Word of warning on the Gannon story

[WilliamPitt]

I am absolutely not jumping on the original poster of this, but a thought jumped out at me when I read it. The title of the thread is:

"If Gannon's not a reporter, does he have to reveal who leaked Plame memo?"

Trying to paint him as 'not a reporter' misses the larger points, and also devalues en masse the people working in the alternative media. I'm a reporter, the bloggers are reporters, and their research forums are raw journalism personified. I'd consider a whole slew of people on DU to be reporters, and DU itself is the think tank/research resporce depisotory for their reporting. 'Gannon,' therefore, qualifies. Barely.

If anything, the issue isn't whether he is a reporter or not, but how a reporter of his low caliber made it inside the crown jewel of the national press corps: The White House Briefing Room. Christ on a crutch, sending Gannon in there is like having me sub in for Derek Jeter as shortstop for the Yankees. The larger derivative issue, of course, is the watering down of journalistic standards, the insanely devious partisanship of this White House, and their mastery at manipulating those watered-down standards.

But don't miss the main tent: How did this guy get his eyes on confidential memos about deep-cover CIA agents? How does this tie in to the two administration officials who narced her out?

[brindis_desala]

1. I agree. The real story is Talon news and the Eberles.

[elehhhhna]

16. Well SOMEBODY had to get Helen thomas' seat.

[Just Me]

23. The real story is the CORRUPTION IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

All else are simply leaves and branches leading to the trunk of the White House.

[BurtWorm]

2. Yes. Why did this guy of all guys have the memo? That's the question.

They go to Robert Novak, Andrea Mitchell, Time magazine...and "Jeff Gannon?" :wtf:

[H2O Man]

77. Was "Jeff Gannon"

(or David Ferrie, Jr, if that is his real name) ever associated with either the Office of Special Plans, in the State department under John Bolton, or with VP Cheney's parallel national security office?

These are questions that should be of more interest to us than the endless threads on his sexuality.

[Emboldened Chimp]

3. Didn't Gannon also have something to do with Rathergate?

Isn't he the one who 'broke' the story? There's a thread here and I bet it runs directly to Rove's office.

[nashville_brook]

54. at the very least, he beat the drum loudly on it eom

[Prodemsouth]

66. I am willing to bet it runs under his desk to....

n/t

[Walt Starr]

4. If he was paid by the White House, then he MUST reveal the source

That's a point that everybody should remember.

[Just Me]

34. I agree, Walt. That fact would really separate him,...

,...from all other reporters/journalists.

WOW!!! Come to think of it,...we may be looking at a whole different facet of pure propaganda if the WH funded this one,...because it is wholly GOP generated.

Whoah!!! No wonder they are so busy "scrubbing", "scrubbing", "scrubbing" away!!!

This may be one of the best cases of propaganda to travel to SCOTUS.

[HEyHEY]

5. I disagree

I don't think bloggers are reporters. They are more like columnists. How he got into the WH is anyone's guess...however after you get those creds no-one questions your validity.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Bloggers who go to events and blog live from them are reporters

Most of the bigger bloggers went to both convention with credentials, go to the protests, went to the inauguration, cover the major speeches. They're reporters, I think.

[HEyHEY]

26. It's a tight rope

If they're actually filing reports in a proper manner I'll give them credit. But, maybe it's just me, I always invision most bloggers as loudmouth types pushing their own adgenda with very tilted stories.

[WilliamPitt]

35. Did you watch Wolf tonight?

"loudmouth types pushing their own adgenda with very tilted stories"

The only difference between Wolf and a half-bright partisan is Wolf
's on TV.

[HEyHEY]

36. Very true

However, Wolf is paid to show his opinion. I must confess I really don't watch CNN anymore.... it just bugs me.

Anyway, I missed the Gannon thing... I'm a work (so I should be working) but got any highlights?

What was the overall tone like?

[Just Me]

45. If "Wolf" is paid to show his OPINION, there is NO PUBLIC CAVEAT!!!

Bullshit!!!

These people hold themselves out as being a source of FACT not bias!!!

Even the freakin' "experts" are held out as being sources of FACT!!!

If "news" stations are no longer going to be held to a standard of reporting facts,...they should be CLEARLY DESIGNATED AS ENTERTAINMENT OR OPINION STATIONS!!!!

