Blogs and Mainstream - A new balance of power
“There is something in the virtual air and the winds of change seem to be blowing harder“.
At Blogcritics.org, Margaret Romao Tolgo provides an analysis of how blogs are making their way into the mainstream and are directly affecting the news.
I couldn’t agree more with this comment by Ms. Tolgo:
The blogger coverage of Gannongate appears to have fallen victim to partisan spin that spun out of control. In their zeal to discredit Mr. Guckert/Gannon, the bloggers covering him got caught up in a salacious sidestory and lost sight of the most important issue which was suspicion that the White House might be engaging in the manipulation of the press — a most grave breech of our founding principles, if it is true — not that Mr. Guckert/Gannon used a pseudonym..or registered domains for gay pornography sites after having written anti-gay articles.
In the story of J.D. Guckert, it isn’t too late for the bloggers to steer and steady their course toward the “most important point“. I have been stressing this point since the blog-story broke. While the tawdry gay-escort portion of the tale is relevant to the story, the bigger issues must remain the focus. As evidenced in yesterday’s Washington Post Ombudsman’s editorial, the bloggers have done their job in bringing Guckert’s situation to the forefront. The mainstream, if you believe Michael Getler, will now seize this story as “their own”.
I was quoted in Ms. Tolgo’s article:
Jude Nagurney Camwell of The American Street offered this assesment (sic): “The €˜Right-wing mouth machine€™ would like us all to think that Eason Jordan was ‘bad’ and ‘unAmerican’ for saying what he said. CNN has been complicit by their reticence to talk about tough issues. They wound up to be the biggest loser. They lost Eason Jordan. Eason was guilty before being proven innocent by no other process except one: the blog-trial.”
I stress my point once more:
Eason Jordan lost his position with CNN due to a blog trial. There was never a mainstream media discussion. The Star Tribune has a piece (ex post facto) about the Eason Jordan case, pointing out the fact that Jordan was out of a job before some major media outlets even reported there was a controversy.
Right wing blogs seized the moment in the case of Jordan.
CNN allowed themselves to be abused by the court of the right-wing in the rolling vigilante thunder of the new storm called the blog-mob.
Continued on Page Two
February 21st, 2005 at 1:19 pm
I think we liberals have been kicking our own butts. I agree that the Gannon story has far more important content than we’ve gone after and I think we’ve consistently missed opportunities in this and many other revelations about the Bush administration.
Time to shake off the torpor. At least in the matter of Gannon-Guckert, bloggers should be zero-ing in on the matter access to the White House, showing how media access is ideologically controlled and used as a weapon, pointing fingers at lack of Congressional oversight, pointing fingers at the MSM for not forcing the access issue — that’s what we should be doing.
Yes, I think going on about the Gannon website has revealed something awfully close to homophobia (certainly a kind of adolescent fascination) on the left, something which we seem very reluctant to face, more’s the pity.
February 21st, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Manipulation of the media to advance the distortion of truth is not exactly new. The level of and fresh ways of manipulation have increased.
Is it legal? Opinions have emanated that some of it is not, particularly in the cases of paid-off journalists, and with videos emulating newscasts, both funded with our tax dollars.
In the Guckert case, its legality has not come into question though its ethics have. The rules for obtaining a press pass were broken. Guckert’s record of agenda promotion that has masqueraded as news also raises ethical questions. There may be an illegal action if he was made privy to classified information, but no determination on that possibility has occurred.
If we presume that the last point isn’t proven true, the remaining questions are:
–was he compensated via the direction of any WH official?
–will enough Americans care about the ethical violations to seek pursuit of a consequence?
I fear they won’t. The partisan divide is such, that I don’t believe ‘media manipulation’ alone will accomplish anything greater than some low-level flunky being blamed and disciplined for the breach, taking the fall while responsible higher-ups escape responsibility.
While some on the left make references to the salacious side of the story, I don’t buy the Rightwing contention that homophobia drives that, though some carelessly chosen words have occurred to provide some support for their claim.
But two aspects of that salacious side do deserve scrutiny, in my opinion. There’s an abundance of evidence that, at least, Gannon has been a promoter of prostitution. And possibly, he’s been an active participant in actual prostitution, though none have confirmed that. This clearly raises the point that White House background checking is deficient, which is a national security issue. Or that any other plausible explanation has not been advanced by the WH, as it should be, if one exists.
The other aspect - and the one you and I may differ on, is that this administration utilized homophobia in its re-election bid with the claims that certain rights should be denied to homosexuals, that these rights would damage rights previously restricted to heterosexuals, and that John Kerry supported extending these rights to homosexuals. And at least in the latter example, this was untrue.
Thus, I consider it relevant that if the White House cleared this guy with any knowledge that his websites both promoted prostitution (which is an illegal trade) and promoted gay sex, the latter demonstrates the hypocrisy of an administration utilizing homophobia as a campaign practice while welcoming such a promoter as a party line mouthpiece, violating press pass rules to do so.
