Liberal’ Media Silent About Guckert Saga

New York Observer | February 17 2005

Proof that "the liberal media" is but a figment of right-wing mythology has now arrived in the person of one James Guckert, formerly known as Jeff Gannon. Were the American media truly liberal—or merely unafraid to be called liberal—the saga of Mr. Guckert’s short, strange, quasi-journalistic career would be resounding across the airwaves.

The intrinsic media interest of the Guckert/Gannon story should be obvious to anyone who has followed his tale, which touches on hot topics from the homosexual underground and the investigation into the outing of C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame to the political power of the Internet. But our supposedly liberal media becomes quite squeamish when reporting anything that might humiliate the Bush White House and the Republican Party.

Until very recently, Mr. Guckert served as the White House correspondent for Talon News, a Web site owned and operated by a group of Texas Republican activists who also run a highly partisan site called GOPUSA.com. Mr. Guckert resigned from his Talon job after liberal bloggers exposed his ties to Web sites promoting homosexual prostitution. On Valentine’s Day, AmericaBlog.org posted new evidence indicating that Mr. Guckert not only constructed those gay-play-for-pay sites, but worked as a male escort himself—and continued to do so until he got his first White House press pass in 2003.

Using his "Jeff Gannon" alias, Mr. Guckert soon became a familiar face in the briefing room, where White House press secretary Scott McClellan would call on him as "Jeff." No doubt Mr. McClellan welcomed his mushy-soft, Democrat-baiting questions.

George W. Bush called on him during his most recent press conference—a signal honor for a reporter from an obscure Internet publication, and quite a surprise to the dozens of actual reporters bypassed by Mr. Bush on Jan. 26.

Mr. Guckert’s archived writings suddenly disappeared from the Talon News Web site, but several of his greatest works have been preserved by the watchdogs at MediaMatters.org. They show that he had no journalistic purpose, let alone experience. His copy featured long passages lifted directly from White House press releases. Last year, during the Internet frenzy over Senator John Kerry’s "intern girlfriend," he falsely wrote that the young woman had "taped an interview with one of the major television networks at Christmas substantiating the alleged affair."

He also made a curious cameo appearance in the Valerie Plame controversy. In late 2003, Mr. Guckert called former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. During that interview, the Talon correspondent mentioned a C.I.A. document that supposedly showed Ms. Plame had dispatched Mr. Wilson, her husband, on a government mission to Niger to investigate rumored Iraqi uranium purchases. That allegation was meant to discredit the former ambassador, who had exposed White House intelligence abuses. Administration leaks to the press about Ms. Plame’s C.I.A. work are currently under investigation by a special prosecutor.

What Mr. Guckert seems to have been is not a journalist but a Republican dirty trickster. He was schooled at the Leadership Institute—an outfit run by veteran right-wing operative and Republican National Committee member Morton Blackwell. (It was Mr. Blackwell who distributed those cute "purple heart" Band-aids mocking Mr. Kerry’s war wounds at the Republican convention last summer.) His former employers at Talon News include leading Republican fund-raisers and former officials of the Texas Republican Party who have been active in partisan affairs for the past two decades.

How did this character obtain a coveted place in the White House? What did the White House press staff know about him? How does his story fit within the larger scandal of payola punditry, with federal funds subsidizing Republican propagandists in the press corps? Did someone in the Bush administration give him a classified document?

Such questions are evidently of little concern to our liberal media outlets, whose leading lights prefer to deliver prim lectures about the unwarranted invasion of Mr. Guckert’s private affairs and his victimization for his conservative views. In fact, everything known about him comes from material he posted on public Web sites, but that’s beside the point.

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps—and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now.

I read a book called Useful Idiots by Charon I think? Anyway, giving it a read might give you a better understanding of the notion of a "liberal" media.

I personally dont believe that the media is either overly liberal OR conservative, but rather motivated by self interest. What that means is that on any given day in any given situation, if it pays better to be conservative, they will do so, and if it pays better to be liberal they will swing that way too.

Well said. I remember most media sources being on the war bandwagon during the initial attack on Iraq (journalists riding in tanks, not asking serious questions, etc). A purely liberal media would not have done that. Only now, when the war isn't cool anymore, are media sources starting to ask questions, etc.

Tainted media
Thomas Sowell


February 18, 2005


The recent resignation of CNN's news director, Eason Jordan, after his outrageous remarks about our military at an international forum were reported on the Internet, is only the latest in a series of media scandals, of which Dan Rather's forged documents were just one. Media bias does not consist in having liberal or conservative opinions but in how you do your job -- or don't do it.

