Disagreeing with GP on the “Democrats’ Jeff Gannon”
It is not often that I disagree with Bruce’s posts. While we have very different styles, we have very similar political views. Often when something in the news strikes me and I want to post on it, by the time I check our blog, I’ll find Bruce has already posted on it.
I had thought that Bruce and I would agree when V the K of Caption This! e-mailed us both about Tom Malin’s past. What struck me about this was the hypocrisy angle, not of Mr. Malin, but of the anti-Republican gay bloggers, ever eager to pounce on anything, no matter how minor, which they could use against the President or his party. Yet, if they discover that someone on the Left had done something similar, they ignore or it make excuses for the Democrat’s behavior.
To me, that’s the issue here. And to that extent, I believe Bruce’s post was newsworthy — to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the left-of-center bloggers who were obsessed with Gannon’s past (because he’s a Republican), yet indifferent to Malin’s (because he’s a Democrat).
That said, I’m troubled by posting this stuff on Malin’s past for a number of reasons. First, I just don’t believe it’s right to snoop around in someone’s private life (to glean details of that individual’s private activities where he did not harm anyone). Not only that. Malin has acknowledged his past mistakes and changed his behavior, thus, assuming that he did not hurt anyone (to whom he would need make restitution), we cannot hold this against him.
And finally, because of my libertarian streak, I could basically care less if someone is (or was) an escort. As long as he’s not coercing anyone and not having sex with minors, it’s his body. What Malin used to do may not be good for his soul, but it’s his soul, not mine.
In Malin’s race for state legislature, voters should evaluate him, not on his past behavior, but on his present platform. As to what he did in the past, provided he didn’t hurt or harm anyone, that’s his concern — and should not be one for the voters. But, it is interesting that so many who work themselves into a lather about what a Republican does on his own time are indifferent to what a Democrat does on his.
(GP Update - 4:00PM Tuesday - I understand where Dan is coming from on this and agree that gutter politics is gutter politics. However my biggest problem is that this man, who expects the public to put their trust in him, had the bad judgement to allow this story to come out — no pun intended — by someone else, and then appears to suddenly “find religion” in order to salvage his political candidacy. However, my biggest question of judgement is why anyone with an escorting past would think they could run for public office without the past being disclosed.)
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
61 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Thank you. I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by hank — February 20, 2006 @ 10:29 pm - February 20, 2006
Another problem with the inconsistency - I won’t say hypocrisy - of the leftist gay bloggers is that Jeff Gannon wasn’t even running for public office. He was simply a lame journalist working for a lame little conservative outfit who asked the President at least one silly, softball question. For this unspeakable offense, they outed him.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — February 20, 2006 @ 10:48 pm - February 20, 2006
And the Left’s outrage at Gannon’s softball questioning looks even sillier given the White House press corps’ behavior last week. They certainly weren’t asking softball questions about the Vice President’s hunting mishap. So, it seems credentialing a pro-GOP reporter was not to prevent tough questions from being asked, but to offer the White House press personnel a little respite for incessant badgering from reporters less favorably disposed to the Administration.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 20, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - February 20, 2006
There were plenty of Democrats who were furious with Bill Clinton for trying to cover up his indiscretion with Monica but didn’t care about the behavior itself. That is the same difference here. Gannon would not acknowledge his past and tried to rationalize his behavior. I’m not aware of Malin making any effort at all to cover his behavior up, unless you think not putting it in his resume is covering it up.
So I don’t see how Malin has behaved dishonestly, while Gannon has.
I remind you too, that the question about Gannon came up in the first place because nobody could figure out how such a lackey with no training had acquired such privileged access. It turned out that he was working for Talon, a phony news service that was actually a Bushie PR front. So even if you grant him the status of a journalist, his ethics were shit. His stories included unattributed, direct quotes from White House talking point memos.
Except for the fact that both worked as escorts, I can’t see the comparison, though the Gannon story did get turned into a sex story by some people. But for most it was a story about an escort with no training posing as a journalist in the highest echelon — the White House press corps. His job was to lob softball questions that took the heat off the administration and he printed their talking points without attribution. Comparing tthis to Malin’s case is an enormous stretch.
Comment by JwGreen — February 20, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - February 20, 2006
Thank you, GPW. This whole thing seemed to be little more than ‘HA HA, he’s a liberal Gannon!!!’ and trying to trash him just to make up for what happened to Gannon. We are supposed to see Malin as a terrible person just because of how Gannon was treated. It’s very petty and I’m glad someone here does not go along with this attitude.
Comment by Carl — February 20, 2006 @ 11:24 pm - February 20, 2006
Carl, that’s a subjective, unfair characterization of the other Gannon discussion.
When I read Bruce’s post, it seems to me that Bruce’s concern is indeed the gay-Left-hypocrisy angle that Dan talks about. So Dan, I’m afraid I don’t see much difference between your post and Bruce’s, except that from a writing standpoint, you have “emphasized the emphasis” on the gay-Left-hypocrisy angle, so to speak.
Personally, I think the Gannon story was always colossally dumb and a waste of time, and I put the Malin story in the same bin, so to speak.
Comment by Calarato — February 20, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - February 20, 2006
I.e. people should leave both men alone. Both are non-stories.
Comment by Calarato — February 20, 2006 @ 11:35 pm - February 20, 2006
JwGreen, it later came out — on a left-wing blog of all places — how easy it was to get White House press credentials. Thus, the Gannon story was a non-story, except that some on the left, tried to turn it into one.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 20, 2006 @ 11:54 pm - February 20, 2006
-Carl, that’s a subjective, unfair characterization of the other Gannon discussion.-
Everything you or I or anyone else says about this matter is subjective. Opinions are subjective. The previous discussion seemed to be little more than sneering at Malin (for finding religion, for being liberal, for being an escort) and implying that he was worse than Gannon because Gannon had supposedly embraced homosexuality (when I have yet to see him do that) and because he writes for Washington Blade. We are supposed to view Malin with contempt because he’s liberal and liberals were unfair to Gannon. Therefore this is supposed to be some kind of payback, as if Malin was involved in what happened to Gannon, or as if Malin’s own journey is a sham because he is not Gannon.
