The Gannon Scandal: It's not about sex, but the press and democracy

[Jack Rabbit]

Re-edited from a post on another thread.

The way some people are talking, one would think that the only thing wrong with Jeff Gannon's "career" as a "journalist" is that he was moonlighting as gay pimp and prostitute. It certainly flies in the face of the Bush administration's promotion of "family values" and homophobic demagoguing. While that's juicy and will sell a lot of soap, it isn't what this scandal is about.

It makes no difference that Gannon is gay, which is strictly his business, or that he is a pimp and prostitute who promoted his services on the Internet, which properly could be regarded as a criminal matter. Nevertheless, to obsess on that part of the story only plays into the hands of powerful interests, both political and corporate, who don't want the real issues discussed.

This scandal is about who controls the media and whom is journalism supposed to serve and its proper role in a democratic society. The discussion we should be have having is about the role of "the media" ("the press", "journalism", "the fourth estate" or whatever noun with which one wishes to denote it) in a democratic society as opposed to the one that it in fact serves in contemporary American society.

The function of a free and independent press in a democracy is to inform the public. In this respect, a journalist is little different than a scientist. He goes out in the field, gathers facts and reports them, letting the chips fall where they may. Other journalists, often called "opinion journalists", may string these fact together and present a theory. This is not to suggest that opinion journalism should be an ideological echo chamber; that would serve us poorly. A wide range of opinion, from Noam Chomsky to Charles Krauthammer, is desirable.

Free and independent is often meant in terms of the government; some believe that as long as the government does not censor the press, it is free. However, the press in order to serve its proper function in a democratic society must be free and independent of any power structure, public or private. Science ceases to be science when studies are censored by their sponsors; journalism ceases to be journalism in exactly the same way.

If journalists are only allowed to publish facts and opinion that serve the interests of those who sign their paychecks, then it is propaganda, not journalism. If those in power seek out those who support their point of view in a effort to drown out dissenting voices, then that is merely a censoring device.

The media in the last quarter of a century has been placed in fewer and more homogeneous hands. On television, where most Americans get their news, a corporate slant on news prevails. This is often extended to allow only a soft critique of political figures favored by those who own both the transnational corporations and media outlets, such as Mr. Bush today or President Reagan twenty years ago. More than a whimper of dissent at obvious gaffs or misstatements of fact from such leaders is not permitted. Meanwhile, the personal foibles of less favored leaders are allowed to grow into governmental crises. Even when lies are told about those leaders less favored, there is only a feeble effort to refute them. Indeed, when the favored political leaders tell lies of any kind, such as those that promote their programs and initiatives, there is little effort to refute them. How many people think Bush had a more honorable military record than Kerry? How many people still think Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet? How many people think Saddam had a biochemical arsenal and helped plan the September 11 attacks? If the media were doing its job, there would be a lot less such misinformed people.

The crisis of modern American journalism has become acute in recent years due to the willingness of Mr. Bush and other members of his administration to lie and deceive in order to get their way. There was information available prior to the Spring of 2003 that challenged the administration's case for war against Iraq. This was available mostly on the Internet on the sites of foreign media, such as the BBC and the Guardian Unlimited, as well as traditionally liberal and progressive publications, such as The Nation and The Progressive, new sources that have come into being with the advent of the Internet, such as Salon, and in the alternative media, such as Pacifica Radio. However, this information was not seen on television or in major newspapers. Anyone who was restricting his news sources to CNN and The New York Times during the run up to the invasion of Iraq was most likely as misinformed as if he got all his information from an unabashed propaganda outlet like FoxNews.

The corporate owners of the media are not the only ones restricting information and opinion. We now see that the Bush administration itself has gotten into the "news" business by hiring a public relations firm to produce fake news reports to promote the administration's Medicare initiatives and has given payola to media pundits to promote their education programs without disclosure. Now we have this case where a journalist with no real experience was given favorable treatment by the White House press office because, so it seemed, they knew he would ask softball questions barbed with partisan invective.

Karen Ryan, Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon are media whores. Whore is the right word. By taking money from the White House or Mr. Bush's friends to promote the administration's point of view, they have prostituted themselves.

It doesn't matter that any of these people have a secret, seedy life that isn't in line with the virtues promoted by the administration in its messianic aspect. If Jeff Gannon were not a homosexual pimp and prostitute, he would still be a media whore. While I am personally offended at Mr. Gannon's secret life, it is a red herring to the important matter. His behavior in service of the Bush administration, as well as that of Ms. Ryan and Mr. Williams, undermines the mission of journalists in a democracy.

It is not the secret lives of media whores that needs to be discussed, but the way that they and their bosses undermine American democratic institutions.

