Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Gannon 38

Journal by pudge

No one has yet been able to tell me why this Jeff Gannon story matters.

Anyone wanna try?

I mean, people have tried to tell me. They've said he is not a real journalist. Even if that is true, so what? Since when does someone have to be stamped by CNN or CBS to get access to the White House?

I really don't see the point of this at all. If MoveOn.org wants to send some activist with a blog to be a correspondent at the White House, more power to them. Who cares?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gannon More

Gannon

Comments Filter:
  • I have been thinking the same thing. I had no idea who this guy was or who he wrote for before.

    Sadly if this guy had been on the Left I'm sure Hannity and Skeletor would have been barking about him.
  • that he admits to having a view point-- rather than lying and saying he is impartial. Apparently (and I gather this from watching interviews with reporters) it is very important to be biased but to never admit it. So that is why it is a big deal-- he's broken the reporters code.
  • I was taken aback by by the "Relatedly" bit on Gannon inserted in the Open Source Journalism article on the fron page.

    Sheesh, a nod to the Kossacks and a bite on Gannon. Whats next, moveon.org ads?
  • I really don't see the point of this at all. If MoveOn.org wants to send some activist with a blog to be a correspondent at the White House, more power to them. Who cares?

    The White House wouldn't give them press credentials. Gannon got rejected by Congress for press passes, yet he gets into the White House under an assumed name (whilst married female reporters are required to use their husband's last name, even if they go by their maiden)?

    Doesn't that seem a little sketchy?

    The guy's a plant - he's a gu

    • Re:erm (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      The White House wouldn't give them press credentials.

      Why do you say that? On what facts do you base this opinion on? Do you have a list of who has WH credentials, or a list of criteria for getting them?

      Doesn't that seem a little sketchy?

      No. Come back to me when you can answer the questions (such as "what" and "why"), and then I'll consider caring.

      The problem here is confusing an investigation with an actual story. People compared this to Woodward and Bernstein, but that's bullshit: W&B would
      • I think it speaks to really LAX security at the White House if any schlub with psuedo press credentials AND an assumed name can get into the same room with the President. I find that odd in and of itself.

        • Re:erm (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          I don't know all the criteria for getting into the WH, but I am pretty sure that they normally don't reject people for reasons other than security ones. For WH press briefings, I think they give spots to media outlets, not specific journalists. So his prior journalistic experience is really beside the point.

          As to his name, again, I don't see any reason to believe it matters. I've not seen any evidence of any kind that WH security didn't know his real name, and why should they care what he calls himself

      • Re:erm (Score:2)

        by tf23 ( 27474 )
        If that's the story, then YAWN. I can go back to sleep now knowing that's all it is.

        So you're actually admitting you lost sleep over this? ;)
  • He gets into the White House -- y'know, that place that's supposed to be really secure since 9/11 -- under an assumed name. So, either White House security is incompetent, or he was let in intentionally as a plant. Even if he does nothing bad, the fact that it's under false pretenses makes everything smell.

    Just like the columnists taking money to push Bush programs. If they'd said, "Hey, I got $250,000 to support No Child Left Behind, and what a great program it is!" there wouldn't've been a tenth of t
    • He gets into the White House -- y'know, that place that's supposed to be really secure since 9/11 -- under an assumed name

      So do lots of people. Call them nicknames, pen names, aliases, lots of people have them. This is in itself not interesting at all.
    • Maybe I'm misreading something, but I was pretty sure I read that he used his real name while doing the access requirements for the White House. No false pretenses. Am I wrong?
  • The payola to journalists is a more serious issue. This one is Blogger v. Blogger, which I don't really care about. (Though that would make a good Mad magazine cover.)
    • P.S With that title, I thought you were going to comment on how Rich Gannon's injuries made the Raiders suck again last year.
      • :-)

        I am far too happy about my own teams to rip on other ones. I didn't even have harsh words for the Eagles, Steelers, or Colts.
      • I thought it would feature something about some guy named "Link" and some girl named "Zelda" and some objects of ancient power called the "Tri-force" personally.