Drama and opinion and politicking and bullshit should no longer be tolerated as "news"!!!

DAMNIT!!! Our people deserve BETTER!!! Hell, without the people's money and attention, these blood-sucking manipulative "stations" would NOT EXIST!!!

THE MEDIA OWES A COMMITMENT TO INTEGRITY TO OUR PEOPLE!!!

Otherwise, "the media" are simply over-compensated whores with NO ethics or morals deserving anyone's respect!!!!

[HEyHEY]

46. Switch to decaf

When Wolf does his nightly show it is an editorial comment talk show. Hence, he is given a license to spew his opinion.
If editorializing is coming across when he reads the news...then you can call him all those names.

[Just Me]

49. Whatever. Let's try "how does a reasonable American 'consumer' interpret

what he broadcasts.

Don't patronize me or I'll get quite vehement *LOL*. :mad:

Being a "rural American" in touch with those who may not possess your level of "worldliness",...I am merely informing you of a "commoners" point of view (to which I actually listen very carefully 'cause I live an INCLUSIVE life).

Ya' can take it, ignore it, reject it, oppose it or leave it.

Just,...don't patronize me.

'KAY!!!

[HEyHEY]

50. I'm not patronizing anyone

I'm telling you there's a difference between the news and a news talk show.

I understand your point about people believing what he says as reported facts. But it is a talk show.

[Just Me]

74. TO YOU, "a talk show". To the rest of our people,.."experts",...

,...and I am really, really SORRY/SAD/DISGUSTED/MAD,...that you DON'T GET THAT about our people.

Our people only GET what they are GIVEN.

There are those who get more than they deserve.

There are those who earn a "living".

There are those who survive the best they can.

There are those who happenstance upon wealth.

There are the rest of us who just do they best we can with what we have while those at the top take advantage of all of the rest of us.

This life, our life is about MORE than a "talk show".

This life is about EVERYONE playing by the same rules.

All those who FAIL TO PLAY BY OUR COMMON RULES,...should be the targets of our disappointment and anger and passion!!!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Exactly.

Why did he receive the permissions that few is any ever receive, seemingly without vetting, and then get fed hig-security documents, in a process to bring down a NOC agent of the CIA in retaliation for said agent's spouses candor.

There is the story. The rest of it is simply pointers to how absolutely sleazy and flawed the whole thing is, from soup to nuts.

That all said, I have $5.00 that says that the reason Guckert got the initial tap for all of this is one of...errm...sex and the leverage that sex can generate. Especially in this present moralistic climate.

[seventythree]

75. very apt

[Bethany Rockafella]

7. A real investigative reporter should ask Gannon

questions. Blitzer sure did ask the important questions..

[Jacobin]

8. there is case law on what constitutes a 'reporter'

Don't be so quick to jump to his defense and define him as such. He may not qualify.

Wouldn't it be convenient if Rove could create Gannon as a 'reporter' then 'leak' the Plame thing to him, and poof.....immunity from testifying as to the source.

Spreading the immunity thing too broadly makes it subject to the kind of manipulation which is apparent in this case.

[Just Me]

24. Would you kindly provide cites to that law?

I'd like to follow-up because I thought a "reporter" was quite broadly defined. I don't mind be PROVEN wrong,...but, demand some cites, please.

One of the reasons I want to follow-up is that, if "reporter" is more limited than I believe, then FOX NEWS is in deep, deep shit.

[Jacobin]

44. Here's a start

This is by no means comprehensive, because you are talking about a lot of hours on Westlaw, but there are a couple of articles citing some cases:
snip




http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00970/008942/title/Subject/topic/Criminal%20Justice_Grand%20Jury/filename/criminaljustice_2_2274
When a federal grand jury was convened to investigate the possibility of filing federal murder charges against Houstonian Robert Angleton, the city braced itself for another media frenzy. In 1998, Robert Angleton had been acquitted in state court of murdering his wife, socialite Doris Angleton, who was found shot to death on April 16, 1997, in her River Oaks home. The state court trial had been a media circus, replete with a rumored millionaire bookie, his ne'er-do-well brother, a messy impending divorce, and a jailhouse confession and suicide.