The message comes across as good Gannon and bad Malin. Someone who had nothing to do with what happened to Jeff Gannon is skewered just because he happens to be a gay Democrat who was once an escort.
Comment by Carl — February 21, 2006 @ 12:26 am - February 21, 2006
I gave evidence (see other thread) that the message wasn’t “good Gannon and bad Malin”. Insofar as it was evidence corresponding to reality, no Carl, it’s not just my opinion.
Comment by Calarato — February 21, 2006 @ 12:53 am - February 21, 2006
In other words, let’s argue / discuss with reference to evidence, one way or the other. So it won’t be subjective opinion.
Comment by Calarato — February 21, 2006 @ 12:54 am - February 21, 2006
I should mention that I did think the way Aravosis fcused on Gannon’s past was really disgusting. I also realize that GP did not dig up any of this on Malin - it was already being discussed and posted elsewhere. I just think that all of this is unseemly, to bring Malin into this just because of what happened to Gannon and what liberal bloggers did to Gannon. I think it lowers the discourse significantly and turns this into some kind of a grudge match instead of a place of discussion, and I should probably just keep my opinion to myself on the matter from now on, since I’m sure a lot of people don’t agree with me.
Comment by Carl — February 21, 2006 @ 1:00 am - February 21, 2006
#4
So even if you grant him the status of a journalist, his ethics were shit.
Actually, the same can be said of some of the ass clowns at the DNC Times, WaPo, LA-LA Times, PMSNBC, CBS-BS etc. What’s so ethical about making up the news to effect the outcome of an election?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 21, 2006 @ 2:56 am - February 21, 2006
I didn’t even think of Gannon until a commenter on my blog pointed it out.
The thing is that the liberals won’t tolerate the religious angle and will decapitate this guy faster than they whacked Hackett. I’m sure they’ve got Max Baucas hunting for video.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 21, 2006 @ 3:09 am - February 21, 2006
Thus, the Gannon story was a non-story, except that some on the left, tried to turn it into one.
What really fueled the Gannon story was that it was on the heels of the left’s media superstars being brought low when they got caught lying. Dan Rather had been nailed with his phony memos, the New York Times brought down by affirmative action superstar Jayson Blair, and Eason Jordan was tossed out of CNN for claiming American troops were targeting reporters. Three giants of left-wing journalism laid low. The left, on the other hand, couldn’t take down Limbaugh or Hannity, so they had to settle for destroying a third-rate stringer for a third rate news-service. And since they couldn’t attack the veracity of his reporting, they attacked his lifestyle instead… but in their tiny left-wing minds, this evened the score somehow.
Comment by V the K — February 21, 2006 @ 5:49 am - February 21, 2006
I’m not sure where this came from:
Thus, the Gannon story was a non-story, except that some on the left, tried to turn it into one.
Actually, the Gannon/Guckert story was a story, but the story wasn’t about Gannon/Guckert. The revelations regarding Gannon also brought to light the fact that his employer was a “front” operation–a fake news operation–with close ties to the Texas Republican Party. It strains credulity to believe that the Bush White House did not know that Gannon/Guckert was working for a Texas Republican Party front operation, and that he got unusual access to the White House as a result.
I really don’t give a tinker’s damn whether or not he was an “escort” or a pimp.
Comment by raj — February 21, 2006 @ 8:59 am - February 21, 2006
Regarding the fact that Window Media (Southern Voice, Washington Blade, NY Blade, among others) has published columns by Gannon/Guckert, it should be remembered that they also accepted advertisements from ex-gay operations in the late 1990s and/or early 2000s. That brought out a significant uproar among at least some gay people.
BTW, it was reported within the last few months that Window Media is having financial problems. Apparently one of their primary investors is taking control of the company.
Window Media is a very strange operation.
Comment by raj — February 21, 2006 @ 9:06 am - February 21, 2006
Guys! You’re missing the important point! The question is which one would make the $500 worth while?
(The rest is, as they say, historical detritus.)
Comment by Gene — February 21, 2006 @ 10:05 am - February 21, 2006
Dan, I couldn’t disagree more with your point: that what Malin has publicly acknowledged he did isn’t an issue in the race. It is and it should be. For Democrats worried about electability of their candidate, for Republicans for partisan gain, and for voters who might just might be a little bit interested in the credibility and integrity of a future elected official. Malin’s past matters –on many fronts.
He’s an admitted –albeit unconvicted– felon.
Irrespective of his conversion or the sincerity of it. A known, unconvicted felon. Now, I will grant you, his conversion or sincerity of his faith and amended life should be taken at face value –that’s no one’s business but his. However, his former conduct is a fair, appropriate issue for voters, press inquiries, and even Congress in their willingness to seat him should he win. Unfortunately, Congress has enough history on the issue of seating suspected felons to fill a book and their rules will decide the matter if voters send Malin to Congress.
However, you’re ready to give him slack because his apology and stated conversion. How many criminal inmates each year “come over to Christ” or convert to Islam? It doesn’t make the fact that their crime is unatoned –it simply and rightly means their soul ought to find solace in the afterlife. After they serve time are they a felon? Yes. The commission of a crime remains in spite of the conversion or repentance or sentence served. Conviction sealed that fact for inmates. We just don’t have a conviction in Malin’s case –simply his acknowledgement.
While I can appreciate the impulse of libertarians to view conduct between consenting adults as “none of the govt’s business”, the simple fact is that while Malin was a prostitute, he committed multiple felonies. It goes to character. It goes to credibility. It goes to integrity. It ought to be a subject for press inquiries. And it ought to go into the polling booth with each voter on Election Day –along with Malin’s statements on conversion, repentance, and promise of “changed character”.
You’re wrong Dan. It matters. And it should. In Malin’s case. Rostenkowski’s case. In Kennedy’s case –well, cases.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 21, 2006 @ 10:56 am - February 21, 2006
BTW, it was reported within the last few months that Window Media is having financial problems. Apparently one of their primary investors is taking control of the company.
