Infamous Pro-Bush White House Correspondent "Divorced From His Job", page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 9-2-2005 @ 12:54 AM by RANT

The name Jeff Gannon may not mean anything to you (especially since it's fake), but he's the "go to" White House correspondant you always see lobbing softball questions to Bush whenever the President finds himself faced with an impudent press gaggle.

The reporter for TalonNews.com most recently came under scrutiny (including some Daily Show replay) for his patently editorialized questioning of the President on dealing with Democrats obviously "divorced from reailty."

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website.

Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for TalonNews.com, a website that says it is "committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers." It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as "bringing the conservative message to America."

Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them "divorced from reality." During the presidential campaign, when called on by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service.

Now, the question of how Gannon gets into White House press conferences is coming under intense scrutiny from critics who contend that Gannon is not a journalist but rather a White House tool to soften media coverage of Bush. The issue was raised by a media watchdog group and picked up by Internet bloggers, who linked Gannon's presence in White House briefings to recent controversies over whether the administration manipulates the flow of information to the public.

On the heels of public disclosure regarding other members of the press on the Bush payroll, this was not looking good.

Actually, it's much worse than originally thought. I'll do my best to slip in whatever appropriate links (not linked to gay porn) I can find, but (how do I put this)...

Um, the man was about to be a HUGE embarrasment to the Republican Party.

Here's his resignation.

www.jeffgannon.com...

Jeff Gannon
A Voice of the New Media

The voice goes silent.

Because of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life.

Thank you to all those who supported me.

So basically...

Not only was the White House hiring reporters to push their agenda, but gay porn purveyors to play reporters.

Developing... (though I'd just soon not dig much deeper here)

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 01:14 AM by RANT

The ins and outs of uncovering the real Jim Guckert (real name) can be traced here and here.

Blogosphere wins again.

I'm sure though it's just the fact he owns all those hot military gays 4 U type sites that pushed him to quit, not the fact he's gay or biased or a terrible reporter or using a fake name or any of that.

I mean if Bill O'Reilly can keep his day job, this guy might as well.

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 01:48 AM by RANT

I think the bigger conspiracy here is what the heck is TalonNews doing with "reporters" in the White House.

At least them and not ATSNN.

It's a total joke.

Click here to become a voluteer news reporter for Talon?

Talon Resources... coming soon!

I mean the stories really are just copy/pasted White House press releases. The whole site is just a "neutral" front for it's owner GOPUSA.com.

And the White House lets them plant fake reporters in news conferences to direct the dialogue?

Isn't FoxNews being there enough?

This really is bad.

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 02:00 AM by James the Lesser

? You mean not only do they own Fox News, pay people to spew forth Bush propaganda on other news channels, but now have thier people sit in on media conferences to ask easy questions? Gee, and the media is so owned by the liberals, right?

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 02:16 AM by brimstone735

Oh my god, what were they thinking?

A part of me is saying, "Be diplomatic, because this is just utterly and completely awful without any upside for them". And, I do actually feel bad for Whitehouse Media Relations staff, who are probably the most patient and hard working people in the world these last four years.

And another part of me remembers Bill Clinton and figures, "hey, Karma".

Now, just so I can break this downtown to chinatown...A fake news service, created by a real Republican operative, employed, and got Whitehouse credentials for, a fake reporter, who also knowingly gave a false name and phoney past.

This International man of mystery then used his position within the Whitehouse in an attempt to control and manipulate the flow of news, and the dissemination of information from the Press Secretary.

THEN, it comes out that this man, now the center of all this turmoil, is also the owner and operator of gay military internet sites, that I can only assume exploits some kind of homosexual soldier fetish.

Damn.

Don't ask, don't tell.

To my conservative friends out there, don't go near this story. It's a black hole where nobody escapes. I mean, damn.

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 12:29 PM by RANT

Originally posted by brimstone735
To my conservative friends out there, don't go near this story. It's a black hole where nobody escapes. I mean, damn.

