Sunday mawnin' inuMurika on TV

[Karenina]

and NUTTIN bout a 8"cut (what's that in metric somebody so I can get me a clue) in da WHITE House PRESS CORPS????

Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd done weighed in after bloggers be firin' flame-tipped arrows over the gate und NICHTS???? :shrug:

Just asking. No TV for a l-o-n-g time.

[Clark2008]

1. Where's the media list. I'd like to spend my afternoon writing the shills

and asking why they're ignoring this.
I think we all should.
Can someone post feedback URLs and e-mail addies here?

[julialnyc]

4. here

Link to DU - extensive media addys:
http://tinyurl.com/5meo4

[Clark2008]

5. Thanks Julia. n/t

[jmowreader]

2. An 8-inch cut is about 200mm

It's a good-size member.

[Karenina]

3. OOOOOOOO!!!

:o

Aber... member of which Verein??? ;-)

[Clark2008]

6. Here's my letter:

Dear Sirs and/or Ma'ams:

It is with great concern that I see the television news media continue to sweep the story of Jim Gannon/James Guckert under the rug. Not a word was spoken about the issue on your Sunday morning news shows.
I realize that issues in Iraq are very important and I don't want to take reporting time away from those; however, don't you think, given that this is the fourth reporter/columnist who has, in some way, been overly-influenced by the White House, that the story is worth more than no mention at all?
Gannon/Guckert, with only two days training in a $50 seminar, posed as a journalist for a phony news organization run by the Republican Party. But he wasn't just "whoring" for the Republican Party, either. He was also selling his body on line to the tune of $200 an hour. And, on top of all this, he was also using a pseudonym to enter the White House after being turned down for Congressional credentials.
It seems as if most media seem to by shying away from this story because of the gay sex issue, but since Mr. Gannon/Guckert put his personal information on a very public Internet and was paid for his services, this isn't about his personal life, but, rather his professional acumen.
I see two very big issues surrounding this story that have nothing to do with "gay sex" or personal information:

1. In a post-9/11 world, what is a shady pseudo-journalist with a fake name doing anywhere near the President of the United States? Not only is it unsafe for governmental officials, it's a national security risk. The CIA has long used personal and embarrassing information about people in order to buy silence or human information. Don't you think foreign governments do that, as well?
2. How influenced is our media becoming at the hands of the ruling political party? This party has now been caught paying three reporters, inserting a fake reporter into the White House press corps and chided for issuing partisan video press releases that appear to be real news.

These issues need to be addressed. The public cannot make accurate and informed decisions on issues of the day if they feel the media is inaccurate and partisan; and, if the media is, indeed, inaccurate and partisan, then the decisions citizens make based on information gleaned from this media are not based on all the facts.
I'm becoming very concerned about the state of journalism on television and wonder if your timidness to cover this issue is as a result of embarrassment or harassment by the ruling political party.
Is it because bloggers broke the story - a story that should have been raised by the very reporters who shared the White House Press Room with Mr. Gannon/Guckert? Is it because you're concerned that bloggers - private citizens - will begin looking into your backgrounds? Is it because you fear you will lose favor with the Bush Administration?
You should note that, on every blog and message board I have visited this morning, Gannon/Guckert was the main topic of discussion. You simply look foolish in ignoring an issue that, by all indications, is only heating up.

Sincerely,

[Karenina]

7. FIVE STARS!!!!

:toast:

[julialnyc]

8. great letter