Window Media is a very strange operation.
They’ve been on the verge of bankruptcy several times and always manage to find some new investors to bail them out. Now, William Waybourn, the “president,” has retired and is being replaced by Peter Pollimino from the investment group, Avalon, that bought into Window about five years ago.
The hiring of Gannon to write a column is typical of editorial director Chris Crain who seems to believe that if you can’t invest in good reporting, you can get just as much attention by kicking up a storm by printing shit like Gannon’s.
The sale of the Washington Blade to Window ruined the paper in many people’s eyes. It became more of a “lifestyle” publication and less of a political paper with the change.
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 11:03 am - February 21, 2006
“wGreen, it later came out — on a left-wing blog of all places — how easy it was to get White House press credentials. Thus, the Gannon story was a non-story, except that some on the left, tried to turn it into one.”
You could argue that Gannon’s receiving the credentials demonstrates that but I don’t recall anyone actually reporting this seriously. I mean, even Maureen Dowd couldn’t get a seat, as I recall. Where did you read this?
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 11:05 am - February 21, 2006
“While I can appreciate the impulse of libertarians to view conduct between consenting adults as “none of the govt’s business”, the simple fact is that while Malin was a prostitute, he committed multiple felonies. It goes to character. It goes to credibility. It goes to integrity. It ought to be a subject for press inquiries. And it ought to go into the polling booth with each voter on Election Day –along with Malin’s statements on…”
So, before the SC overturned the sodomy prohibitions, you think every gay man who had sex was a felon whose wiling violaton of the law is a general comment on his character and suitability to hold office?
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 11:07 am - February 21, 2006
JwGreen: nice try from the 3 point line; no basket, no hoop, no backboard tho’. Check me, dude.
Were they prostitutes?
Did they violate a law which is considered a felony in SC?
Can it be matter for press inquiry and voter attention? That’s the real question and the answer is Yes. Not, as you try to imply… “by your standard, gay men can never hold office.” And if they admit to being unconvicted felons, that’s a fair issue in the campaign.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 21, 2006 @ 11:19 am - February 21, 2006
#19 Michigan-Matt — February 21, 2006 @ 10:56 am - February 21, 2006
However, his former conduct is a fair, appropriate issue for voters, press inquiries, and even Congress in their willingness to seat him should he win.
Ignoring the fact that nobody is a “felon” unless and until he has been convicted of a crime (recall that there are usually statutes of limitation, after all), the fact is that Malin is not running to be the Democratic party’s candidate for Congress. He is running to be the Democrat party’s candidate for the state legislature.
Comment by raj — February 21, 2006 @ 11:31 am - February 21, 2006
Please insert “Texas House” for “Congress” in the foregoing. Wow.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 21, 2006 @ 11:31 am - February 21, 2006
#20 JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 11:03 am - February 21, 2006
I had not followed the Washington Blade much since I left DC in 1976. I click onto its web site every once in a while to print out their “Bitch Session” column for my spouse. The Wash Blade was one of the first gay newspapers that I encountered after coming out. When were they sold to Window Media?
BTW, the complaint about it becoming more of a “lifestyle” magazine after the sale to Window Media pretty much parallels complaints about the advocate in the last decade or two.
Fortunately, our New England gay publications (Baywindows and InNewsweekly) apparently have not been seduced by Window Media, and they appear to be doing fairly well.
Comment by raj — February 21, 2006 @ 11:32 am - February 21, 2006
The sale to Window occurred 3 or more years ago; I don’t really remember exactly when. Most of my political friends in DC were horrified. There was also some business about Waybourn union busting the shop there; I don’t remember the details.
Yeah, Window has not absorbed Bay Windows yet. I hear my friend Jeff Epperly has returned to writing a column for the paper.
And speaking of all this crap about Gannon/Mailin, “Outside the Tent” adds a bit of historical perspective to the weird effort to equate the two’s stories. Drama:
http://www.outsidethetent.com/wp/archives/bruce-misses-the-point-part-117/
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - February 21, 2006
“Can it be matter for press inquiry and voter attention? That’s the real question and the answer is Yes. Not, as you try to imply… “by your standard, gay men can never hold office.” And if they admit to being unconvicted felons, that’s a fair issue in the campaign.”
Try again without putting words in my mouth, Matty.
But if you think breaking every stupid law is a reason for the press to make an inquiry into a person’s general character, fine. If Bill and Dubya can use illegal drugs and get elected, I see no reason why Mr. Malin can’t be elected despite peddlihg his hiney. Sex however had nothing to do with the initial story about Gannnon. I can see why you’d want it to seem that way, though. Part of what inflated that aspect was the Bushies’ grandstanding about traditional values and its disapproval of civil rights legislation for homosexuals — positions taken by Gannon in his own writing for the esteemed Talon News.
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - February 21, 2006
I hear my friend Jeff Epperly has returned to writing a column for the paper BayWindows).
Yes, he has.
He made the reason for his resignation as editor was made known in BayWindows in the last few weeks, but I won’t repeat it here. I have long found his editorials and columns interesting and am glad that he’s back.
The BayWindows web site has been redesigned and includes more content than previously.
Comment by raj — February 21, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - February 21, 2006
JwGreen–#21–I’ll see if I can find the link, but I had discovered it on one of the conservative web-pages I read. I believe Byron York also wrote about this in National Review.
I don’t have time today to google this, but, as I recall, some left-leaning reporter tried to get WH press credentials. And succeeded.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 21, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - February 21, 2006
# 28 JwGreen, actually, no need to put words in your mouth; but thanks for another spin attempt. You raised the bogus and spinning issue of linking gay sex as a violation of law and connected to fitness for office at #24… not me. I was commenting openly to Dan’s assertion that Malin’s prior conduct wasn’t grist for the mill. It is; gay, str8 or somewhere inbetween.
I’ve never found a need to put words in your mouth; you do a good job of damning the Left on your own with situational ethics and relativism.
