Tuesday, April 26, 2005

e-mails to and from Jeff.Ganon@jeffgannon.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Gannon [mailto: jeff.gannon@jeffgannon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:43 AM
To: abbe@highviz.net
Subject: RE: Yahoo! News Story - Records: Writer at White House 196 Times

They proved I showed up for work! Ha!


[to quote the wonderful Linda Ellerbee "and so it goes."
He does not take it all that seriously, does he?]


-----Original Message----
From: Abbe Buck - HighViz [mailto:abbe@highviz.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:00 AMT
o: jeff.gannon@jeffgannon.com
Cc: abbe@highviz.net
Subject: Yahoo! News Story - Records: Writer at White House 196 Times

Abbe Buck (abbe@highviz.net) has sent you a news article.

Personal message: Jeff, Hope you have your lawyer and your spokesperson in place. This apparently is going to get bumpier. Abbe B.

Records: Writer at White House 196 Times

Yahoo! News Tue, Apr 26, 2005

AP - Mon Apr 25, 8:21 PM ET

White House - AP WASHINGTON - A conservative writer who quit his job covering President Bush amid criticism for his pointedly political questions visited the White House 196 times in two years, the Secret Service has disclosed.

James D. Guckert, who wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, was Washington bureau chief for Talon News, a conservative online news outlet associated with another Web site, GOPUSA. Guckert posed questions with conservative overtones, attracting scrutiny from liberal bloggers who linked Guckert with online domain addresses suggestive of gay pornography. Guckert resigned in February. Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and John Conyers of Michigan filed a freedom of information request and were given Secret Service records of Guckert's visits to the White House.

Email Story

Next Story:
Bush Adds DeLay to Social Security Tour (AP)
More White House Stories
Eric Alterman's theory [SEE Comments 1]
The Raw Story that started this round
The Secret Service Responds

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


HighViz PR said...

ERIC ALTERMAN'S THEORY - see an earlier posting, please, for link

Anonymous said...

Undoubtedly the Administration's most bizarre effort to manipulate the media was its embrace of former gay prostitute James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, who showed up at the White House under a phony name and worked for a right-wing shell operation that acted less like a news organization than an arm of the Republican National Committee, publishing articles like "Kerry Could Become First Gay President." Gannon's ostensible employer, Talon News Service, employed an editor in chief, Bobby Eberle, who served as a delegate to the 1996, 1998 and 2000 Texas Republican Conventions and to the 2000 Republican National Convention and enjoyed many direct connections to Republican and right-wing organizations. Press secretary McClellan would often call on Gannon when he wanted to extricate himself from a particularly effective line of questioning. The words "Go ahead, Jeff," signaled that the press corps could be getting into an area that might embarrass the White House--or could be discovering a nugget of genuine news. Gannon's ploy might have continued indefinitely had the President not helped make him famous by calling on him at a January 26 news conference in order to be served up a softball that mocked Democrats for being "divorced from reality." Once exposed, Gannon resigned and Talon folded up shop like a rolled-up CIA cover-op. As James Pinkerton, an official in both the Reagan and Bush I White House, admitted on Fox News, getting the kind of clearance Gannon did in this security atmosphere must have required "an incredible amount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House," that it had to be "conscious" and that "some investigation should proceed, and they should find that out." As Frank Rich observed, "Given an all-Republican government, the only investigation possible will have to come from the press."

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this war against the media has been the fact that members of the media have largely behaved as if it is just business as usual. In fact, much of the success of the effort derives from the cooperation, both implicit and explicit, of the press. No one, after all, forces local TV stations to run official propaganda videos in lieu of their own programming, or without identifying them as such, and no one forces CNN Newsource, among others, to distribute them. And why did the curious mystery of "Gannon," despite its obvious newsworthiness--and sex appeal--receive so little critical coverage and virtually no outrage in the mainstream press? (Washington Post media critic and CNN talking head Howard Kurtz even went so far as to blame the scandal on "these liberal bloggers, [who] have started investigating his personal life in an effort to discredit him," and the National Press Club invited Gannon to be an honored guest on a panel on blogging and journalistic credibility.) Mike McCurry, White House press secretary under Bill Clinton, says he marvels at the willingness of the press corps to swallow the various humiliations offered them by Bush & Co. He told a recent gathering of Washington reporters and editors, "I used to think that if I ever tried to control the message as effectively as the current White House did, that I would have been run out of the White House press briefing room. But clearly I misjudged the temperament that exists."

