Presidential Media Manipulation

<TABLE id=AutoNumber1 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" background="" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">

The White House pressman who went by the name of (Jeff) Gannon has retired from his White House relationship and admitted that his real name is (James) Guckert. His employer was conveniently the owner of a conservative website ran by Texas Republicans. The website's closure was recently announced by the activists, and they claimed need to "reevaluate operations". Basically, Gannon was a precisely guided conservative puppet who, on a (two year) timeframe, helped take pressure off the White House, thus fudging the facts, objectivity, and general relevancy that is supposed to exist in mainstream media. What better way for Bush and McClellan to answer "press questions" than to already know what they are? Guckert, who has ZERO journalism experience, is now famous for his simplistic, ass-kissing, questions. But don't expect him to be the last uneducated soulless puppet...

The most notable example of Gannon's "political concern" comes from him asking Bush (referring to Democrats): "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" Way to challenge the White House officials, you despicable little bitch. To my knowledge and opinion, this is the most uneducated, inexperienced, and irrelevant question ever asked in the history of both the press and the White House. Maybe I'm naive, but I strongly doubt the importance of such a question. To those concerned with scienott's bias: can I recommend, instead, further evaluating the mainstream? I mean, if identifying, classifying, and categorizing media bias is your "thing", why come to IrcSpy & TorrentSpy to do it, especially when I'm purposely aiming for a leftist twist? Don't get me wrong, you're still welcome to typically deem my writing as biased, but I'm just curious what the point is, all the while there's a plentiful amount of mainstream bias to diagnose? All I ask is that you reevaluate your priorities.

Political analysts who keep watch of President Bush's relationship with the media insist that Guckert should not be viewed as a rare circumstance. Instead, they argue that Gannon is a mere characteristic of Bush's media strategy which is aimed at getting the message out in new and creative ways, regardless of how that is done. Once again, "the end justifies the means"...at least in Bush's mind. If we look back in U.S. political history, virtually every President has entertained the idea of media manipulation. Historians say that Bush is unhappy with what he calls "the filter" (meaning the non-conservative, non-Republican media), and is on a quest for innovative coverage in his favour. The only thing innovative about Guckert is his press alias [Gannon]. This cowardly homo was worried about his image, therefore tried to cover up his gayness.

Guckert isn't the only conservative commentator to have been paid to praise Bush's policies via their "journalistic excellence". Armstrong Williams, another example, is being investigated by the Federal Communications Commission. Bush paid Williams $240,000 US for marketing his Education policy. Also, two agencies have propagated pro-Bush videos that look like TV newscasts, but without the disclosure of the Bush sponsorship - a breach of federal law, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The Liberals have had their media glory prior to Bush being in office, and it's apparent that Conservatives are passionate for revenge. Bush will go to great lengths to rid of that pesky and annoying "filter" which he believes is a threat to his agenda. This is one reason why I've given up on news objectivity – I'd rather seek enlightenment by striving for the simpler things (i.e. satire, mockery, laughter, common sense, freedom of speech, and regularity). There is no corporate entity above me, nor is there any political agenda on behalf of IrcSpy & TorrentSpy. I am not trying to steal your individuality; I am merely trying to embrace the importance of individualism in today's society.

The White House has stated that these right wing media decisions were made independently by the agencies. It's funny how they fail to mention that the media they speak of is in conglomeration with the White House to begin with. I suppose the decisions were technically made "independently", yet were still purely based on satisfying the White House's agenda. I don't know if I would define the media decisions in context as being independent. Rather, I would say the media was mesmerized by the White House and "the good Republican word". Isn't it great to know that U.S. tax dollars are helping to support such hogwash? The greatest example of media corruption is the tens of millions of dollars spent on selling the Iraq war. Bush is a manipulative President, like any other in history, except of higher caliber.

Despite the White House's contention that media decisions are "independent", former Republican strategist Jim Pinkerton, who worked in the senior George Bush's administration, says: "It's quite clear this White House is exploring radical alternative ways to getting its message out - through the aggressive hiring of flacks like Williams, and the presence, or even planting, of friendly so-called journalists like Gannon. The Bush people are challenging all the old assumptions about how to work the press. They are ambitious - visionary, if you will - in ways that Washington has yet to fathom." So we see, even Republicans agree that Bush is mightily engaged in harnessing the media.

Larry Gross, operator of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California, says: "Richard Nixon hated the press, Bill Clinton hated the press - but they accepted the basic rules of the game. Bush has a strategy of discrediting, end-running, and even faking the news. Those prepackaged videos sent to local TV stations 'looked' like news, much the way Gannon 'looked' like a reporter. We're seeing something new: Potemkin-village journalism." The Bush administration and its defenders say that the mainstream press is generally hostile to Bush, and therefore, as the President said in 2003, "somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter." Just another vague hint at what Bush's agenda is.