        Then I saw who wrote it, that "Ganon" was spelled with two Ns, and realized it was in fact still febuary and I hadn't lost a few months.

        Ahh well.
    • I agree, though I've seen only one example of it, Armstrong Williams, which is something that has not been traced to being approved by the President or his close advisors.

      There was also the "fake news programs" thing, but that's a different story. It's also bad, but in a different way.

      There was Maggie Gallagher, but that was complete nonsense. She did nothing remotely wrong, and neither did the administration. She was paid to help with a specific project, in a role outside of that as a journalist. She
      • In my opinion, journalists MUST NOT work for the government. To do so and not clearly disclose that they are being paid by the government is a severe conflict of interest. No exceptions.
        • I am unclear on your meaning. You said they must not work for the government, but then it is a conflict if they do it without disclosure. Is it OK, in your opinion, if it is disclosed?

          I am a journalist, and I work for campaigns of elected officials, including Bush. Of course, I've disclosed it here, but regardless, do you think I have a conflict of interest? Feel free to say yes, I can take it.

          But if you do say yes, do I have any more of a conflict of interest than our editors who hated Bush? Is the
  • The White House (referring to past and present administrations) has typically used press plants to make themselves look good. It's called politics. Get over it. There is nothing new here.

  • If MoveOn.org wants to send some activist with a blog to be a correspondent at the White House, more power to them. Who cares?

    Really? I'd care. MoveOn.org are partisan hacks. They're not journalists. If the white house wants to do conferences with this kind of partisan, that would be a complete waste of time. Sure it's up to them, but it's a bad choice.

    Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking a

    • Really? I'd care. MoveOn.org are partisan hacks. They're not journalists. If the white house wants to do conferences with this kind of partisan, that would be a complete waste of time. Sure it's up to them, but it's a bad choice.

      Eh, if they ask bad questions, stop calling on them. If they are disruptive, kick them out.

      No one learned anything from that.

      And it was, on that scale, no worse than most questions asked of the White House.

      Do you care if the president ever holds a press conference? What is
      • No, and very little.

        In that case, there is absolutely no reason that this story should matter to you. How could it?
        • How could I know, unless I know what the story is about, which no one, at this time, can tell me?
          • We don't think that guy should have been in the press corps. That's the story. The whole thing. Some details, irrelevant to you, are that some people suspect they know why he was allowed in the press corps, and they don't like those reasons. You don't care whether there's a White House press corps and you don't care what they do, so this story won't matter to you. Objectionable details or no.
            • We don't think that guy should have been in the press corps. That's the story. The whole thing.

              You're wrong. Everywhere I see this story getting significant play, they imply that there is some bigger story involved, regarding the how and why of him getting in there.
              • Ok. Given that he shouldn't be in the press corps, it becomes important to know why and how he was so. But if you think any inane blogger should be in the press corps, it doesn't matter that/why/how this guy is in there.

                Dunno. I'm repeating myself now. If you don't see my point, I give up.
                • Ok. Given that he shouldn't be in the press corps, it becomes important to know why and how he was so. But if you think any inane blogger should be in the press corps, it doesn't matter that/why/how this guy is in there.

                  Sure it does. What matters is not who *I* think should be allowed in the press corps, it matters who *is* allowed in the press corps: what the policies are, and whether they were followed, and if not, why not. That's, supposedly, the story here, which no one has yet been able to discover
                  • What matters is not who *I* think should be allowed in the press corps, it matters who *is* allowed in the press corps: what the policies are, and whether they were followed, and if not, why not.

                    Ok, fair enough. There is a lot of hand waving in these articles about exactly what the policies are and whether they were followed.

                    Gannon reportedly did not have what's known as a "hard pass" for the White House press room, which allows journalists to enter daily without getting prior approval each time. Instead

                    • Yeah thanks, that is what I am getting at. People are prematurely making this into a story about something they can't even pinpoint yet.

                      And if that IS the policy, that he people like him can get perpetual day pass access, then that is a policy I *like*. I am dead-set against the existence of a reporter-citizen class with their own special rights and privileges.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close