However, the person who received the most attention was not directly involved in the murder. Vanessa Leggett, a part-time college instructor and aspiring true crime writer, stole the limelight when she refused to turn over to the federal grand jury information that she had gathered during her four-year investigation. On July 19, 2001, Leggett was held in civil contempt under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 as a recalcitrant witness.<2> She went to jail the next day and was not released until January 4, 2002, when the grand jury ended its Angleton investigation without handing down a single indictment.

Leggett was incarcerated longer than any reporter in U.S. history for refusing to disclose research collected in the course of newsgathering.<3> As is usual in states like Texas with no shield laws, neither the district court nor the Fifth Circuit showed compassion for Leggett's professional integrity and loyalty to her confidential sources. She was forced to serve the maximum term for contempt of court, which was the shorter of either the duration of the grand jury investigation or eighteen months.

But the most disconcerting aspect of the Leggett case is that neither court adequately investigated the actions of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or balanced the interests of the First Amendment against the government's need for Leggett's research. Indeed, there may have been no need for her information at all. On January 8, 2002, four days after Leggett's release, the U.S. attorney empanelled another grand jury to investigate Robert Angleton. It was able to hand down an indictment in sixteen days without subpoenaing Leggett or her records.
snip



Prompted by media attention to a rash of subpoenas issued to California journalists, the California legislature has enacted new procedural safeguards, including a minimum of five days' notice before a journalist may be required to testify, that enhance the rights provided under California's Shield Law. 1 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1986.1 represents a direct and straightforward legislative response, which could serve as a model for other states, to the increasingly prevalent practice of serving subpoenas on journalists without sufficient time for them to meet with legal counsel. In a number of cases, this practice had threatened to undermine the rights journalists have under the Shield Law to refuse to testify except under limited circumstances.

Stopping An Unfortunate Trend Against Reporters

Section 1986.1 responds to a problem that gained prominence in a 2000 case involving a small newspaper in the rural Northern California community of Altois, California. Tim Crews, publisher, editor and chief reporter and photographer of The Sacramento Valley Mirror, published several front-page articles concerning the arrest of a local California Highway Patrol officer for possession of a stolen gun. The newspaper's reporting was based on information Mr. Crews had received, in confidence, from law enforcement sources. Defense counsel subpoenaed Mr. Crews, to require him to reveal his sources at the preliminary hearing. Mr. Crews appeared without counsel at that hearing. Citing the First Amendment, Mr. Crews refused to disclose the name of his confidential sources, insisting that to do so would endanger their safety and livelihood and undermine his ability to effectively report on local law enforcement activities. The presiding judge, Tehama County Superior Court Judge Noel Watkins, took the position that defendant needed to know the name of the confidential sources - stating at one point that defendant was "only" asking Mr. Crews to reveal their identities. When Mr. Crews continued to refuse, Judge Watkins found him in "open contempt" and sentenced him to five days in the county jail. Mr. Crews was given 72 "judicial hours" to attempt to obtain a stay from the Court of Appeal, although this later was extended to allow Mr. Crews to pursue a review of the court's decision in four other courts.2

On short notice, Mr. Crews was able to gather compelling evidence that defendant had a number of alternative sources for the information he subpoenaed and that Mr. Crews' testimony would not materially assist the defense.3 Nevertheless, Mr. Crews was unsuccessful in his requests for extraordinary relief. California's Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals all refused to hear Mr. Crews' case on its merits before expiration of the stay of Judge Watkins' contempt order. On February 26, 2000, Mr. Crews reported to the Tehama County jail to serve a five-day contempt sentence. Later, he was served with a trial subpoena by defense counsel. In the end, defense counsel voluntarily agreed to withdraw the trial subpoena without a legal fight, but not until after Mr. Crews already had spent five days in jail and had incurred substantial interruption to the operations of The Valley Mirror as he fought his contempt sentence.4
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00010/008792/title/Subject/topic/Civil%20Procedure_Subpoena/filename/civilprocedure_2_1018

findlaw.com is a good research source

[Just Me]

47. I use "findlaw". But, the case you cited fails to support your assertion.

Explain to me how that case represents "law" which defines a "reporter".

It's a state case involving really weird and unique circumstances.

Your citation fails to pass the "smell" test. *LOL*

Try, again!!!