[drdon326]

1. Nominated.

great post

[havocmom]

2. As usual for a Jack Rabbit post: nail and hammer firmly met

Bravo, sir!

[ChairOne]

3. I wish people would stop repeating the RW talking point....

We KNOW it isn't about gannuckert's sexual orientation. We KNOW the issue is a responsible and independent press, blahblahblah.

The only ones who (should) care about the gay thing are republicans. Democrats care about important things. The whole situation is, in fact, something of a microcosmic version of the whole difference between Democrats and republicans.

Everytime we talk about "it's not about being gay", we look a little more like the overly protestful gentleman. We get a little bit further away from the things that really are important, like goverment propoganda, and a stifled media. We keep THEIR story going, rather than ours, which is actually important.

IMO

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Nevertheless . . .

Even here, I am seeing a lot of Schadenfreude about exposing the hypocrisy of Bush's Christian right-oriented "family value" agenda and his appeal to homophobia in general.

It's always a lot of fun to expose that kind of hypocrisy, but this issue is deeper than that.

We need to stress those more important aspects of this story. I cannot think of another administration in American history, including the Nixon administration (I'm 53 years old and remember Nixon well), that professes a greater fundamental philosophical hostility to foundations of American democracy. The believe the right to vote, the right of American citizens to be informed, the right of free speech are all less important than their entitlement to power. That, along with a messianic delusion, is what makes this administration so dangerous.

[tx_dem41]

8. Great post, Jack Rabbit.

We need to stay focused on what this issue is about, and you have summarized it quite well. Thanks for your contribution.

[ChairOne]

9. I don't actually believe that citizens have a *right* to vote....

or be informed.

I think it's their *responsibility* to do both. I think that puts a different sheen on things - it's all tied up with my belief that the *people* are America's problem, rather than gdub/rove (who are only symptoms).... And it's also tied up with a certain sort of "optimism" that refuses to treat the American public as wussy, disabled, passive rape victims, but rather as active, potent and able people, who can achieve whatever they want.

But that's neither here nor there, i suppose....

EDIT: removed repeated word

[tx_dem41]

10. I agree with you on everything but the "right to vote" part.

People do deserve the government they get.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. If citizens are held responsible, then they must have the right to act

It's the lead a horse to water, but will he drink? thing. Having the right to vote or to a free press allows a citizen to choose his own leaders and representatives and to stay informed on civic affairs, but nothing will make him exercise that right. However, a responsible citizen will.

What I am getting at here is control of the media by forces who benefit from manipulating information. We've been getting this from the owners of the media for a long time. Now we are seeing that we are also being subjected to clandestine manipulation directly form the government.

You're right about one thing -- if more people took responsibility, it would be helpful. I would say what responsible people need to do is to heighten the degree of vigilance.

[Clark2008]

16. But if they trust that the media is doing its proper job, then they feel

they are rightfully informed.
However, many do not know that the media is a bunch of shills, bought and paid for by big corporations, slugging it out for their own benefit.
People, by nature, are reluctant to change. There are more people who would believe the Internet(s) are out of the mainstream than the media they switch on the tube every morning and/or evening.
They don't realize the vast frontier of differing opinions, of real news with unbiased reporting and the variety of sources online - and that it's not all :tinfoilhat: .
People still think that they've got Cronkite on television when they really only have a whore.

[zalinda]

43. So, where can they get their info

if they are not on the Internet? Do you think everyone has time to search for the truth? Some people work 2 or even 3 jobs, should they be penalized because they can't spend the time to seek out the truth. Or, they are spending precious time with their children and only have time for the 11:00 news. Should they take time from their livelihood, or spouse, or children to play Diogenes, and look for an honest news source?

Jack Rabbit is right, it is the media and the misinformation that is sent out. I, too, remember Nixon. I, too, remember when you could watch TV or read the newspaper and actually get the truth. And, it doesn't matter which station you watch, they are all slanted. Maybe we should have a truth czar, like the indecency czar, and fine all media that produces news stories which aren't really true.

As for the right to vote? If votes really counted and people didn't have to fear losing their jobs, because they had to stand so long in line or try to wrangle in kids while standing in line, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on with that argument. There are a whole "class" of people in this country that don't vote because it is an uphill battle to do so. Some people don't drive because they can't afford cars, but the polling places are put far away from the bus line. Some people work all day long with 2 jobs to make ends meet, and waiting in line is not an option. Some are single parents who would have to take their children with them. Some are old and infirm, while others may have disabilities which must be over come. And, some think, why bother, my vote doesn't count anyway.

Until it is easy, honest and every vote counts, your comment is just another RW way of saying people get what they "deserve". Poor people do not "get what they deserve", they work their butts off for little or no appreciation. To put extra burden on them to "find the truth" and "work to vote", is not fair and should not be the American way.

zalinda

[sendero]

18. What you just don't get ..

... is that this is not the America of 1974.

