My contention that Mr. Gannon should not be considered a reporter is based on the following: he had no journalistic experience that we know of prior to showing up at the White House and declaring himself a reporter; the "news" outlet he worked for is nothing more than a front for a political activism website, GOPUSA.com; his former employers and colleagues are longtime Republican Party activists who lack journalism experience; he and his former employers were denied a Capitol Hill press credential because they could not establish that they were an independent news organization unconnected with a political organization; and his "news reports" often consisted of little other than verbatim reprints of White House talking points passed off as original reporting.
Moreover, as Salon.com reported today, it seems Mr. Gannon attended press briefings as early as February 2003 -- more than a month before Talon/GOPUSA first published. Mr. Gannon is no more a reporter than Howard Dean is, but I presume Dr. Dean would not be admitted to presidential press conferences and given the opportunity to ask the president a question.
I understand that Mr. McClellan recently met with WHCA President Ron Hutcheson, and that neither is eager to take on the role of deciding who is and is not a journalist. I can appreciate this hesitancy -- though in Mr. Gannon's case, the decision does not seem a difficult one, and though refusing to make a decision is, in effect, a decision in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I can well understand why, in cases that are less clear-cut than that of Mr. Gannon, the White House and the WHCA are reluctant to take responsibility for making these decisions.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502170006
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