[Jacobin]

51. My dear, please re-read below

'really weird and unique circumstances' are what make up case law. What could be weirder than the Gannon thingy?

The Texas case which went to the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (that 's a federal appeal court) involved a woman who was a part time student and crime novel writer.

THE QUESTION WAS......Are you ready for it......can you say 'issue'?......IS SHE A REPORTER ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM REVEALING A SOURCE!!!!!!!

If you can't figure out that this case DID address that issue, you probably should stop trying to do research.

Just sayin

[seventythree]

76. reporters don't have immunity

before grand juries, I've read. I have little doubt that Rove got him in that press room -- come to think of it, Rove is an odd duck, sort of like Hoover.

[EVDebs]

9. Operation Mockingbird and military intelligence 'PsyOps' is what

this tawdry tale looks like. But don't expect anyone to dig deeply; they've gotten rid of the Special Prosecutor law back in 1999. One of the dumbest things they (Congress) could have done...a real gong show moment, if you ask me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. As long as we're issuing words of caution on Gannon

There is no evidence that HE is gay. There IS evidence that he was setting up sites to attract gay men. We do not know what the motive is but since we know he is exploitative, that could mean anything.

[Vinca]

11. For starters, how did he pass a routine background check ?

Call me crazy, but I don't think a guy using a pseudonym and hosting "man love" web sites (not that there's anything wrong with that) would normally make the grade. This is fishy, fishy, fishy. As the saying goes, "follow the money." I'd also be interested in knowing if this guy has a criminal record.

[trof]

12. Could you get a daily pass?

You're a journalist.
You're affiliated with truthout.
If he can, why couldn't you?
Would you try?
Even if you couldn't, it would make a hell of a story.
I'd love to hear ol' Scottie saying "Yes...Mr. Pitt from truthout...your question?"
as if

[WilliamPitt]

15. The idea is being kicked around

;)

[trof]

21. Son, I'm as serious as a pig a-shittin',

as we say down here.
It a no-lose deal.
Either you get one and awaaaayyyyy we go, or you don't and you document the whole process and sell it to every major outlet in the country.
The latter would make the better story, but the former would be damned interesting too.
And I think you're just the guy.

[HeeBGBz]

25. Will, if any one here could do it, it would be you

I would be interested to hear what happens.

[Just Me]

29. *LOL* If those who are as crooked as a dog's hind leg can get one,...

,...surely, someone with Will's level of integrity and honesty can!!!

I'm with you!

Will has proven himself a reporter/journalist of integrity.
If the WH process excludes him,...and the process reveals the reasons for exclusion,...puhlenty would have to go hmmmmmmmm.

[ultraist]

37. I agree! Go for it Pitt, what a great story if they turn you down OR

if they give you a pass, it helps to legitimize online journalism. It' a win win, IMO.

Why does Talon get passes and others don't?

[tavalon]

63. Um, duh

He was a White House stooge.

[MikeG]

28. Its one thing to get a daily pass. Another to get called on by Scotty.

[fob]

33. Question Number 69 for bush* White House daily press credentials;

#69: Please list all XXX domains registered in your name for a "friend". (Start with M4M sites)


:evilgrin:


We're pulling for ya Will, and want to make sure all your "credentials" are in order!!

[tavalon]

59. Excellent

I tossed out that idea on GD politics (I'm sure I'm only about the 1000th poster to come up with that brilliant idea). I think it should be you, Plaid Adder and a few others so that a)it is proven that getting a pass doesn't really happen the way McClellen says it does or b)we get one or more of our best journalists in that room.

However, as I caveated in my post, the vetting will probably be quite painful and I understand if even the most stalwart patriot isn't willing to go there. It can't be any kind of fun to have the Secret Service doing their anal probe.

[fooj]

17. Hey Will, what a great idea! Would you consider getting a pass?

[SpiralHawk]

31. Go for it Will. World Series. Super Bowl. White House

It's a Trifecta !

Good luck !

[HEyHEY]

32. That reminds me of a funny story here in BC

A leftie newspaper, one I actually did a story for once, call "Terminal City" had a reporter not allowed in the Legislature. The reason was, when this guy was in University he wrote a humour column saying the head of security at the BC legislature use to sit in the speaker's chair once everyone had gone home and masturbate while looking at a picture of the queen moaning and "Oh Regina."