Malin’s conduct is fair game. He committed a felonious act –which does NOT require a conviction, JwGreen. You see it as a minor issue of “selling his ass” –that’s ok, I’m glad you aren’t in a position to determine societal standards… we’ll leave that to the GOP majorities in the House, Senate, SCOTUS and WH. Fair enough?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 21, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - February 21, 2006
And JwGreen, for the record “But if you think breaking every stupid law is a reason for the press to make an inquiry into a person’s general character” isn’t something I ever even implied.
I think the difference in morals is that you feel prostitution isn’t a crime and shouldn’t matter. I don’t agree.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 21, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - February 21, 2006
#4 “But for most it was a story about an escort with no training posing as a journalist in the highest echelon — the White House press corps.”
Which is what a lot of us had a problem with… being a journalist simply doesn’t *requrie* any training. (though training can help, I’m sure). It’s not an exclusive club that someone can “pose” as belonging to. If I write an article, no matter how poorly, I’m participating in journalism and am a journalist.
It’s simply egalitarianism clashing with elitism. Some of us don’t think that the press is special just because they majored in journalism in school, and others of us believe it gives them a particular importance and authority. And I have to say, the only reason that the gate needs to be kept at the “posing as a journalist” part is because the gate is *not* being kept at the “from the journalists words to my brain” part. If one is not indescriminate about believing what journalists write, there is no threat in a “pretend” journalist. No matter what breifings they get invited to.
Comment by Synova — February 21, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - February 21, 2006
Spelling, on the other hand…
Comment by Synova — February 21, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - February 21, 2006
I think the difference in morals is that you feel prostitution isn’t a crime and shouldn’t matter. I don’t agree.
Well, I certainly agree that’s the root of things and you’re fully entitled to our point of view. It certainly has it’s practical virute. It was his adultery that ruined Mike Bowers’ political career in Georgia (he of the Hardwick v Bowers case that upheld the sodomy prohibitions years ago). Adultery was illegal at the time in Ga….And of course, it brought down Newt too, though the law itself wasn’t an issue. Actually, the more I think about it, these moral offenses seem to have brought down more republicans than dems in recent years.
You did put words in my mouth. You quoted me saying something I didn’t say. If I misread you, sorry.
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - February 21, 2006
“Which is what a lot of us had a problem with… being a journalist simply doesn’t *requrie* any training. (though training can help, I’m sure). It’s not an exclusive club that someone can “pose” as belonging to. If I write an article, no matter how poorly, I’m participating in journalism and am a journalist.”
I guess that is technically true but educated, experienced journalists typically don’t see their role as parroting talking points and lobbing softball questions. Reprinting material written by PR folks without attribution and sticking your own byline on it is usually considered unethical.
But I do agree that the line between punditry and journalism has become exceedingly vague these days. That’s come up this week with Dana Milbanks, who writes both reporting and opinion for the WaPo. And we’ve seen how the Bush WH has been paying columnists to promote its agendas (Gallagher and Armstrong, among apparent others). And we’ve seen people like Dan Rather violate normal rules of fact checking.
What’s amazing is that the press is pretty much equally despised by the left and the right. I used to think it was a “kill the messenger” problem but now I see that, quoth McLuhan, the medium is indeed the message these days.
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - February 21, 2006
“However, my biggest question of judgement is why anyone with an escorting past would think they could run for public office without the past being disclosed.)”
Did he say this?
Comment by JwGreen — February 21, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - February 21, 2006
The fact that the news media (as a whole) is equally dispised by the left as the right is the only thing that makes me think that just *maybe* they’re not completely off the deap end. Except for the fact that they *themselves* don’t seem to portray any humility. Quite frankly, it’s almost messianic. Journalisms greatest minds talk about some higher calling… that they aren’t even *citizens* of their country but citizens with loyalty to some other “thing.” The “Speaking Truth to Power” deal and a person has got to wonder what these people are *on*.
Regurgitating talking points doesn’t really bother me much, so long as someone else is regurgitating the other side’s talking points. It gets apparent soon enough.
I will say, though, that as “right” as Fox News may be, (if we will talk about the left complaining about news bias), it pretty much reports exactly what CNN reports on the *news* segments. Personally, I don’t see the difference, at least not to speak of. Okay, I know that’s on a tangent even from Gannon, but who even *read* anything Gannon wrote? I fail to see how his reporting could have any influence to speak of or to worry about.
Comment by Synova — February 21, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - February 21, 2006
“I will say, though, that as “right” as Fox News may be, (if we will talk about the left complaining about news bias), it pretty much reports exactly what CNN reports on the *news* segments. Personally, I don’t see the difference, at least not to speak of. Okay, I know that’s on a tangent even from Gannon, but who even *read* anything Gannon wrote? I fail to see how his reporting could have any influence to speak of or to worry about.”
Actually, CNN has made a naked effort to become more Fox-like, because their ratings were plummeting. They hired off-camera Fox people and have turned more and more toward the info-tainment approach. The Bob Novak escapade made them stop and reconsider the virtue of imitation, as did their advocacy-style coverage of Katrina (Anderson Cooper SAW & reported that people were being ignored despite the official claims otherwise), but I think CNN remains pretty adrift.
The “higher calling” of educated, trained journalists is serving the “fourth estate.” That notion, part of the founders’ reason for guaranteeing freedom of the press, is just about dead. As a member of the fourth estate, your service is supposed to be to the truth — not to making sure that Republicans and Democrats have equal access to the promotion of their talking points. Had Judith Miller viewed herself in that role, she would have challenged the “facts” she was being fed about WMD and made an effort to verify them independently.
Your argument about regurgitation of talking points being okay as long as both sides are presented is the pomo, relativistic understanding of “objectivity.” What objectivity classically meant was that you question everything in an effort to find the truth, not just present PR material from the involved parties. The truth does NOT always become evident in this case. We only learned that the WMD really did not exist until well after the invasion of Iraq, where a truly skeptical press would have made that clear much earlier.