As a "propaganda" story this will go nowhere because AMERICANS DON'T CARE. They LIKE PROPAGANDA. If they had their way, the truth would be buried 6 feet deep and a nice granite monument would ensure it stayed there.

This is the same American that yawned at Abu Graib. The same America that barely blinked an eye at hearing that "journalists" were being paid off with our money to hear what Bush** wanted us to hear.

The sex aspect of this story is the only thing that gives it whatever legs it has. Wake up.

[ChairOne]

20. No you wake up - LOL

Ah - I love being helpful.

I "get it", i just don't agree with you. I don't believe that the best way to deal with idiots is to keep feeding them idiotic material, because that's all they want. I don't believe that the best way to deal with obese people is to keep feeding them fatty material becuase that's all they want. I don't believe that the best way to deal with alcoholic people is to keep feeding them alcohol because that's all they want.

In all those cases, and many others, I believe it's best to feed those people the RIGHT material, regardless of whether or not they want it. Want is beside the point - it's their fucking job.

Back to sleep with me I suppose.... zzzzzzzzzzzz..........

[sendero]

24. You know....

.... liberals' in particular and Democrats in this example have a problem. The world does not live up to their ideals. They keep acting as though if they "take the high road", the country will follow. I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence of that. I used to believe that also, but not any more.

Pay close attention to our culture - our movies, our TV, our music. It will tell you a lot about what Americans really think. Most Americans have been successfully brainwashed by 20 years of hate radio and other material, that it is a dog eat dog world and you'd better learn to eat dog.

The Republicans turned a stupid blow job into a presidential impeachment. They were not as successful as they wanted to be, but they were successful enough to put a permanent stain on a presidency that otherwise would have, in the future, looked golden.

Republicans have figured out how to exploit the way American really is, not the myths we create, hell even Reps create, for ourselves. We need to learn to deal with it, or we'll never even get the chance to move the country back to what it set out to be.

Sex sells. This scandal would not even have a glimmer of a hope of going mainstream without it. Thank your lucky stars that Gannon was not a computer programmer.

[ChairOne]

28. You keep saying all these things as if I'm unaware of them.......

... I'm like the only one on DU whwo bitches routinely about the electorate for fuck's sakes.

The only relevant question for me is: how am I going to *treat* them (the electorate)? I can treat them like they're a bitch, or I can treat them like they're actual people.

As stupid as they act, which makes it real tempting, they don't truly *look* like a bitch, so I'm not gonna try to fuck em like one. NO MATTER WHAT THEY WANT.

I instead choose to treat them like actual people - and rational one at that - not because I'm under any illusions about where they are NOW, but rather as an optimistic expression of hope wrt where they can/will be LATER. I will treat them like adults - adults who have responsibilities. Responsible adults who do not abdicate their duties, as Congress did a few years back. I will treat them this way because to treat them in any other is one way of admitting that America has ceased to exist.

ymmv - do what you want - but don't (mis)take my distaste for your approach for *confusion* on my part. It's a choice.

EDIT: And all of this is beside the point of my OP in this thread anyhoo. Us talking up the sex side of it *allows* the right to keep "defending" gannuckert against faux charges of "why do you hate gays?". It makes us look preoccupied with sex. Which is of course bizarre, given the nature of the other side - but nevertheless, such behavior on *our* part gives THEM an easy and effective talking point. One which they'll use, if they haven't been already.

[sendero]

32. Ok...

... I keep saying it because so many people keep not getting it.

Secondly, it has as much to do with what the media will run with as anything. If there is no tittillation factor, it is not news.

I never said you were confused, I'm simply making the point that this whole thing would be getting as much press as, hell - take any scandal you want - from Plame to buying off pundits, etc. This story is going to get a lot more play because and ONLY because of the sex angle.

The Reps can blather about Dems hating gays, nobody and I mean nobody but the drooling fool is going to be swayed by that at all. Even the American public is savvy enough to not be fooled by that kind of BS, and in fact I welcome their rhetoric. You see, the 30% idiot-contingent is going to buy and defend anything they say, but nobody else is going to forget how the Reps come down every single time on gay issues - and it just makes them look like the waffling hypocrites they are.

People do not change their political beliefs because someone begged them to or cajoled them to, they change them when they can no longer deal with the cognitive dissonance. The more often the Reps change their stripes every time it suits them, the more people they shed.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. And you know . . .

If this were just about sex, I wouldn't care. If our society has become so corrupt that the only thing that matters about this story is that Gannon is a gay man with a seedy life, rather than being about an unqualified reporter getting a White House press pass while many with much better credentials can't get one, about that he is a plant to ask partisan softball questions, or about that the use of such a reporter is part of a wider pattern of manipulation and propaganda, then I wouldn't care.