One document whose authenticity is not likely to be questioned by the mainstream media is the honorable discharge on Senator John Kerry's web site. Yet who in the major media has investigated why that honorable discharge is dated during the Carter administration, when Kerry's military service ended years earlier?

This is the same media that spent months investigating George W. Bush's military record and, even after key allegations were revealed to be based on forgeries, continued publicizing rumors and innuendoes. They didn't stop even after the President signed Form 180, opening all his military records to the public.

But who in the major media has asked why John Kerry would need to be issued an honorable discharge during the Carter administration, years after leaving the navy, unless his original discharge was less than honorable?

One of Jimmy Carter's first acts as President was to issue an order granting amnesties to draft dodgers who had fled the country during the Vietnam war and also allowing an upgrading of military discharges that had been less than honorable.

There is more to this than simply a strange date on an honorable discharge. The covering memo refers to U.S. Code Title 10, sections 1162 and 1163. Anyone who bothers to read those sections will discover that they are about unusual circumstances for issuing discharges from the military services.

Senator Kerry never signed Form 180 to make all his military records public, as President Bush had done -- and the media didn't press him to do so. Even after Kerry's widely publicized role as a war hero was challenged by numerous men who had served with him in Vietnam, the media remained totally uninterested in checking out his record.

This gross double standard is the real media scandal, even more than the forged documents, which were after all the responsibility of just one network and one program.

Maybe there is a perfectly innocent explanation for Senator Kerry's late-dated honorable discharge during the Carter administration. But no explanation has been asked or given, even though there may also be a not so innocent explanation.

What is well known is that, during the Vietnam war, John Kerry went to Paris on his own and engaged in discussions or negotiations with representatives of the country with whom we were at war, even though he was still an officer in the naval reserve.

That raises legal questions about unauthorized personal diplomacy which naval authorities may not have overlooked as generously as the media did, and which could have affected the kind of discharge that Kerry received.

One of the few people in the media who has shown any interest at all in Kerry's military records has been Tim Russert of "Meet the Press." He asked Senator Kerry on April 18, 2004 if he would "make all your records public." Kerry indicated that his records were already public, that people "can come and see them" at his headquarters.

But recently, on January 30, 2005, when Tim Russert again raised that question and asked "Would you sign Form 180?" -- the form that Bush had signed to open all his military records -- Kerry started off on a tangent before Russert interrupted him to repeat that same question. This time Kerry said, "Yes, I will."

He will? He had already done so last year, if you believe what he said then. But will the media call him on it if he doesn't follow through now? Don't bet on it.

This is not about the past or ultimately even about Kerry or Bush. It is about the future of this country. A gullible public learning only what is filtered to them by a biased media is not a hopeful sign for the future of a democracy.

Some of the public have begun to wake up but more need to do so. Many in the media also need to wake up to what they are doing, or failing to do, when their politics taints their work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't really care about the anecdotal account of sowell, but he is dead on when he says bias is less about how something is presented and more about what is presented.

I, for one, am outraged over this entire Gannon situation. That second to last paragraph really says it all. The American people just continue to shrug their shoulders, support the troops, buy, buy, buy, and watch TV. It's pathetic.

What Ara said. I can't believe that this story hasn't blown up. If I were a legitimate journalist, this shit would drive me 10 times as crazy as it drives me as a mere citizen.

And absolutely right on what would would happen if this had occurred in the Clinton administration. Anyone who believes that the major media is "liberal" is a fucking idiot. Sorry, but you're brainwashed. Just look at the facts here.

--PunkDavid (extremely pissed off)

If I were looking for facts, this thread would be the last place i'd search.

The overwhelming evidence suggests that it's difficult to make an argument of a systematic bias in the U.S. media either to the left or the right.

But people who claim bias aren't necessarily idiots or brainwashed (which runs counter to the arguement in the first place). Obviously people on the left are going to think the media is biased towards the right, and vice versa. It's not so much as closed mindedness as defensive mindedness.

That is a good point.

I'm not so partisan as to claim that the media is conservative, although there are days...

But as several including you have pointed out, in general, the major media are biased neither to the right nor the left, but to the ratings and the almighty dollar.

How this particular story won't make money though is beyond me. It's got everything you need for a nice sexy scandal, but for some reason nobody's pulling the trigger.

--PunkDavid

I really don't know the number of stories this incident has engendered, but I've pretty much seen something on it all week on ALL major news networks..in fact, I think it was a lead for NBC and even FOX on Wednesday...or whatever the day after was.

If people are upset about the amount of outrage, I'd blame the Democratic leadership as opposed to the media...remember during the Clinton years, it wasn't media expressing the outrage...they were merely covering the GOP outrage.