As for the argument that Gannon’s printing of talking points without examining their truth didn’t matter because he was little read, that attitude again is part of he problem to my mind. It’s relativism at its worst.
Comment by JwGreen — February 22, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - February 22, 2006
“The “higher calling” of educated, trained journalists is serving the “fourth estate.” That notion, part of the founders’ reason for guaranteeing freedom of the press, is just about dead.”
JwGreen, Oh for cryin out loud! Are you having Wally Cronkite’s brain stem inserted before he’s dead? Did you mistakenly pick up Dan Rather’s or Mike Wallace’s hearing aids and are secretly tuned in to their wave lengths?
The founders lived in an era marked by vicious attacks in the press by anonymous sources. The Founding Fathers were pilloried and scandalized –the papers would use anything from their past to insinuate misconduct, malfeasance, or dishonor. And if there wasn’t anything recent, they’d reprint the past accusations or make up new ones. The Founding Fathers had little respect for tabloids or news journals. The truth often escaped coverage. “Educated, trained journalists” serving the 4th Estate. How French.
A free press was important because the Founding Fathers were the people printing, manipulating, creating, and placing the stories –and nearly each Founding Father, even James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, had their own little urchins printing the slanderous broadsides about their opponents. Heck, even the leaders of the time who were not Founding Fathers had their own urchins as editors printing out the spew.
Save that crap for the breast beating moments by aging newsmen teaching Journalism 101 at Columbia or Al Gore rewriting yet another section of history for Journalism students. The noble 4th Estate. The Founding Fathers. Good God.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 22, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - February 22, 2006
And yet further… “We only learned that the WMD really did not exist until well after the invasion of Iraq, where a truly skeptical press would have made that clear much earlier.”
How exactly would the grand and noble press been able to discern that fact when nearly every major intelligence organ was saying the WMDs were in Iraq, Saddam had the desire and propensity to use them, and the Free World was at risk?
For me, this is another example of the second-guessing, armchair comfy assessments from the Left which ignore reality. You should go write for HowieDean.
A truly skeptical press? Really? Like at its zenith in the Watergate days? To use your logic, we can ask: So why didn’t the WaPo reporters get to Mark Felt (the FBI leaker of shameful note) sooner? Why didn’t reporters find out OBL was going to attack the Towers and save all those people? Why didn’t the press investigate and report on Monica sooner? Hell, the Secret Service was telling people in Washington about Clinton’s scurilous behavior months before it hit the press. Why didn’t the press save Tookie from the chamber?
A “skeptical press” is nothing more than an excuse for the press leadership to allow them to dig with abandon, sell papers, and keep the spotlight on them –where they think it rightly belongs. The 4th Estate is no different than a gaggle of Congress >both are filled with strutting, ego-centric, limelight hogging self-interested sociopaths.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 22, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - February 22, 2006
#38 Synova — February 21, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - February 21, 2006
I will say, though, that as “right” as Fox News may be….
I gave up on Faux News in the Spring of 2001. Remember the US surveillance plane that the Chinese forced down? I was watching Faux News early one morning at the gym. Faux News seemed to be “covering” it 24/7. They had cameras trained on the downed airplane–long range cameras I presume. Their commentator kept prattling on about the episode, and at one point said essentially, we don’t know what’s going on, but we’re going to keep talking about it anyway.
I literally rolled on the floor laughing. And I haven’t paid any attention to them since.
Comment by raj — February 22, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - February 22, 2006
Sigh. I was answering the question posed about the “calling” to which journalists are supposedly subject. I even said it was about dead…and here comes Matty once again with the personal attack, assuming that his read of history is the only correct one and that he has direct access to my feelings about this argument. In your world, Matty, the failure to realize an ideal apparently means pursuit of the ideal is worthless. It’s like the argument that because we can’t ever fully know the truth, we should not seek it.
The 9/11 commission and a handful of former administration officials have made it quite clear that there was no good reason to believe Saddam harbored WMD. They also had in hand that little memo whose title Condi could barely bring herself to utter. Most recently we have Risen’s revelations, which the Times editors rushed to print before his book came out so as not to look like total puppets of the administration and its messenger Judy Miller.
An aggressive journalist not licking Scooter’s ass — Sy Hersh for example — might well have brought this material to light before the invasion. This is so well understood that the Times printed a mea culpa, for which there would be no good reason if there wasn’t such powerful evidence to contravene Judy’s articles at the time of their writing.
You would be right to say that the preening egos of the Times editors and “star reporter” have a lot to do with the paper’s failure. Why this means the press cannot do better, I don’t understand. Nor do I have any inkling of what you propose — that we rely on blogs like this one for “news”?
Comment by JwGreen — February 22, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - February 22, 2006
#16
What’s amazing about that? The NYT & others are fronts for the DNC.
#42
Their commentator kept prattling on about the episode, and at one point said essentially, we don’t know what’s going on, but we’re going to keep talking about it anyway.
What’s the difference between that and the way CNN-BS, PMSNBC-BS etc. covered it?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 22, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - February 22, 2006
raj, I won’t disagree with that. I can’t hardly stand to watch the news for all the Scott Peterson and Aruba stuff (hey, being attractive is important!) and what all else. I don’t care for O’Reilly, not a bit. So I don’t watch it, generally. When I do see *news* though (as opposed to yet another deal with Dog the bounty hunter, etc… is that even Fox?) I just don’t *see* the extreme right-wing slant that’s supposed to be there. And (from an admittedly small sample) when I hear people disparage Fox’s news reporting it’s almost always the case that they just heard that somewhere and are repeating it.
Now I think that reporters *should* make an effort to determine the truth. This isn’t the same thing as being antagonistic, though. There’s a point at which skepticism is a poor excuse for actually thinking. Most of us start to get over it sometime between our Freshman and Senior years of college (or much sooner if we don’t *go* to college.) Everything is always a lie, is just as intellectually vacant as believing everything is the truth. It’s not enough to be skeptical, to be critical, if there’s no discernment going on.