If we took that kind of corruption for granted, then is it really corruption? What is there to corrupt?

You bring up a good point about modern American culture. There has been a tendency to mindless violence in the last thirty years. In older films, even John Wayne's character usually resorted to violence only as a last resort and felt remorse. Take, for example, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), a favorite of mine. Toward the end of the film, when Tom Doniphon (John Wayne) confronts the moral ambiguity of having shot and killed a petty tyrant and bully from out of the shadows, he says, "I can live that." The film viewer knows where he is coming from. Even if the viewer disagrees, filmmaker John Ford has taken him through the labyrinth of moral issues around the shooting. The viewer, if he disagrees with Doniphon's action, is challenged to determine what he would have done differently.

I would actually agree with some on the Christian right who complain that American popular culture is nowadays laced with moral depravity and agree that "liberal" Hollywood (actually, in my view, profit-motivated capitalist Hollywood) is to blame. It is very difficult to feel empathy for the protagonist in many films nowadays because his moral code seems exactly the same as the antagonist and because the protagonist, like the antagonist, simply enjoys killing or, at best, accepts it without reservation as a necessary part of solving his problem. However, my prescription would be to bring back films feature moral ambiguity, like John Ford's westerns, and not the straight-laced, shallow moral clarity that the Christian right would impose on us. In the end, the character John Wayne plays in many of John Ford's films is far more complex than he is usually given credit for being by most on either side of an aesthetic discussion far too informed by partisan politics.

But I digress.

There is a great deal wrong with American culture today that needs fixing, so much so that we are wrong to lace the discussion in terms of politics at all times. Nevertheless, one is not going to fix it by acquiescing to it. Sex may have attracted the crowd to our business, but we need to sell something else, democratic principles. Otherwise, we will only rid ourselves of Bush and get a kinder, gentler yuppie fascist in his place. That's not worth the effort.

[Jack Rabbit]

21. If I really believed that . . .

. . . I'd stop posting here and just let the Bushies have their way. It would be clear that there wouldn't be anything I could about it.

Let's talk about 1974. At first, there were an awful lot of people who didn't want to believe that stories of Nixon's involvement with Watergate were true. It became painfully obvious after some time that the stories were true. Then they care. By the time Nixon resigned, he had an approval rating in single digits. He would have gotten almost no support in any impeachment proceedings.

The sex aspects of the story may be what gives it its initial legs. But that won't carry it very far. The threat to democracy is still what is worth caring about.

[sendero]

34. I really..

.... wish we had the America we had in 1974, I really do.

And frankly, the "expletive deleted" then was the equivalent of the "sex angle" now.

Americans want to be entertained 24/7. News is entertainment, and who could deny that it is marketed and consumed as such. Without the sex angle, this is just another boring he-said she-said story to way too many Americans. I don't like it, but I accept it.

[tx_dem41]

29. I had no idea how enlightened I was in 1974!

Damn, I've been going downhill ever since, I guess. :eyes:

[Griffy]

38. You seem to miss the systemic power of PROPAGANDA..

in thinking Americans "yawned" at the Abu Graib incident.. what did they KNOW of the incident, a few bad apples.. no big deal... So many Americans would do the right thing, if the information ever reached them... they dont even know they are misinformed. The dont question and thats the problem, intellectual curiousity is not a republican value! ..and our schools are dumbing down our next generation. I truly do believe that once we break the back of the PROPAGANDA (and we must) that the truth we have been gathering we be released to all... and America we move forward again!

[sendero]

41. I don't disagree with that necessarily..

... I'm just saying the sex angle to gannongate is the only reason it won't be a blip on the radar. And even that might not be enough to get it out there, who knows.

[tsuki]

44. I tend to agree with you. In the past few years, we have had

scandal after scandal. The S&L's, torture, missing appropriations in the billions, troops that are not provided with proper equipment, illegal wars, WMD's, no WMD's, paid pundits, unsecure borders. What more could speak to the American public?

It has taken a "sex" scandal to get the public's attention. It is like the Profumo scandal.

Sure, I want to take the high road. I want to be logical and civil. I just cannot find it when talking to the "public."

[EFerrari]

4. Secrets in plain sight.

Great post.

I've a niggle. And that is the repetition of "secret", which goes to the effect of blatant propaganda on us all.

If they repeat often enough (and if we do) that Gukert's privacy was violated and that no know knew about his "secret" life, it has a dampening effect on our awareness, doesn't it? In fact, we know little or nothing about Mr. G's private life. We know about his business ventures and something about his public opinions because he's advertised both.

I don't think this is a semantic issue as much as it is a rhetorical one, and perhaps an idea about preserving the small grasp on social reality that keeps getting threatening by the propaganda blitz.

