rip his throat out, then get the tourists
Hands Off Jeff Gannon (and don't take that the wrong way)
A group of liberal bloggers has issued an "Open Letter" protesting the inclusion of the infamous Jeff Gannon on a panel at the National Press Club. Now, don't take it on my word that this crowd is a bunch of clueless whiners. Let them demonstrate it to you in their own inimitably whiny words:
"We, the undersigned bloggers, are very concerned about how liberal political bloggers are being systematically under-represented and belittled in the mainstream media, academic settings and media forums. By being intentionally excluded away from these venues, we are effectively pushed out of the discourse of opinion-leaders. The result is that the conventional wisdom about blogging, politics and journalism, as it concerns liberal blogs, becomes a feedback loop framed by the Conservatives and their media allies."
"... we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, neé Guckert, has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
"Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
"This situation is simply unacceptable. We will push back against the growing bias and sloppiness we see in the mainstream media as it concerns serious political blogging. If we do not we will never achieve any semblance of balance in the media. If we do not, we abdicate our ability to tell our own side of the story. If we do not we leave it to others to define us and defame us. "
A more insufferable prissiness would be hard to imagine. These people really take themselves far too seriously -- and their only problem is that nobody else does.
And why, pray tell, should Gannon have to sit on the same panel with John Aravosis -- because Aravosis is gay? Is that it? Sheesh, talk about oppressive -- do we really have to "balance" out a gay conservative with a gay liberal? Does this mean Ann Coulter has to be "balanced" out by the liberal blonde of their choice? What a sad commentary on the "enlightened" liberals of our era, who think in such petty narrow-minded terms.
Speaking of petty and narrow-minded, the blogger known as "Billmon" posts an outburst of sex-phobic babbling that sounds like Jerry Falwell on hallucinogens:
"What's next? An interactive NPC panel session on masturbation? A guest lecture on bestiality and blogging? A press conference by the North American Man Boy Love Association? No, wait, the House isn't in session this week.
"I hate to sound like a prude here, but this is one of those moments when I start to think the fundamentalist gizmos might just be right."
Look, I'm no Jeff Gannon fan, but Billmon is right: he does sound like a prude. And a hateful one at that. The problem with Gannon isn't that he's "the world's only conservative gay prostitute journalist with a blog" -- and I can guarantee you that isn't true -- it's that Gannon was an administration plant, a shill who reported for a partisan front organization disguised (but not very well) as a "news agency." So Jeff Gannon is a gay conservative -- so what? So is Andrew Sullivan. So am I. So are any number of gay people -- who, I hate to break it to Billmon, are not uniformly Barney Frank liberals. We are everywhere, bud.
As for the prostitute part -- again, so what? At the age of 43, he's charging a thousand bucks a session -- and getting it. The problem with most people, however, is that they can't even give it away. And that, I'll bet, is the case with liberal geeks and policy wonks who signed that
I e-mailed him the letter below, you're free to join in
You know, we have e-mail addresses and you might have used one before embarassing yourself in print. And since research is obviously beyond your capacities, you know like hitting a link, or asking someone what was going on before making yourself look like an asshole in print, let me help you out.
No one cares who Gannon sleeps with. Certainly not John, but I guess you'll get your own e-mail from him.
The first question you should ask, and the journalists at Romanesko asked is this: why is a man who had zero journalism credentials and a blog, which at best, was reprinted White House Press releases, being placed on a panel at the National Press Club? You know, a place for journalists? But we're all prudes, right? Not that five minutes looking at John's archives might have provided a clue as to why we wanted him on the panel.
Maybe to ask him how he made a living beyond his work for Talon News. How he got that job. How he renewed his press pass for two years after a new security regime was in place at the White House. How much did Talon News pay? In fact, how was he hired by Talon News in the first place after working in an auto body shop up until 2002. About his mysterious service record, which can't be found in either DOD or Marine Corps files. There are a lot of questions to ask Mr. Guckert, very few of which have to do with his sex life. And oddly enough, John had done most of that reporting and lives in DC. He's not the only one, but he did a lot of work on the story and has questions.
See, Justin, you jump to a halfassed conclusion because you read something and didn't even extend the courtesy of asking any one of us what was going on. I don't agree with you on many issues, but I would at the minimum ask you via e-mail what was going on if I disagreed with a stand you took.
So what about the prostitution? Ask yourself this simple question: how did he pass the security check? Because in the states he lived in Delaware and the District, prostitution is a crime. And he was not exactly subtle about it. I mean his face was on the ads. I would bet that a woman prostitute advertsing on the internet wouldn't be admitted to the White House, pass a security check, much less ask the President a question in the White House Press Room.
The sex jokes come from the inclusion of Wonkette and a sex blogger, more than Guckert's prostitute ads online. But again, this would have been explained through even a simple e-mail to anyone who signed the letter.
One other point, which has been raised by MSM reporters: why has no one who is actually familiar with the details of Guckert's history being asked to appear to him. For a radical, you seem to have fallen for corporate spin without pause. You think we cared about his tricks? How silly are you? We want to know where he came from and who paid him, and how a male prostitute can get into the white house. Like we would with a female prostitute.
But instead of asking, you resort to invective which makes you look stupid. Why? Because you decided to sneer instead of ask. And that's a nice bit of invective you tossed on in the end, making you seem confident and funny. Why I pissed my pants.
And Justin, here's a bit of information you might want to consider before you toss insults around. The reason we wanted to be included in these panels is simple: they never bother to ask. They include Instapundit and Powerline, while Kos and Atrios have not only more readers than they do, but as much as a major daily newspaper. Surely someone toiling at antiwar.com can understand that issue about not being heard. After all, they keep talking about politics and blogging and forget to invite the liberals. To answer your question: why does there have to be balance? Because when the right goes on alone, they have a history of oh, lying. We'd like to challenge those lies. But of course, if you had e-mailed any of the 70 bloggers on the list, they might have explained this in detail, being liberal geeks and policy wonks and all. But I guess you were too busy running tired leftists and preaching to the choir to even bother with the simple courtesy of asking someone what was going on.
Why bother? We're all prudes and can't get laid.
Do you seriously think John or anyone else would take time from their day to ask Guckert about his well advertised 8 inch cock? I thought you didn't trust the media and there you go, parroting it like Daryn Kagan.
Meanwhile I'll be reading Foriegn Policy and beating off to Cinemax.
posted by Steve @ 1:47:00 AM