I think that's going to be the "official response" as well.

Silence.

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 12:54 PM by brimstone735

Originally posted by RANT
I think that's going to be the "official response" as well.

Silence.

Hahah, I'm not sure how anyone, even the most Freeper minded, could respond to something as absolutely FUBAR as this. What are the chances this is gonna end up on O'Reilly or Scarborough?

I won't hold my breath.

Man, where's Ed Singer when you need him? Hilarity would ensue.

reply posted on 9-2-2005 @ 03:15 PM by James the Lesser

Hey, where is Ed Singer? Or any other Bush Babies? IS this one of those dozen things Bush has done that can't be defended? Let's see, Iraq, there about 3-4 things, Economy, there about 3-4 things, and now media, there about 3-4 things. So Bush now has, at a conservative count, 9-12 things no one, not even the Bush Babies, can Defend.

reply posted on 27-2-2005 @ 07:37 PM by GradyPhilpott

I have been hearing of this story, but I fail to recognize the importance of it. Maybe we get FredT into the White House.

reply posted on 27-2-2005 @ 08:02 PM by parrhesia

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have been hearing of this story, but I fail to recognize the importance of it. Maybe we get FredT into the White House.

I think the importance is that a man, using false credentials, was given a white house press pass.
How did it happen with background checks?
It's either a security breach, or something else is going on for him to gain entry.

Something like:

linked Gannon's presence in White House briefings to recent controversies over whether the administration manipulates the flow of information to the public.

----

Gannon is not a journalist but rather a White House tool to soften media coverage of Bush.

(courtesy of RANT's first quote)

reply posted on 27-2-2005 @ 08:12 PM by Herman

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Hey, where is Ed Singer? Or any other Bush Babies? IS this one of those dozen things Bush has done that can't be defended? Let's see, Iraq, there about 3-4 things, Economy, there about 3-4 things, and now media, there about 3-4 things. So Bush now has, at a conservative count, 9-12 things no one, not even the Bush Babies, can Defend.

And there it is!!!

Or any other Bush Babies?

The usual sweeping, generalizing 'jab' thrown out at all Bush supporters.

IS this one of those dozen things Bush has done that can't be defended?

The mention of "This can't be defended" There are so many anti-Bush threads that pop-up, it'd be impossible for us "Bush Babies" to get to every-single one in time before this particular tactic is used.

Let's see, Iraq, there about 3-4 things, Economy, there about 3-4 things, and now media, there about 3-4 things.

The mention of a few things that already have been defended. Just ignore the fact that we have defended them, that's the first rule in this common tactic. The second rule is, again, just start so many threads about the exact same topic that the "Bush Babies" don't feel it neccesary to go and make their same point in every-single one. Then you sweep back around with "Oh, I guess nobody has anything to say?"

So Bush now has, at a conservative count, 9-12 things no one, not even the Bush Babies, can Defend.

And wrap it up with another generalization, and Hell, throw in another jab at 'every Bush supporters" while you're at it!

Kid's, you've just witnessed "How to Argue Like a Typical 'Bush-basher' on a Message Board: 101"

What can I say about this case? Politics are dirty. I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you that every-single media organization and reporter is liberaly biased, but I'm sure the liberals have their fair share of reporters who are payed off. Hell, look at Fat Mike's "PunkVoter.com".

reply posted on 27-2-2005 @ 08:22 PM by GradyPhilpott

I'll admit that is was a screw up, but on the seismic scale of possible security screw-ups, it has to be about a 1.

reply posted on 27-2-2005 @ 09:12 PM by marg6043

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have been hearing of this story, but I fail to recognize the importance of it. Maybe we get FredT into the White House.

No Grady I will like Rant in the white house to ask the right questions to Bush.

I imagine that this happens more often that we may think, but like Rant said I though the Reporters where scrutinized by the white House before letting them in as to verify their credibility.

But not when you work for the white house. Right?

By the way I think Ed works for the white hosue.