Thanks again for the focus.

/typo

[Jack Rabbit]

5. That's a good point

EDITED for typing and grammar

I was arguing a couple of nights ago that the White House must not have made any effort to check out Gannon's background, as opposed to they knew, didn't care and, with their characteristic arrogance, just thought no one would find out. However, it is my understanding that a blogger connected Gannon to his prostitution business through a phone number that he provided on the Talon News site. If that's right, it wasn't very hard to find.

The "secret" here is that the Gannon the wannabe journalist advertised himself as "Bulldog" the escort. It would seem that Gannon thought no one would draw the connection and realize that he and Bulldog were the same person.

If there's something in that that's not right, feel free to correct me.

Still, the matter of whether the White House press office knew all about him or just should have addresses the level of security breach. What was important to the press office is Gannon could be relied on to ask question aimed less at getting a story than providing an opportunity for a politician or one of his spokesmen to rail against the opposition. Other journalists with better credentials, such as Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, are rejected for a White House press pass yet Gannon, whose credentials as a journalist are somewhere between questionable and slight, was until earlier this month able to get into the press room whenever he desired.

[EFerrari]

6. You're generous in the credit you give to G.

I would place his journalistic creditials between wtf? and hilarious.

Your account is what makes sense to me, too. So, the Press Office has a choice beteen complicity (they knew) or, they didn't and jeopardized the security of the CIC in "wartime".

My smaller, peripheral point is, I doubt we'll definitively know what they knew: let's hang onto what we do.

/typo

[LibDemAlways]

61. I have a good friend whose job

requires that he have a security clearance. This person will never come into contact with the WH or any high ranking officials. Nevertheless, the process is rigorous. Lengthy questionnaires, credit checks, backkground checks, interviews with neighbors...the whole process takes a couple of years initially and must be repeated every few years.

I would imagine that anyone seeking access to the WH press room is going to be subject to serious scrutiny. Those in a position to grant the access had to know who Gannon was and what his background was. Someone very high up approved this.

[moggie12]

12. I agree - the sex is what keeps the story alive,

but we need to get everybody to focus on the Bush administration's propaganda effort.

Frank Rich of the NYT makes this case well. I posted about it in GDP yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1602600

One excerpt from Rich's piece:

The money that paid for both the Ryan-Garcia news packages and the Armstrong Williams contract was siphoned through the same huge public relations firm, Ketchum Communications, which itself filtered the funds through subcontractors. A new report by Congressional Democrats finds that Ketchum has received $97 million of the administration's total $250 million P.R. kitty, of which the Williams and Ryan-Garcia scams would account for only a fraction. We have yet to learn precisely where the rest of it ended up.


I think Gannon, Armstrong Williams and the handful of others that have so far come to light are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Thank you

I saw the Frank Rich piece yesterday. I should be read.

[moggie12]

17. You're welcome

I guess I'd better write something here or else people will just think I'm trying to bump your thoughtful, well-articulated post up to the top so people will see it.

So there, I did.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. There's another thread on the Rich artice

in this forum active now.

[moggie12]

23. Yeah, I saw that -- glad to see people nominated it for "greatest"

Oh, would look at that, I bumped your post to the top of the pile again.

[H2O Man]

14. From early on

I've felt that Gannon's relationship with forged documents should be of far more interest than the sex business. We all know that there were forged documents about yellow cake uranium deals in Africa; fake documents regarding Plame attending a meeting to advocate the sending of her husband to Niger; and some mighty funny documents that were fed to CBS to derail a 60 minutes segment on the Niger forgeries, and to damage Dan Rather. While there is no proof to date that Gannon is the creator of these forged documents, he certainly was involved in a disinformation campaign related to all of them.

[Haymare22]

15. These repugs are BULLIES.......

They roam around bullying anyone they think is 'weaker'.....They get their rocks off doing this, it allows them to 'feel' better about their own pitiful personal existence.

[libodem]

19. you rock, rabbit

timely and thoughtful post. couldn't agree more

[Skinner]

25. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[Newsjock]

26. Shareholder pressure

Excellent insight.

When newspapers were primarily locally owned and privately held, the owners would be content to make a healthy profit and serve the public interest. Now, however, with corporate ownership dominant, there's a responsibility to Wall Street -- and the usual Wall Street demand not just for steady profit, but increasing profit.

At nearly all newspapers, this meant that they stopped being "democratic institutions" and instead became money machines. Even today, with circulation steady at best, most newspapers continue to deliver huge profits on insane profit margins (35% or more, compared to the 1%-2% you'd find in the local supermarket).

