....
That's what the press wants.
We'll give it to 'em.
An amazing question from what is just one voice that speaks as part of the MSM 'collective'. . .
Let's get this straight. . .these so called journalists/reporters who dot their 'i' the same; cross their 't's. . .as they share the same paragrahs. . .we should now refer to as . . .'faxers'. . .
Like it. . .AP faxer. . .NYT's faxer. . .
That's what the press wants. We'll give it to 'em.
But, of course, that isn't at all what they want to do....instead, they want that "rule" applied only to those who are or claim to be conservatives; anything to silence their enemies (those are aren't anti-American).
OTOH, those who are in the limelight championing the conservative cause must know, by now, that their lives, personal and otherwise, will be scrutinized extraordinarily. They best not have questionable skeletons in their closet. Surely any conservative must be ignorant not to know that.
True; but have to admit; had this reporter been an 'adversary' and had asked 'those' kind of questions; there never would have been a story. . .
Would this be a big issue of his press credentials and passes issued were he a conservative reporter in a democratic Whitehouse? Probably not. But since he was from an overly friendly organization with a weak background and a salacious background, then it became news.
Let's say you and I apply for credentials as reporters. Let's see how far we get.
Well...at least investigate whether they're operating under a fake name for a fake news agency.
For sure. . .this is the punitive, collective Left who has discovered 'one of them' - a reporter who shares their constituency'. . .who is playing for the 'other' team.
They won't stand for it. . .and will make sure, there is a price to pay.
Hope Guckert now realizes; that with his own politics aside. . . with friends like he thought he had. . .he will never need enemies.
Thanks.
So, what's up the "reporter formerly known as Gannon" thing?
Also, I have concluded that the question is a valid and insightful question.
"Also, I have concluded that the question is a valid and insightful question."
I agree. No matter who asks that question, that was a perfectly reasonable question.
Gannon was up front with the White House about his name. Fake news agency? As opposed to what? The NYT? ABC? CBS? CNN?
Furthermore, the implication is that his private life should have been investigated, not his name or his news outlet.
Now, I do not approve of Gannon's past activities, but these people are trying to smear the White House with some little-known reporter's personal activities, what, some six years ago? All because Gannon asked a question which was not approved by the DNC's propoganda arm, AKA mainstream media.
Of course, that goes without saying. My point was, imagine the outrage if the White House actually followed through with what these hypocrites seem to be calling for by starting an official program of investigating and approving of any reporter's private life as a condition of access.
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.