When it comes to politicians, they do *not* always lie. Not on either side. Common sense demands that, at least some of the time, it’s in their best interests to communicate the truth and promote cooperation to attain a goal. An antagonistic press that is antagonistic for the sake of it misses the point that not *only* are they supposed to be keeping a skeptical eye open, but that they are supposed to report on what people are doing and why and *sometimes* this means reporting what the source *wants* reported.
Why should a White House press conference *not* be an opportunity for the White House to explain what is happening, what the administration’s goals are, and expect mostly clarifying questions? This is how we find out what our president, no matter which party, is trying to accomplish. It might not be exciting, but it *is* reporting. It in no way precludes sharp questions and ferreting out the truth when something seems dodgy.
And Jw… it is not the job of the press to run this country, to ferret out terrorists or set foreign policy. That they can’t *do* those things does not mean they are broken.
Comment by Synova — February 22, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - February 22, 2006
We only learned that the WMD really did not exist until well after the invasion of Iraq, where a truly skeptical press would have made that clear much earlier.
Why? Were they being allowed into Iraq to inspect weapons sites? As I understand it, not only were they faking shots from Iraq to please Saddam Hussein, they were deliberately covering up the abuses of Saddam’s regime in the name of “dealing peace”.
Meanwhile, Jw, we know all we need to know about the press in this country by the fact that they faked and forged documents in an attempt to smear the Bush administration. That has been proven. These so-called “aggressive journalists” created a set of documents and then LIED to the American people by telling them they had been “verified by experts”, all at the behest of the Kerry campaign and in an attempt to throw an election. Then, when their scheme unraveled, they tried whining that it was unfair to hold them to professional standards.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 22, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - February 22, 2006
“Why? Were they being allowed into Iraq to inspect weapons sites? As I understand it, not only were they faking shots from Iraq to please Saddam Hussein, they were deliberately covering up the abuses of Saddam’s regime in the name of “dealing peace”.”
It’s almost unbelievable you continue to maintain this. At least three or four books by former administration officials, testimony before Congress, the statements of the weapons inspectors themselves — all reported that the administration had been told repeatedly that its intelligence was suspect, to say nothing of the reports in the world press. Why do you think the Times printed a mea culpa? They admitted that they had not made an effort to validate Judith Miller’s reports. That means that other sources in the administration were not contacted, that no effort was made to verify the lies coming from Judith Miller’s sources.
The Dan Rather case sucks but if it’s all you need to know to come to a general conclusion about the press, then of course you are right. Discourse with you on the topic is pointless.
Comment by JwGreen — February 22, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - February 22, 2006
It’s revisionist history to proclaim that there was anything other than a global consensus in 2002 that Saddam’s Regime was not complying with UN Resolutions on WMD. I may be the poster child for adult ADD, but my long-term memory is just fine.
Comment by V the K — February 23, 2006 @ 5:57 am - February 23, 2006
#43, JwGreen… “sigh”? Really? Where did we err on criticizing your assertion the Founding Fathers protection of a free press for the lofty, if indeed dead, reasons you offered? That kind of re-write of history is pure fantasy. It’s the revisionism to suit LeftLiberal ideals and protection of political alliances like those between America’s political Left and the MSM that cause me pause. And you should know better, too; at least pick up a history book and learn about what the Founding Fathers meant in creating a free press –and look at what Jefferson ripped off from other constitutions, too… cause “free press” was one of them.
Here’s the rub: while it might be helpful for the Left to defend MSM –in fact, without the MSM, I doubt liberals could ever regain political power in America—just don’t try wrapping the Founding Fathers into a politically convenient argument in defense of the press. It doesn’t work. It didn’t then, it doesn’t now.
While I agree with you that the press ought to be driven by a search for the truth… but when did that last happen in America? The truth from the press? What a cliché. It’s better saved, as I wrote, for Journalism 101 class and impressing novice students. Higher calling? Ha. I have yet to meet a sober journalist who actually believes that hacked, cliché.
Nope, JwGreen, you were wrong on YOUR proposition that the Founding Fathers sought to protect the press because of its “higher calling” of trained journalists helping to sort out truth in society. Simple as that. You were also wrong in proposing a skeptical press might have been able to sort out the WMD situation before the war began. Silly revisionist wishful thinking on the part of the Left trying to aid its absurd –but politically convenient– proposition in the aftermath of Iraq.
I can appreciate it’s impossible for you to acknowledge being wrong –so don’t worry about it. Sigh. Tsk. Sigh yet again.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 10:18 am - February 23, 2006
JwGreen, the NYTimes printed their Mea Culpa to restore their fading presence as a force in the political Left –they’d lost so much standing in the last five press scandals, they couldn’t be considered a “leader” of the Left without apologizing the balance of the political Left in America.
The press can do better. When we stop accepting their piddle about being unbiased, responding to a “higher calling”, and being just interested in the truth. Or that the proper attitude of a free press is one of skepticism, as you contend.
Like Synova wrote: the press aren’t the unelected policy makers in this country, even if it would be easier for the Left. Nor are the courts –for the same reason.
When we keep a realistic view of the press and our expectations for the press in a free society, then we’ll have reached a balanced order.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 23, 2006 @ 10:31 am - February 23, 2006
#47 JwGreen — February 22, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - February 22, 2006
Why do you think the Times printed a mea culpa? They admitted that they had not made an effort to validate Judith Miller’s reports. That means that other sources in the administration were not contacted, that no effort was made to verify the lies coming from Judith Miller’s sources.
You appear to misunderstand the role of modern media. Their role–other than to sell advertisements–is to maintain “access” to people in positions of power, so that they can get “stories” (regardless of how fictional they might be) for publication or broadcast. How do they do that? By publishing what the people in power want to be published.
They do little if any fact-checking. They–like Miller–are little more than stenographers for the people in power.
I’ve seen it happen too often at the local and state level, and I would be surprised if it didn’t happen at the federal level.