Well years later this guy went to cover the legislature and it so happened the head of security recognized him and had him removed.

All the press became infuriated and gave shit to the BCL. Everyone knew it was an excuse because this guy wrote for a leftie read. I almost offered my services to go to Victoria to see if they'd let me in thus exposing their real problem, which was the fact the mag was anti-liberal (An un-liberal government, trust me). I didn't do it. because it could have ruined my credibility. But I digress, this isn't about me!

As far as I know they still aren't allowed in there.

[blondeatlast]

14. Not a moment to soon for me, Will. I thought it was an

intersting question, indeed, and was going to jump in myself.

But it's like that pesky "free speech" issue; we have to let THEM enjoy it too or we're all screwed.

Very good thoughts from one whom I trust.

Thanks for setting this one wise, Will.

[BrainRants]

18. Keep digging people...

It's a house of cards and the more this timeline continues to come into focus, the more it has Rovestink all over it.

Why did he quit so abruptly, who's cleaning up his breadcrumbs, and how soon before he has an "accident" or decides to say goodbye cruel world?

Has anyone found out about Gannon's "family" yet? I know this is about him, but Joe Wilson probably used to think the same thing before his wife was dragged into the fray also.

[cornermouse]

19. He was close enough to the White House and Bush to

be investigated. I'm sure they noticed the fact that he was using a false name. Given that fact, you would think that he wouldn't be allowed in unless someone ordered the Secret Service to let him in. If possible, we should find out who this person was. But then again, you already know that. On the other hand, we really can't forget about Rove. I'm sure you already know that too.

[indigobusiness]

20. Mass Distraction 101

How to Hide Things in Plain Sight

[Just Me]

22. Yes. Focus IS imperative. This is really about the administration.

Gannon (or whatever his real name is) is simply another piece of evidence demonstrating that this neoCONspirator-controlled administration is engaging in corrupt, manipulative and misleading propaganda tactics!!!

We cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the most serious egregious acts being committed by the neoCONspirators in the Bush White House.

[jdj]

27. I agree re: main tent.

I think that is the core issue here, Plame gate, all the rest is just gravy.

[BuyingThyme]

30. But if Gannon is a reporter...

Does that make Scott McClellan an editor?

[MsMagnificent]

38. This guy was surrounded by experienced, professional journalists

...experienced, professional LIBERAL journalists, as is alleged.)

Yet it takes (mostly) amateur bloggers to do some real investigative reporting?

Is it just me or does anyone else find that extremely troubling?

[MsMagnificent]

39. WOO HOO that was post #700 pour moi! :D

[Snotcicles]

40. I agree if I were a reporter you wouldn't see me sitting next to him. n/t

[robertpaulsen]

41. The big picture: FITZGERALD MUST SUBPOENAE THIS POS!

And Gannon can't say no. The law is on Fitzgerald's side:

Reporters and their sources (and the public) must remember that when journalists agree to keep a source confidential, they have entered into a contract. Indeed, reporters have been successfully sued for damages when they have breached their agreement. However, in most states, every contract has an implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing — meaning that neither a reporter nor a source can take unfair advantage of the other. This is important because insiders leak for an array of reasons, not always honorable, and may be using the reporter's confidentiality to protect themselves if, say, they are releasing information obtained improperly. If the source tried to enforce confidentiality, or collect damages from the reporter, the attempt would fail because of implied warranty.

Finally, if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over — despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. (emphasis added)

No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Let's see Gannon try to weasel out of that!

[bpilgrim]

42. 'low caliber' AND rightwing PLANT

that is the BIG story here that most likely goes RIGHT to the TOP and is part of a CONSPIRACY to MANUFACTURE CONSENT.

we must expose the BLATANT misleading TACTICS of this admin and it's dealings with the M$M.

but i hear ya about not doing damage to the whole blogosphere because of one bad apple.

peace

[Maddy McCall]

43. Sorry, but I disagree, kind of...

Gannon might be a "reporter" in the sense that you define it, but he is not a "journalist."

To say he is a journalist does discredit to all of the very worthy, academically trained journalists who are beacons of the profession.