In short, it’s the hypocrisy that’s at issue, not his sexual life.
Furthermore, as it remains a ‘given’ that the American public has an oft-demonstrated voyeuristic appetite about the sex lives of people in the public eye, then if that’s the best avenue to catch the attention of that eye, sufficient to advance a thorough government investigation of ALL the issues present, shouldn’t that be considered a legitimate tactic to obtain answers to the questions we both can agree on should be known to the public?
Raising public awareness is a desirable goal, I’d argue. And since moral values have been advanced to the fore, the questions about prostitution promotion, and hypocrisy seem like a legit means to gain that awareness. They are not the principal issues, but I believe they are important, addressable issues, as well.
February 21st, 2005 at 3:50 pm
It somewhat gets away from the “main” story, but those diversions do also reinforce the suspicions of why the “main” story is so shady in the first place.
This administration let in someone with questionable media credentials. Not once, not twice, but pretty consistently for two years. This person states that he “cooperated” with providing information about himself in order to get into the White House. He apparently didn’t have enough of a legitimate reporting job to get credentials for the rest of Capitol Hill.
He said in a CNN interview that the White House “absolutely did not” know about the [gay prostitution] details. If that is the case, that the White House let someone visit that regularly, including the Christmas parties for the press elite, without bothering to do any sort of background check… What other reporters of ill repute would they let in? Apparently, writing for an “online agency” is legitimate media. You, Atrios, Kos, Republican Jesus, and all the other bloggers should pop by the White House and ask for a daily pass, just be sure to give them your real name in addition to the name you would like on your pass, since everyone is doing it these days especially people with hard-to-pronounce names like Jeff or Jim or JD. Because, clearly, you are all legitimate media. As such, you should not have any trouble getting in for the press briefings, right?
As for the “side issue”, where were all the complaints about how a person’s “past” or “sexual interests” should be off-limits when the wingnuts were frothing at the mouth about interns or what someone did with Gennifer Flowers in 1977. The “side issue” points out that the gay-bashing hypocrites of the Republican Party really hate gays, unless of course they are saying things Our Leader likes. Either they were aware of his past and didn’t mind that he did things that were probably illegal in most states or certainly at least not of good moral fiber (which is pretty bad since the Republicans like to brag about their moral superiority)… Or, this administration was genuinely not aware of his past which pretty much defeats the purpose of having background checks in the first place.
If random bloggers are able to get daily passes, this would support the latter possibility that they genuinely don’t check, or care, about a reporter’s background. Somehow I doubt that is the case, call it a hunch. I suppose that the in the mind of the values-conscious republicans that although they don’t like to admit it, they love a good prostitute, as long as their name doesn’t end up in the paper as a result. But gays! Can’t let them infiltrate this country. It would be the end of civilization. So, them overlooking HALF of his background as a gay prostitute could be very possible, but they wouldn’t be very good Republicans if they didn’t hate at least half of his background.
February 21st, 2005 at 4:23 pm
I don’t think that lefty blogs have wandered off the point. I know I haven’t at my blog. I don’t see loss of focus on the real story at dKos, Atrios, here, Reading A1 or even AmericaBlog, which found the photos that were apparently worth more than several thousand words. It’s the corporate media that is using the gay sex angle as a reason to avoid the story. It’s very convenient for them.
February 21st, 2005 at 8:15 pm
The Current State of MSM
Perhaps I am too embriared within “24″, but it seems to me highly unlikely that the caucasian house would not have vetted everyone who would be close enough to affect a successful expectoration upon whatever Il Duce in the title role. The risible prurience of compassionate conservatives! The Conservative Media in metonymy.
Talon’s rantallion.
Kevin gives a good direction.
Strange that after killing a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis, something like prurience might prove the Achilles leg that breaks and alltumbledown.
Now where have I seen that before? Monny…bring me that cigar, I got splorin to do.
Try Splorin!
If erections last more than four hours call a doctor or a slut. Do not take if you are pregnant, weird, Anglo-Norman or an air breather.
Megasteven!
February 21st, 2005 at 9:11 pm
“the bloggers covering him got caught up in a salacious sidestory and lost sight of the most important issue”
I have to say that I think the bloggers covering Guckert/Gannon never got caught up in a salacious side story. The Howie Kurtzes did, and are pushing that view as hard as they can. Strap-on stenography and bend over ombudsmen aside, though, the bloggers I’ve read have been pretty much on point:
Guckert/Gannon, an easily-discovered phony with an easily-discovered non-background in journalism and with equally easily-discovered legal issues, was allowed into the White House for years, apparently circumventing a well-established credentialling system, while long-time reporters couldn’t get in at all.
The Administration, which has a now well-established tendency to plant phonies or pay for favorable media spin, but also has an equally well-established control mania and likes to know all about everyone, somehow didn’t realize they were credentialling a guy who advertised his services as an escort with naked photos of himself, who happened to reliably lob up gopher balls whenever called upon.