It wasn’t always so–note Watergate. But since then, the press has evolved until it has become so. And the problem has been exacerabated among newspapers by the fact that many of the companies that own the newspapers oftentimes have business before federal regulatory operations, such as the Federal Communications Commission, since they also own broadcasting properties.
Comment by raj — February 23, 2006 @ 11:04 am - February 23, 2006
I don’t think you understand, JwGreen; what the Dan Rather case proves is that the press produces and prints deliberate lies about the Bush administration.
Therefore, your whining about “the world press” saying that Saddam didn’t have WMDs is automatically suspect, especially given that CNN and other agencies were being bribed. Do you deny that they deliberately covered up information about Saddam’s regime?
Furthermore, don’t twist “indefinite conclusions” into “suspect”. No one knew conclusively whether or not Saddam had WMDs, apparently not even Saddam himself. But the general consensus was that the likelihood that he did was extremely high. Resolution 1441 minces no words in that fact and specifically said that Saddam was not in compliance.
You apparently have trouble realizing and condemning when the press lies to Americans out of political animus or being bribed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 23, 2006 @ 11:52 am - February 23, 2006
As I don’t have time to answer each of these gross generalizations about the press and conducdt my life — and that’s part of the problem here, your utterly unilateral condemnation — I am wondering what each of you would like to see the press doing that it doesn’t do now. Where are you getting your news?.
I make a good bit of my living, believe it or not (I’m sure you won’t), through media criticism and there’s very little that any of you have said that I haven’t said at one time or another. But your gross condemnation of all the media is simplistic in the extreme.
Matty, why don’t you give me your source on the founders’ motivations in the first amendment protections. I am talking about the philosphical motivation, not how this might have played out in such a stratified society. I would like to look up the text that you consult.
Yes, Raj, media have become corporatized and, for becoming such, they have also become much more conservative. As soon as I say that, someone will protest that, no, the media are liberal and oppose conservative values. So we are in this strange position where both sides of the political spectrum thinks the other side is being represented by the press.
Someone here, can’t remember who, keeps pointing back to the Watergate era as a time when reporters were more genuinely inspired by a Fourth Estate calling. That person needs to do some research too, since what you saw at that time was a simultaneous idealization of the investigative reporter AND the birth of the journalist as celebrity. It was also about then that so-called new and alternative journalism erupted with their advocacy agendas and abandonment of objectivity in just about any guise. As a result, then, as now, people on both sides of the political spectrum found something deplorable in the press.
So I don’t see things that changed in terms of bias.
Again regarding the Rather case, this is nothing new either on either side of the political spectrum but if I refer you to Media Matters and their reporting of lies by people like Ann Couilter and O’Reilly, I’m immediately dismisssed because of the source. Your facts are truer than my facts. Well, the actual truth is that both sides are rlying. It’s probably true that earlier White Houses also bought favorable reporting the way the Bush WH has in the Armstrong, GAllagher, etc., cases.
My question remains. What do you want to see happen? You find David Gregory’s outburst offensive. I find Ann Coulter’s outburst that all liberals have affection for terrorists offensive.
Finally, about the WMD and Saddam. The left’s position, like the security council’s, was not that Saddam should be left alone but that the weapons inspectors should have all the time they needed to reach a reasonable conclusion. Absolutely nothing had happened to indicate Saddam was preparing to attack anyone. So, you’re misrepresenting the goal of Bush’s critics at that time. You remember he even said that Saddam had refused to let the inspectors return, which was absolutely untrue. And of course we now know from multiple sources that the administration had begun t plan an invasion well before 9/11 occurred. One of the primary architects of the neocons’ agenda of benevolent hegemony and pre-emptive war recanted his position on that last week, as you know. So, once again, things are just not as simple as you present them and the truth is only more obscured by a bias that protects or diminishes the president rather than serves the truth.
Comment by JwGreen — February 23, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - February 23, 2006
Again regarding the Rather case, this is nothing new either on either side of the political spectrum but if I refer you to Media Matters and their reporting of lies by people like Ann Couilter and O’Reilly, I’m immediately dismisssed because of the source. Your facts are truer than my facts.
Media Matters, as I understand it, is still in denial that Rather and CBS News lied, especially when CBS publicly claimed that they had “checked facts” when they clearly had not. Do you agree with Media Matters’ denial of that?
The left’s position, like the security council’s, was not that Saddam should be left alone but that the weapons inspectors should have all the time they needed to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Funny, wasn’t it the left that demanded the inspectors be removed in 1998 — over the objections of inspectors who insisted that Iraq was NOT in compliance?
And of course we now know from multiple sources that the administration had begun t plan an invasion well before 9/11 occurred. One of the primary architects of the neocons’ agenda of benevolent hegemony and pre-emptive war recanted his position on that last week, as you know.
Again, the same leftist sources who fake and forge news about the Bush administration, as proven by Rathergate?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 24, 2006 @ 3:22 am - February 24, 2006
Actually, there would be nothing surprising, let alone sinister, about the administration having contingency plans for invading Iraq prior to 9-11 because regime change in Iraq had been an official US policy goal since at least the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The military maintains contingency plans for a variety of hostile nations.
The left, of course, is in denial that Iraq was ever a hostile nation, despite the Saddam regime’s cozy relationship with terrorist groups, despite the Saddam’s regimes constant targeting and firing at coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, and despite the Saddam Regime’s refusal to comply with weapons inspection protocols. They embrace Michael Moore “Iraq was just children flying kites before the evil US showed up” fantasy.
As for Media Matters, I think it’s pretty comical that when David Brock was a journalistic whore for Richard Mellon Scaife in the 90’s, the left reviled him. Now that he’s a journalistic whore for George Soros, he’s their hero.
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2006 @ 7:34 am - February 24, 2006
V, I would dearly love to see your evidence that the left, generally, believed Iraq was a kiddies playground. Most of the Congressional left in fact supported the invasion of Iraq. But, even putting that aside, I would dearly love to see your evidence.
If you’re gonna diss Brock because he made a switch to the liberal side, you’re gonna have quite a list of people on your side to defend for the same kinds of reversals.