"Post press," the writer and New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen calls the Bush administration, identifying some new phenomenon beyond the antipathy for uncooperative journalists felt by every president. "Hating the press is normal behavior in the White House," says Rosen at his Web log, PressThink. "There's a difference between going around the press in an effort to avoid troublesome questions, and trying to unseat the idea that these people, professional journalists assigned to cover politics, have a legitimate role to play in our politics."

Gannon contends that he is a victim of a liberal conspiracy (how convenient, and uncreative); anti-Bush bloggers, curious about his softball questions, dug into his past last month and quickly learned that he was working for partisan Republicans - and that he had previously worked as a gay escort for hire. Gannon, still using his alias, recently posted a statement on his personal Web site: "The Left is engaging in 21st Century McCarthyism in an effort to blacklist conservative journalists, in order (to) protect their domination of the media."

My main question to "Gannon" is: why do you need an alias as a White House correspondent? I use an alias because I'm a blogger, but a White House pressman??? Guckert can't even be honest about his real name. And how does someone with literally no media experience end up in one of the most prestigious media positions? He must be one talented fellow, or...he's one of Bush's many media puppets; I'm going with the latter possibility. Gannon is upset that Liberals exposed his real name, his sexual preference, and his past work as a gay prostitute - who would have thought!? I bet he enjoys having men urinate on him too - otherwise I'd piss on him myself.

Gannon critics insist that his presence in the White House was part of a master plan to undercut the mainstream media. But Rich Galen, a Republican strategist and Bush ally, scoffs, saying: "The notion of the White House somehow being involved in a conspiracy to control the news by planting someone like Gannon is just laughable. They (critics) are trying to connect the dots, but they're coloring outside the lines." That's quite the straight-forward response, Rich, but could you be a little more metaphorical for us? I don't think you were creative enough with your response. At the same time, Galen followed up with: "I don't think the White House should have allowed him in. They knew perfectly well what was going on and who he was writing for." It's nice to see Republicans walking a tightrope concerning media manipulation. Even Republicans know their limits when it comes to the art of bullshitting.

Indeed, when Gannon first showed up in February 2003, seeking access, he was working for GOPUSA.com, a site run by Texas Republican Bobby Eberle, and dedicated to "spreading the conservative message throughout America." Gannon had never worked for a media outlet before, and I'm not sure if he even underwent journalism studies. He had attended the Leadership Institute, which is run by conservative leader Morton Blackwell (who helped mentor Bush strategist Karl Rove). The institute's stated mission is "to identify, recruit, train, and place conservatives in politics, government, and media." Gannon was given a "day pass" - renewed virtually every day for two years - and therefore was exempted from Secret Service scrutiny. He used his real name while applying for his day pass; his tag carried his Gannon alias.

Guckert, on the job, repeatedly got Scott McClellan out of jams and tight situations. McClellan was obviously grateful for Gannon saving him the embarrassment. Last spring, for example, when McClellan was being hit with questions about the torture of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison, Gannon changed the subject: "Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape room and torture chambers?" McClellan replied, "I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff." A year ago, while McClellan was fielding questions about Bush's National Guard service, Gannon told McClellan that at least Bush didn't make any speeches "alongside Jane Fonda." Last summer, Gannon filed stories on Bush policies for Talon News that copied, almost word for word, White House and Republican Party talking points. Gannon has since resigned from (anti-gay) Talon News.

But it was a question to Bush last month that put Gannon in the limelight: "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. . . . How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" It turned out that Senate Minority Leader Reid had never invoked soup lines. Gannon had borrowed the reference from Rush Limbaugh, who had fabricated it. Limbaugh later admitted on the air that "Harry Reid never said soup lines," but said he was "honored and proud" that Gannon, being the uncreative and devious slut that he is, had used it.

Martha Kumar, a political scientist at Towson University in Maryland, who monitors the White House press, says: "Jeff was the kind of person who saw the briefings as an opportunity to air his point of view. Looking back (at the Clinton era), I can't think of any analogous person on the Democratic side. There were no Democratic-trained partisans like Jeff. If there had been anyone like that, you would have heard an uproar on Capitol Hill," from the Republican majority.

Todd Gitlin, a liberal media analyst at Columbia University, sees the Gannon case in dark terms: "It's a psychological thing. Gannon was there, either as a plant or on his own, to deliver the larger message, to convince people that the liberal side is the losing side, that the country doesn't need the mainstream media, and that the administration message is the wave of the future."

Kumar isn't as bleak - she thinks that White House staffers admitted Gannon to err on the side of openness - but she explains why Gannon's story resonates: "The administration's attempts to control information is a hot issue - the sealing of government records, the secrecy of Dick Cheney's energy task force. For many people, the Gannon case fits right in." I'll leave you with what Gannon recently suggested on NBC: "If the White House was going to use a plant, wouldn't they have picked someone better than me?" That's the only convenient alibi that this whore has offered amidst the whole controversy, and even that doesn't prove anything to falsify the "liberal conspiracies". Sources: The Raw Story | Salon | news-leader.com | fortwayne.com

</TD></TR><TR><TD width="100%"> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>