FYI - It would be advantageous to get someone other than Ted Kennedy or Rob Byrd to be vocal.

Yep, and from the sound of this article it appears that Dean is ready to come out firing. Somebody in the Dems has got to sack up and start taking the fight to the Republicans.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050218/D88AU37G0.html

Ya know its funny, because while I was in North Carolina, all I heard out of Joseph Farah was complaints about this guy...

The media is all in how you view it. National TV media tends to be a *little more conservative (it would be pretty even on average if not for the existance of fox news).

Local TV media tends to be neither- they dont give a fuck about anything but ad $.

I think the perception of liberal media comes from the Newspapers. Most newspapers tend to be a bit more liberal (take a look at the newspaper endorsements from the last election)...

But mainly, i think the media is all in the eye of the beholder. No matter how balanced you try and be, people are always going to claim Bias. Even Sports media.. to me, ESPN focuses too much on New York/New England area and doesnt give enough respect to Middle america teams... Where as someone in new york might say- WHy the fuck are you showing so many KC Royals highlights?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/polit ... r=homepage


Administration Is Warned About Its 'News' Videos
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT

Published: February 19, 2005

ASHINGTON, Feb. 18 - The comptroller general has issued a blanket warning that reminds federal agencies they may not produce newscasts promoting administration policies without clearly stating that the government itself is the source.

Twice in the last two years, agencies of the federal government have been caught distributing prepackaged television programs that used paid spokesmen acting as newscasters and, in violation of federal law, failed to disclose the administration's role in developing and financing them.

Advertisement

And those were not isolated incidents, David M. Walker, the comptroller general, said in a letter dated Thursday that put all agency heads on notice about the practice.

In fact, it has become increasingly common for federal agencies to adopt the public relations tactic of producing "video news releases" that look indistinguishable from authentic newscasts and, as ready-made and cost-free reports, are sometimes picked up by local news programs. It is illegal for the government to produce or distribute such publicity material domestically without disclosing its own role.

Mr. Walker, who as comptroller general is chief of the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, said in his letter: "While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities, agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed by television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."

"It is not enough," he added, "that the contents of an agency's communication may be unobjectionable."

Mr. Walker's letter was made available late Friday afternoon by Democrats on Capitol Hill. Asked for a response Friday night, the White House had no immediate comment.

The two best-known cases of such video news releases - one concerning the new Medicare law, the other an antidrug campaign by the Bush administration - drew sharp rebukes from the G.A.O. after separate investigations last year found that the agencies involved had violated the law.

Those cases were followed by disclosures that the government had paid at least one conservative commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote the administration's No Child Left Behind education measure and had put two other conservative writers on the federal payroll to help develop programs. These episodes have prompted calls from Democrats for stricter oversight of the administration's publicity practices, which have cost millions of dollars of federal revenue.

In the Medicare case, a video made in the style of a newscast featured a spokeswoman named Karen Ryan who claimed to be reporting from Washington on Medicare law changes strongly backed by the administration but opposed by many Democrats, who consider them a windfall for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In part of one script, she said that "all people with Medicare will be able to get coverage that will lower their prescription drug spending."

Often there is an intermediary in the process: a public relations firm hired by a government agency to produce a polished video and direct other aspects of a publicity drive.

One centrally involved firm is Ketchum, a giant in the public relations industry whose representatives arranged for both the Medicare video and the contract with Mr. Williams, a pact that is now under investigation by three government agencies. Ketchum has received $97 million in government public relations contracts since 2001.

The G.A.O. letter did not caution agencies to curtail their publicity practices, telling them simply to adhere to disclosure requirements.

"Prepackaged news stories," Mr. Walker wrote, "can be utilized without violating the law, so long as there is clear disclosure to the television viewing audience that this material was prepared by or in cooperation with the government department or agency."

But Democrats said they hoped the letter would lead to tougher scrutiny of what they describe as an aggressive publicity machine within the administration.

"The G.A.O. is sending a clear message to the Bush administration: shut down the propaganda mill," Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said in a statement on Friday. "The G.A.O. is simply telling the White House to stop manipulating media, stop paying journalists and be straight with the American people."

I think that is a very fair assessment, and pretty much accurate as well. I don't know whether the biggest, best newspapers (NYT, Wash. Post, Chicago Tribune, etc...) tend to be more liberal because their readers tend to be, or vice versa, but there certainly is a difference between those people who get their news primarily from reading versus those who get their news primarily from TV or radio. Of course there are vast differences within each of those media as well (Fox v NPR, NYT v NY Post, etc...)

--PunkDavid

Its capitalist. Therefore, its both liberal and conservative.