HighViz PR said...

« Don't Shoot Me | Main | Swiss Cheese »

April 05, 2005
Gann-on and on

At what point does it become evident that a "scandal" is not a scandal, that the racehorse has given up the ghost and the people attempting to still whip it towards some kind of finish line simply need to climb off the cold, dead beast and move on?

Poor Jeff Gannon James Guckert whatever his name is -- it's bizarre to me that we have a press that screams holy hell about their precious free speech until somebody in the right place at the right time asks questions they don't like.

Gannon had the nerve to raise an issue that a lot of Americans (including me) are genuinely concerned about -- how can the President work with Democratic leaders in Congress "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality"? From the ensuing shrieks and howls of liberal outrage, you'd have thought that someone had just thrown a barrel of holy water on the entire White House press corps.

It was because of this that the libs went after him with such ferocity. The issue is not that he wrote under a pseudonym (as it's been explained ad nauseam that numerous current journalists and media figures work under assumed names, such as Larry King, Mike Wallace and Jon Stewart), and the issue is not that he may or may not be gay, as "the gays" are one of the left's favorite lapdogs (as long as they have the good sense to discreetly hide themselves from view at any national-level political conventions and vote an, uhm, straight Democratic ticket) -- no, the issue is that this "may-or-may-not-be-gay" man (who, by the unwritten rules of the lib playbook, should automatically be on their side! *gasp* -- the traitor!) out and out stated, in front of a roomful of loony lefties armed with cameras, microphones, pens and paper, that the real reason that so many Democratic leaders in Congress are purposely obstructive in their dealings with the present elected administration is because they're "divorced from reality".

I mean, c'mon -- Barbara Boxer? Diane Feinstein? Robert Byrd? Cynthia McKinney? Nancy Pelosi? Maxine Waters? Ted Kennedy? I think the man had a point . . .

Posted by Homocon - April 05, 2005

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:

I think you are obviously failing to see the point. He was working for a fake news organization, which didn't even exist when he started attending the briefings, and he also had zero journalistic experience. Most of his writings were plagiarized, or were merely direct transcripts of the White House press briefings. Put this together with the fact that the Bush administration has been paying journalists to write favorable reviews of their policies, without disclosing to their readers that they have been paid by the government, and it's not hard to tell that this administration is using unprecedented methods to dissiminate propoganda. Not to mention the security risks in this post 9/11 world...

Posted by: John Bonham at April 26, 2005 05:16 PM

It was because of this that the libs went after him with such ferocity.

No. It was possibly because this inept "journalist" attributed a quote to Harry Reid that didn't exist. This error happened because he's not a journalist at all, but a semi-literate prostitute that somehow landed a job in the Whitehouse with zero experience, and outright plagiarized his work. What part about that is so difficult to understand?

Posted by: Leonard SMith at April 26, 2005 05:17 PM

When using the term "divorced from reality", kindly remember to use the 'tm' symbol.

Although I truly haven't trademarked this phrase, I use the symbol on my 'blog' myself, to give everyone the impression that indeed I have.

Since you are so obviously attempting to carry on the 'no story here, move along' party line, giving me credit for something I legally should be given credit for should also be no issue for you.

Thanks again! And remember, it isn't ME that keeps my name in the press, it is all those that on the left that 'feared me so much they had to take me down'.

Posted by: jeff gannon at April 26, 2005 07:10 PM

A NOTE to Jeff Gannon ---

As a real-live publicist, please Jeff, just don't get too damn smug, and please be careful. Remember, the White House is not a roach motel - you can't just sign and in NOT sign out! Get counsel and a spokesperson and stop taking credit. You don;t have to. Enough people are bandying about your name. This and Doonesbury are frosting on top of your cake is enough already. Otherwise you shall go the way of Gary Condit -- and I certainly would not want to be a Marina Ein, you can trust me on that!

Posted by: Kilroy2005 at April 26, 2005 08:42 PM