The Gannon incident, along with Armstrong Williams, Karen Ryan et al., are converging to reveal one of the most important issues of our time. Such control of the media -- by large conglomerates and by the government, simultaneously -- was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and we don't have a ready way to repair the damage. Part of what we're doing here is developing that remedy.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. You're in a better position to elaborate on this than I

Along with many other observers, I have always been amazed every time I watch Network how prophetic it was in 1975. More recently, I listened to the lecture Jensen (Ned Beatty) gives to Howard Beale (Peter Finch). It laid out the modern theory of corporate globalization long before the end of the Cold War.

Another thing than many miss, but might pick up if they view the film now, is how the news department at the fictitious UBS goes full circle. At first, it is a money loser, justified because it serves the public interest and provides a lead-in to network prime time programming. Next, Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), a pure corporate functionary, seeks to remedy this "affront to fiscal responsibility" and make the news department more profitable by making it more entertaining, even at the cost of making it less informative. Everybody gets that much and always has. What people have missed is revealed in the late night meeting scene just before Howard Beale is assassinated. The Howard Beale Show is dropping in the ratings and becoming a money loser. However, Hackett reports that in his meeting with Jensen, Jensen refuses to allow the show to be canceled because it is getting out a message he wants to deliver.

Thus, the network news goes from being a money loser justified because it is in the public interest to keep it on the air to being a money loser justified because keeping it on the air disseminates propaganda for a corporate tyrant.

ON EDIT

I highly recommend the thread on Newsjock's "Confessions".

[Martin Eden]

66. What is "journalism" evolving into?

If the dissemination of information to the public (a.k.a. "journalism") is a profit-based system controlled by huge corporations that benefit from distorting and witholding public information -- and the elected officials of our government depend on financial contributions and favorable treatment by these corporations -- what is the logical evolution of this information system?

Does a democarcy based on the informed consent of the governed become a sham when the merger of government and corporate power controls public information, and isn't this called fascism?

Is there a breaking point where this facade of deceit will come crashing down and the American people will wake up, or are the powers-that-be too firmly entrenched to be displaced?

I fear the we are like the proverbial frog in a pot of water slowly heating on the stove -- accepting the gradual erosion of our democratic institutions because we can't perceive the change.

[eddieb]

27. The Separation of Capitalist and State

I believe our founding fathers would been outraged by the current State of the Union. If they had forseen this I'm sure they would have, not only established the principle of the Separation of "Church and State" they would have also created a clear way of separating "Business and State"
How different our Democracy would have evolved if our government was protected from the corruption of "Doing Business" and considered the "Fifth Estate"

[Jack Rabbit]

51. I've wondered about that, too

Did the Founding Fathers simply fear the power of the government or power in general? They weren't a monolithic group, so different FFs would give different answers. In 1787, it might not have occurred to them that the power of private business would ever become so great as to be a threat to liberty and the general welfare, as it has in our time.

[kentuck]

30. Excellent synopsis!

Good job Jack Rabbit!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. What about Maggie Gallagher? And who is Karen Ryan?

I missed that scandal. They're going by so fast.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Response

Maggie Gallagher (and Michael McMannus), like Armstrong Williams, took payola from the administration to promote its initiatives. In the case of Ms. Gallagher and Mr. McMannus, the program was the Marriage Initiative.

Karen Ryan runs a public relations firm that was hired by the administration to produce fake news reports promoting the "success" of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. In the video, Ms. Ryan herself posed as a news reporter. The video was distributed to television station across the country and reportedly appeared as a bona fide news report on more than 50 broadcasts.

[paineinthearse]

36. This, or words to similar effect, should be in every Sunday editorial page

What's on yours? I'm sending this to the mine, with references to their own oped's, and challenging them to print something closer to reality.

[moggie12]

49. I did the same -- I used Jack Rabbit's excellent thoughts

And sent a LTTE to my local paper.

[Hissyspit]

55. Great idea. Note 2 others thinking same: Editors want it in your OWN words

[Viktor Runeberg]

39. It IS the sex

There are many valid and important lines of attack here, but the most important one may be that:

As a hooker, you don't suddenly have a respectable job requiring high level vouching and security clearance suddenly openned to you by your own initiative. That takes connections, and the only connections you'd have to a job so far outside of your field is through your professional life: you've been in bed with someone who decided they could use you for this role, and had the connections to get you into the White House to be so used.

So the scandal isn't Gannon's sex life, but the sex life of whoever in the Bush circle was fucking (or being fucked by) him, who then found it appropriate to use his bedroom whore as a media whore. It's not the hooker, it's the john who needs to be discovered and prosecuted here, for the immense damage that he did not just to national security (by even taking the risk of bringing a whore into the loop of secrets such as the hour of the start of the war on Iraq), but also - as we see this played out - to the very administration he was trying to serve.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. I disagree, at least in this case

I can't say that Gannon didn't trade his services for access, but we can't say for certain that he did. Gannon did have something else to offer beside sex: that was simply to be a willing part in the WH propaganda machine. They let him in because they knew he would ask the kind of questions he did. He was a friendly reporter on whom they could rely. That was good enough for them. Gannon would have assumed that the exposure would have advanced his desire to become a journalist.