I am a professional historian. I am trained in archaeology. Would you say that every guy who goes out in his pasture and finds arrowheads is also an archaeologist. I wouldn't.

So, yes, I will give you that Gannon can be considered a "reporter," but I won't cede that he is a "journalist," at least not in the professional, academic sense.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

48. interesting take

i agree. the problem lies in the breakdown in language to describe shills, well that and the lowered expectations.

[bloom]

57. I was thinking something

along those lines. That people with degrees in journalism might have an issue with what Will wrote.


There are jobs, "professions" even that could be learned "on the job".

But academically trained journalists, I expect, have learned journalistic standards and ethics that Gannon would have no clue about.

On the other hand - you could have academically trained journalists that don't give a crap about standards, anyway.

I don't suppose it's like medicine or law where people can be disbarred/lose their license to practice just because they violate every ethical standard in the book.

As long as there are organizations that hire entertainer type of journalists and don't care whether truth is being sought or not - journalism is pretty much a free-for-all anyway.

The whole blog world is throwing reporting/journalism up in the air to whoever can grab it and get an audience.

[bloom]

60. From Journalism.org

The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect

by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel

Introduction

As anthropologists began comparing notes on the world's few remaining primitive cultures, they discovered something unexpected. From the most isolated tribal societies in Africa to the most distant islands in the Pacific, people shared essentially the same definition of what is news. They shared the same kind of gossip. They even looked for the same qualities in the messengers they picked to gather and deliver their news. They wanted people who could run swiftly over the next hill, accurately gather information, and engagingly retell it. Historians have pieced together that the same basic news values have held constant through time. "Humans have exchanged a similar mix of news . . . throughout history and across cultures," historian Mitchell Stephens has written.1

<snip>
What was different that day in Cambridge was that many of the journalists in the room -- and around the country -- were beginning to agree with the public. "In the newsroom we no longer talk about journalism," said Max King, then editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We are consumed with business pressure and the bottom line," agreed another editor. News was becoming entertainment and entertainment news. Journalists' bonuses were increasingly tied to the company's profit margins, not the quality of their work. Finally, Columbia University professor James Carey offered what many recalled as a summation: "The problem is that you see journalism disappearing inside the larger world of communications. What you yearn to do is recover journalism from that larger world."

The answers matter, the group thought, to the public and news-people both. Journalism provides something unique to a culture -- independent, reliable, accurate, and comprehensive information that citizens require to be free. A journalism that is asked to provide something other than that subverts democratic culture. This is what happens when governments control the news, as in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. We're seeing it again in places like Singapore, where news is controlled to encourage capitalism but discourage participation in public life. Something akin to this may be taking root in the United States in a more purely commercial form, as when news outlets owned by larger corporations are used to promote their conglomerate parent's products, to engage in subtle lobbying or corporate rivalry, or are intermingled with advertising to boost profits. The issue isn't just the loss of journalism. At stake is whether, as citizens, we have access to independent information that makes it possible for us to take part in governing ourselves.

<snip>

There are, we have distilled from our search, some clear principles that journalists agree on -- and that citizens have a right to expect. They are principles that have ebbed and flowed over time, but they have always in some manner been evident. They are the elements of journalism.

The first among them is that the purpose of journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.

To fulfill this task:

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.


Its first loyalty is to citizens.


Its essence is a discipline of verification.


Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.


It must serve as an independent monitor of power.


It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.


It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.


It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.


Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/publications/books/elements_intro.asp

[merh]

52. The Plame memo is not about Freedom of the Press.

It is about the violation of National Security laws. It is about endangering agents whose identities must be protected so that they can continue to protect our nation.

All journalists that were provided the identity of Plame and that outed her are accomplices to the crime. The First Amendment does not protect those who violate the laws.

If Gannon drove the auto that transported the bank robber to the bank, he would be an accomplice. If he released her information, he was the vehicle used to violate the National Security laws. It is that simple.

[H2O Man]

62. Key point.

Well said.

[merh]

64. Hello my friend!

:hi: Long time no see. :hug: I hope you are well.

[caligirl]

53. Would Gannon have been involved in the Plame memo without

the cover of being a "reporter"?


Isn't this the reason he was at the WH on April 3 or at least as the Bush Admin made its fraudulent case for war on Iraq.