Sorry, but your spin on the Iraq invasion isn’t even supported by Bush loyalists any more. There have been umpteen zillion accounts in this respect. The military never before had plans for a pre-emptive invasion. (It was opposed by Colin Powell, for example.) I don’t know where you got that one. As was reported in the Times this week, the neocons in office dreamed up that notion. Earlier plans of regime change did not feature pre-emptive military takeover.
Comment by JwGreen — February 24, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - February 24, 2006
NDT, the plan to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 was not invented by the media. It was reported by people like Richard Clark, former Bush loyalists, in their books. Are you saying the media incorrectly reported what these authors wrote?
I dont’ remember the 1998 deal. I do remember that Saddam was not in compliance in letting the inspectors have as free rein as they were supposed to have. That’s certainly not the same thing as being incompliant by having stored WMDs.
The Rather business is controversial. Rather reported the documents without verifying their authenticity. When he attempted to do that and couldn’t, he apologized (after first defending them). An investigation was launched and Rather resigned. What remains unclear is who created the documents. I do not recall there ever being a finding that CBS itself made up the documents. I just did a quick search of MM and could find no evidence they are in “denial” about the case. I don’t see how they could be since Rather apologized and took responsibility. Where did you see it reported otherwise?
I have noticed, NDT, that you are willing to write anybody off who makes one mistake, aas if nobody on the right has done that. As I said earlier, if you think people making mistakes now and then totally discredits everything about them, there’s no place for discourse, because I don’t know anyone who doesn’t fuck up.
By the way yesterday Media Matters was all over David Gregory for not blasting Bush on the Dubai business. Hard to reconcile the accusation of unilateral liberal bias regarding Gregory to that.
Comment by JwGreen — February 24, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - February 24, 2006
NDT, the plan to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 was not invented by the media. It was reported by people like Richard Clark, former Bush loyalists, in their books. Are you saying the media incorrectly reported what these authors wrote?
Let me pull for you a salient excerpt, emphasis mine:
The one person who should be happiest about the publication of Bob Woodward’s new book is surely former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. After insisting that President Bush had begun planning the Iraq invasion soon after Sept. 11, Clarke was denounced by the White House and on the floor of the Senate as a lying, disgruntled profiteer. But with Woodward’s undisputed revelations that Iraq War planning began almost immediately after 9/11, Clarke has been vindicated as a truth-teller.
Of course, the left later dropped Clarke like a hot potato when it was made obvious that he WAS a disgruntled former employee. I find it ironic that they’re now twisting and manipulating the words of a liar to support their own lies.
I just did a quick search of MM and could find no evidence they are in “denial” about the case.
You obviously didn’t look very hard. Maybe because you didn’t want to see it. It makes it obvious that your favorite puppets are still defending CBS and claiming that they did authenticate the documents.
I have noticed, NDT, that you are willing to write anybody off who makes one mistake, aas if nobody on the right has done that. As I said earlier, if you think people making mistakes now and then totally discredits everything about them, there’s no place for discourse, because I don’t know anyone who doesn’t fuck up.
The Rather forgeries were not a mistake. They were a deliberate, concocted effort, with the connivance of the Kerry campaign, to release a false story smearing Bush in an attempt to throw the election. That’s why CBS did NOT follow standard procedure or fact-checking in airing them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 24, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - February 24, 2006
You obviously didn’t look very hard. Maybe because you didn’t want to see it. It makes it obvious that your favorite puppets are still defending CBS and claiming that they did authenticate the documents.
The post you linked to was written before CBS conducted its investigation, admitted that it could not authenticate the documents, and before Rather resigned. So how is that evidence they are still in denial? Did you check the dates?
I know nothing about Clark being “dropped.” As you know, yet another set of notes, from a White House official, were released this week after a FOI petition. They too show that the administration ordered intelligence people to build a case against Iraq for the bombing.
Further, the fact that they could not authenticate them does not mean they aren’t authentic — it means they couldn’t authenticate them and shouldn’t have treated them as such. I don’t even remember if it was ever proven they were fake; the important thing was that CBS violated ethics by not authenticating them.
Comment by JwGreen — February 25, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - February 25, 2006
The post you linked to was written before CBS conducted its investigation, admitted that it could not authenticate the documents, and before Rather resigned. So how is that evidence they are still in denial? Did you check the dates?
Feel free to reprint their correction and apology.
Oh, that’s right, you won’t be able to find it.
As for your attempts to insist what this “White House official” said, you will print an exact link to the source. You see, after having caught you in your frank misquote of Richard Clark, I no longer trust you to accurately report on such matters.
Further, the fact that they could not authenticate them does not mean they aren’t authentic — it means they couldn’t authenticate them and shouldn’t have treated them as such. I don’t even remember if it was ever proven they were fake; the important thing was that CBS violated ethics by not authenticating them.
Or, in other words, who needs truth and verification to air something anti-Bush?
In that case, I could send a story somewhere saying that I have evidence that Hillary Clinton raped children and forcibly injected them with cocaine so they’d become addicted. They can air it as gospel truth and stay within “journalistic ethics” as long as they just put a small blurb somewhere saying they can’t authenticate it, but it could be true.
Maybe one of these days you’ll figure out that no one believes your “objectivity”spiel when there are so many examples out there of how the Fourth Estate tells lies and runs smear campaigns against conservatives for which heads would roll if they pulled it against liberals.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2006 @ 12:48 am - February 26, 2006
[...] And as I write about Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, I realize I had already addressed the issue before when I blogged on Tom Malin, a Democratic candidate last year for the Texas legislature who had once served as an “escort.” In two posts last February, I held (as I wrote in the first post) that since Malin had “acknowledged his past mistakes and changed his behavior . . . ., we cannot hold [his past] against him.” I expanded on this notion in a subsequent post. [...]
Pingback by World and Global Politics Blog » Blog Archive » Using Matt Sanchez’s Past to Dismiss Conservative Ideas — March 8, 2007 @ 2:52 am - March 8, 2007