And that’s not logical or likely to have happened accidentally, the less so since 9/11 and tighter security.
It’s the Howies who are simultaneously salivating and dismissing the story as beneath notice — something they conspicuously did NOT do with earlier “salacious” stories which happened to focus on Democratic dramatis personae.
February 21st, 2005 at 11:06 pm
So, Roggio says, €œI think that we€™re definitely being accused of going on a witchhunt and I think that was unfortunate.€
Twas Easongate.com, Hugh Hewitt’s blog or both €” all the strident sliming, posturing and self-congratulation sort of runs together in the mind right now €” that referred to running Jordan to ground, as though he was a game animal.
Roggio is incredibly disingenuous. He lacks the cojones to come out and say WitchHunts-R-Us, so what?
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:39 am
Kevin, you made a point that reminded me of something I had said at my weblog last week:
Using a Howard Kurtz quote:
My reply was:
Right-wing bloggers have not appreciated my pointing out the obvious about their motivation, and I am continuing to address their attempts to take their political motivation out of the Eason Jordan equation.
Howard Kurtz has been profoundly disappointing. I think there is a conflict of interest between his gig at
CNN/”(un)Reliable Sources” and the Washington Post. His performance and commentary on his CNN show is effecting our perception of the quality of the overall Post coverage of the story, making it a more concentrated BLURRY and “unreliable” mess.
On the last (un)Reliable Sources show, I saw Powerline’s John Hindeyhead (whatever his name is) spouting off inaccurately about how Eason Jordan was FIRED (and Kurtz corrected him). Yet, Kurtz will ask this lying, partisan joker back onto his show as a “Reliable Source” the next time a blowhard blogger is required to spout off an irresponsible and inaccurate comment. No class act, look at the way POWERLINE treated a person who dared to question them: LINK.
More of my comments about Mr. Kurtz can be found at Daily Kos (my comment is a response to Buck.)
I do wish Kurtz would keep the coverage real. His obvious desire to spin this story to fit a controversial storyline is damaging the credibility of citizen bloggers who are searching for a balanced truth.
We have to rally against this type of spin.
I believe the gay/GOP hypocrisy spin on the story has its place, indeed. And if Guckert is found to be a direct tool of the White House “f*ck reality-it’s all about our agenda” media-manipulating hocus-pocus, the hypocrisy will haunt them forever and a day.
But I must stress that I believe its fully up to us to frame the story in the way we see as most important here and now.
I want Guckert and the White House credential process to be fully investigated by Congress. The relationship between the White House and Guckert was anything but typical…especially when we now know that he was allowed in before he was affiliated with any kind of news outlet.
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:07 am
If citizens care enough about the unanswered questions about Guckert’s relationship with the White House, and if we continue to be STONEWALLED with unaaceptable answers from the Bush administration, we should force Congress to take a good hard look at what’s happening - not only with Guckert, but with Williams, Gallagher, and the other journalists who’ve been on the take from the Bush administration and not divulging that fact to the public. At best, I would hope for a creation of a public panel for the review of ethics in White House media to take place.
This right-wing jokester doesn’t think the Guckert story will go far because citizens just don’t care:
(*I found this on a GOOGLE News search, by the way. Why does THIS get to be “news”? It’s obvious partisan garbage. What constitutes “news” today? Why aren’t MY words here considered to be “news”?)
At the CSM, Dante Chinni, who is a senior associate with the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, is suggesting that it’s time for the White House to define what a “nice independent relationship” with the press really means.
The Goldbergs
Former CBS journalist Bernie Goldberg put forth a hypothesis about journalism that has spiraled downward into a stew of right-tilted filth that passes, today, for ethical journalism, which was once based upon some form of intellect and experience.
Journalist Jonah Goldberg (NRO) recently admitted to Juan Cole that he’d never read a book on Iraq. Yet, he writes for one of the most popular political magazines in the nation.
This story is much bigger than JD Guckert. It’s about the disaster that American journalism has become, with the willing assistance of the government.
February 22nd, 2005 at 10:35 am
I agree with much that has been written here,especially comments by Kevin and Iddy. While I am guilty of drawing cartoons that poke fun at the sexual angle of the story, it is with the intent that it keeps the story going so that the deeper issues can be addressed. There would probably be nothing better for this story than if Leno and Letterman spent a week making Gannon jokes. It would certainly get a few more people Googling his name to get more of the story.
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:47 pm
While I have asserted that all of this talk about Mr. Gannon’s past is a distraction from the more important issue of alleged White House manipulation of the press (and it appears that there is already more to that story than Mr. Gannon’s supposed role and the dots between Mr. Gannon and several jounalists who were paid for positive commentaries are already being connected here and there), I think zencomix might just have a bit of point about how the salacious element of the story is helping to keep it going — if the late night talk show hosts are finding good opening monologue fodder in it and their audiences are inspired to Google and read more about it as a result.