I argued this point on a thread on Thursday night: I doubt they would have used Gannon as their go-to guy if they knew all about him. If anybody found out, the revelation would be (and now has become) an embarrassment to WH. If all they wanted was a reliable go-to guy, they could have found some one else.

[MaryBear]

42. I wonder, Jack.

What was the benefit to Gannon's presence at the White House? Answer: It was a platform for the Bush agenda. What was the cost? Answer: Not much. Bush is re-elected. This doesn't imperil his Presidency.

Presidents influenced and bought media whores from the earliest days of our country -- my hero Thomas Jefferson being one example that comes to mind. My guess is that the WH knew all about the benefits and risks involved with having Gannon there.

Your point is a good one -- I interpret it loosely to be that a knowledgeable electorate is needed for democracy to work. If I was rich enough, I would pull a Rupert Murdoch and buy up media outlets, forcing them to provide truly fair and balanced coverage, from my perspective of course.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. I don't think they would have risked it

Gannon had been working in the WH press room for two years. The election was only last November. It is only by chance that he was exposed now rather than months ago when it could have damaged Bush's standing with the rank-and-file Christian right.

[MaryBear]

46. Maybe.

Maybe not.

[KaliTracy]

52. but if they had properly vetted him, they would have known "all about" him

would they not? Isn't that the purpose of vetting in the first place?The main question for me is WHY let him in at all, investigated or not? He wasn't a journalist -- not through education nor through actual experience. What purpose did he serve? Just to "control" the tone of the questioning? His reports were regurgitations of GOP talking points (for the most part).

I don't know. There are a lot of angles to this, kind of reminds me of people who fake that they are doctors, and people believe them until they mess up (sometimes for months, I'm not sure for years) . YET -- hospitals are pretty anonymous places sometimes, the reporters in this pool, as well as the White House staff saw him over and over again. One can get a sense of a person through exposure, usually.

I don't think the sex is particularly important, though I can't believe that no one there knew his history, given that I'm pretty sure they know a hell of a lot about a lot of John Q. Public that isn't even trying to get a press pass.

And if someone there did know, why didn't they particularly care -- I think it's a bone to throw to hungry dems who wanted "something" on this administration, but that the bone is laced with poison and is not the real story. Who threw the bone? Was it that Gannon's mistakes just unearthed it? Or did someone lob it intentionally?

[bajamary]

48. If information is the currency of democracy.....

If, as Thomas Jefferson observed; "Information is the currency of democracy", this nation has been bankrupted by the corporate media and the politicians who have stood by and watched as the media monopolies have metastasized killing informed discourse of our democracy.

Thank God for the DU and other blogs and websites.

Let's demand that the control of the FCC be taken back from that of the corporate media monopolists.

Free the control of the FCC from the $$$$

[Al-CIAda]

50. "Gannongate" -Fake journalist, paid propaganda, and the decay of the 4th

My leter to the media-

"Gannongate" -Fake journalist, paid propaganda, and the decay of the 4th estate. I am absolutely shocked that this scandal has gotten so little attention. "Gannon" is obviously at the least a plant to smear at the White House's will, and quite possibly much, much, more. Its the active subversion of the 4th estate. When an administration controls ALL branches of government, and then undermines, fabricates, and deceives the citizenry through paid propaganda and outright lies, well, when is the word tyranny appropriate?

The security and prostitution aspects of Mr."Gannon" are equally as troubling. For an administration that claims the things it professes, it is in direct contradiction to its actions.

Can you imagine if this treason were a Democratic White House? The press and republicans would burn them att the stake.

Its amazing...astonishing! I have lost all faith in any of the major news outlets to tell the truth about anything. I guess I will have to get my news about America from the foriegn press!


sincerely,
XX

======

Gannon Gate
ConyersBlog 2/20/2005 10:30am

While the Gannon scandal breaks into the mainstream media this weekend, the story behind the story -- why the story was intitially ignored -- is beginning to be examined, not just in the blogosphere, but in the international press. As this story continues to develop, it is worth examining this question, and the additional question of whether the liberal blogosphere successfully shamed the mainstream media into doing their jobs. If this is the case, are we finally developing a progresssive media to counter the right wing noise machine?