I think it was decided before March 29th that he would be a "reporter" to serve this administrations illegal activities.

[merh]

67. He may have had access to the memo through his relationship

with members of the admin and those that gave him the info were the one's that initially violated the law. Since he was a "reporter, his reporting Plame's identity was a vehicle used in the violation of the law and he was an accomplice to the crime. Very simple, no 1st amendment protection should be afforded him or any of the other journalists. Outing a confidential CIA agent is a crime.

[nashville_brook]

55. it's a matter of language, but i see this the exact opposite:

to assert the plain fact that Gannon is not a "real reporter" begs the question "who the hell is he, anyway."

it's clear he's a partisan hack for a Fake News organization, and that begs the question "who let them in?"

and,

"who the heck are they?"

and those answers take you back to the Texas GOP and Morton Blackwell. it doesn't matter who, really, just that this rhetorical missile is on countdown feels damn good. this basic information is enough for us to come up with a postive ID and documentation thru property and tax records. any fool can see that its going to show a shadowy crime family doing Rove's dirty work. the Biscuit put the bald gay hottie in there for his Boy George who was getting beat up everytime he took a question.

[GreenPoet64]

56. Thanks for the heads up . . . I had not given much thought

as to what effect this would have on bloggers if Gannon were to be considered "a fraud" based upon his lack of credentials rather than his close ties with this administration. Thanks.

[KoKo]

58. Will....you are falling into the media trap ...this is exactly what

Blitzer, Howie and MSNBC (US News & World Report Guy, the Stepford Woman, and another RW person (I forget) said.

They were making the case that Gannon should have a voice at the Press Conferences. Like Gannon a.k.a. Gurkert was a "voice of the PEOPLE." The painted him as being trashed as a Conservative...hence making your point that "Bloggers" might not be admitted to WH Press Conferences if we Bloggers (i.e. "average Googlers/Citizens) take down Gannon.

They made that their case...you are saying the same. Please don't fall into that trap...please don't do this...

[Walt Starr]

61. The more I think about him bragging about outting Plame on Freakerland

the more convinced I am he has no first amendment protection in the Plame case.

[GreenPoet64]

68. What is the legal definition of a "reporter?" I'm just curious

if one has to have a degree in journalism?

[eridani]

69. Speaking of which--

--doea anyone have screenshots of the Freeperland involvement? Those things have a very nasty way of 'disappearing.'

[McCamy Taylor]

65. Subpoena time! Get him in front of Congress!

[EFerrari]

70. You're right about the protection of sources for journalists BUT

Novak is not a journalist. He's a columnist. The rules are different for them, no? They insert themselves more into their work, they can be overtly partisan.

And apparently they can commit treason. I still don't know why Novak isn't in jail. There's no question about what he did.

[Turn CO Blue]

71. I love your posts, Willie my friend.

I always think of myself as an entrepreneur, an investigator, a journalist, a freethinker, a political powerhouse...a leader of people -- even if I don't specifically earn my income doing any of those activities (I'm a DBA for an airline). "Be the media" is one of my mantras.

I am eminently qualified to think, uncover, and learn - because I do/will.

[LibertyorDeath]

72. "How did this guy get his eyes on confidential memos"

Rove it's always Rove

[Jack Rabbit]

73. Will, I got this from your website today

From Salon via TruthOut
Dated Thursday February 10
Emphasis added

Fake News, Fake Reporter
By Eric Boehlert

. . . Last year Gannon and Talon made a blip on the Beltway radar over an interview Gannon did with former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent by conservative columnist Robert Novak. That potentially illegal disclosure prompted an independent counsel investigation. Gannon apparently attracted investigators' attention when, in the interview with Wilson, he referred to an unclassified document that may have been distributed to conservative allies in the press to bolster the administration's case that it was Wilson's wife who suggested he be sent to Niger to investigate the claim that Iraq tried to purchase uranium, or yellowcake, from the African nation.

Pardon a former MI guy for pointing it out, but confidential (your word in the last paragraph ot the root post) and unclassified are mutually exclusive.

I have yet to see something that says Gannon was given classified material. Mr. Boehlart's story here doesn't even suggest that Gannon could tell investigators who spilled the beans on Ms. Plame, only that he could tell them who let him see an unclassified memo.