Read this interview with Jeff Gannon

[Must_B_Free]

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert322.shtml


REGARDING HIS REAL NAME?

Would you stop for a moment . . I'm not going to answer the question no matter what name you throw at me and there have been like half a dozen names that have been put up there and I am not going to confirm or deny that whether this is for broadcasting or not . . . because . .

IS JAMES GUCKART YOUR NAME?

I am going to decline to discuss that. If that information is coming from the Senate Press Gallery. . . In telling you those kind of details they have already broken a confidentially clause in the application process and I will deal with them accordingly . . . If they did tell you something like that, you know, they have no right to do that.

WERE YOU A JOURNALIST PRIOR TO COMING TO THE WHITE HOUSE?

I was doing independent writing. No I was not quote unquote a journalist quote unquote.

Isn't one "quote unquote" enough?

[latteromden]

1. One would imagine. Methinks he's not a bright one, really.

[Melynn]

2. I think that he is ready to tell all

And if Mr. "Jeff Gannon" is allowed to tell his true story, it could be quite interesting.

[sandnsea]

5. He'll talk

But how much truth and how much shit will we get, that's the question. He doesn't strike me as somebody who's got a tight grasp on the difference.

[Must_B_Free]

7. "I'm not going to answer the question no matter what name you throw at me"

then he goes right on to all but admit he is James Guckert in the next question...

[BurtWorm]

8. You're quite right about that.

He's a demonstrable liar around the Plame affair, for instance. He makes clear in this interview that he is more interested in the effect of a story than in it's factuality.

[KharmaTrain]

3. Here's a Juicy Nugget...

Excellent reporting! Now if only millions, not just a few of us, could read this. Had Rather said any of this, you could bet Whorie Kurtz would be doing an hour-long CNNservative special on the topic.

One thing I found that made me do a double take...

...the White House doesn't do that it rests with the Congressional Press Galleries and their criteria doesn't reflect the changes in the media and it's a discussion that's a little beyond me

Congressional Press Galleries? Does this happen to be operated out of a certain Mr. De Lay's office, per chance? This appears to be his "in" to getting the "clearance" to get into the briefings...and whatever other dirty tricks he's been involved in.

Now does anyone have any info on the Congressional Press Galleries? I'll Google a bit later, but just curious what this is all about.

[CoffeeCat]

4. I see nothing here...

Gannon is doing what Howard Kurtz is doing.

Today on CNN and in his article in the WPost--Kurtz tried to totally re-position this entire story. Now, according to Kurtz and Gannon--this story is about liberals who have their panties in a bunch just because a conservative reporter gained press credentials to White House briefings.

"Gannon" is deliberately re-framing this entire scandal into a commentary on whiny liberals who can't stand it when a conservative gets some air time.

This really, really smacks of higher-level manipulation and gamesmanship. I smell a Rovian rat.

This frickin issue is NOT about a conservative who gained access. This issue is about an unqualified man without journalism credentials or experience--who masqueraded as a journalist to spread propaganda and White House talking points during a formal press briefing.

We all understand that some reporters are liberal and some reporters are conservative. For God's sakes, we never complain when Fox reporters are allowed at press briefings and given credentials! The core issue here is---that a PLANT--writing for a Web site funded by Texas-based Republicans--attempted to further the White House agenda while posing as a professional reporter.

[KissMeKate]

6. coward. not man enough to stand behind his political beliefs.

eom.