--J.C.

http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B166974A-C132-4EC3-9682-FE6E08C1A584}

=====

Focus: News control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mole, the US media and a White House coup
The reporter who wasn't is part of a wider press scandal, writes Paul Harris in New York

Sunday February 20, 2005
The Observer

For two years Jeff Gannon cut an unobtrusive figure at White House press conferences. The shaven-headed, craggily handsome man worked for an obscure news agency called Talon News, known for its conservative sympathies. He was often the subject of jokes by colleagues on weightier news organisations.

No one is laughing now, because Gannon was far from being a harmless distraction. He was writing under a false name and working for a Republican front organisation. Suddenly, his 'softball' questions to White House officials looked less like eccentricities and more like plotting by an administration which has frequently displayed a dark mastery of the arts of press control.

When it emerged that Gannon was also linked to gay prostitution websites and might be a gay prostitute himself, the scandal as to how he was allowed daily access to the White House grew even murkier. The American media is now being forced to confront the possibility that Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, was simply a Republican plant, used by officials, including President George W Bush, to ask easy questions in difficult press conferences. 'The idea of having a mole in the White House press corp is amazing, but that's what it looks like,' said Jack Lule, a journalism professor at Lehigh University.

Con't-
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1418539,00.html

[rukkyg]

53. The frame

Don't even frame an argument as "It's not about this or that" in this case, his being gay. Frame it positively as what it is about, with what it isn't as a minor sub-point.

This is about a betrayal of trust.
This is about freedom of the press and an independant media.
This is about a lack of fairness, favoritism.
This is about a lack of open two-way communication.

These are the progressive values this story violates. We won't appeal to republican values. We will appeal to the progressive values of moderates.

Read Don't Think of an Elephant.

[kohodog]

54. Great Point

and welcome!

[Hissyspit]

56. There is nothing wrong with solepsis (arguing against a point...

before it's been made), but the positive framing should take dominance.

[Hissyspit]

57. Jack Rabbit: It is rather upsetting that you have to even point this out.

Everything comes down to standards and values, of course. I have been saying that it really is about ALL of these things, but it ultimately is about the values and whether they are real or will just get lip-service. People don't like hypocrisy because it is evidence of an undermining of values and standards ('do as I say, not as I do.') I would much rather whoring out one's body for sex be legal than selling out the truth to the American people on a national stage knowingly.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. I agree

Nevertheless, we have to stick to what's important. What's important is the way the Bush junta has flown in the face of American democracy ever since the coup d'etat of 2000.

It must stop. We are the only ones who can stop it.

[countmyvote4real]

62. Great post and great thread.

I was prepared to jump in at any number of points to praise your post or dispute another poster. I'm glad that I held back because you have now summed it up on one's own perception of standards and values.

So by my standards, this episode is about:

Prostitution: Media whores that "pay to say or not"

Hypocrisy: Hello? This guy wrote things against support for the equal rights of gays, but appears to be on fire for M4M military studs "Methinks he doth protest too much" applies to all Republican press releases these days.

Class/Education/Media: Our MSM no longer serve the people with vital information or serious discourse. Instead, they titillate when comfortable and totally ignore stories that don't fall in favor of their fascist controllers. So, how the fuck are the sheeple supposed to get to the truth? Church? I guess that depends on your denomination and location. I'm not betting on either these days. More free time and a better educated populace would be my choice, but that doesn't seem to enter into our "Dear Leader's" actions. If anything, he seems to remove cognitive thinking from everybody, from the press corps to the next generation of children.

I have an internet connection for now, but I am close to cutting it off in the interests of managing my own personal budget. The freepers might cheer that they’ve won one for the gipper because of my lack of access to information, but I will NEVER vote repuke because of that.

Once again, that was a great thought provoking thread that you started.

[Dude_CalmDown]

59. Well, I tried to recommend this for the "Greatest" page but

it's past 24 hrs so I'll just kick.

:kick:

[The Magistrate]

60. Well Said, Mr. Rabbit!!

Your comments are a refreshing breath of fresh air, Sir!

!!

[Hissyspit]

63. Please send this to Howard Kurtz n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

64. Well said! The other side of this is the need to preserve internet freedom

As the admnistration cartel progressively closes down all vestiges of the free press, they will turn to the sole place it still flourishes: the free internet. Internet-based progressive activism has proved itself to be potent in raising money for causes and candidates, supporting minority-party congress members like Conyers and Boxer, and exposing embarrassing stories like "Gannon's." They will move to close this loophole, probably by taxes and by Patriot Act-based suppression.

We MUST act proactively to protect internet freedom; if we wait until it is attacked to react to the threat of suppression, it will be too late.

I am trying to form a DU Group on "Preserving Internet Freedom." The thread is here and your comments, suggestions, and support are very welcome:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=109x18717

[Jack Rabbit]

65. That looks like an interesting thread

Thank you for pointing it out to us.