Outing gay reporters
COOPER: You have been very clear that you believe this is politically motivated. And I think just about everyone probably agrees with that, that you asked that question, it was a softball, and liberal bloggers went after you to find out what they could in the public domain about you. But isn't that -- and you say that's unfair. Isn't that -- aren't those the same techniques that you yourself used as a reporter that sort of -- to publish innuendo, to publish advocacy-driven, politically motivated reports?
GANNON: Well, I don't see it that way. But what was -- what's been done to me is far in excess of what has ever been done to any other journalist that I could remember. My life has been turned inside out and upside down. And, again, it makes us all wonder that if someone disagrees with you, that is now your personal life fair game? And I'm hoping that fair-minded people will stand up and say that what's been done to me is wrong, and that -- that people's personal lives have no impact on their ability to be a journalist, you know. Why should my past prevent me from having a future?
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Interview With Jeff Gannon
February 18, 2005
Something about the Gannon thing has been bothering me for a while. Hasn't this happened before?
Consider the case of Jeffery Kofman, an ABC journalist who published a story in which US soldiers griped about conditions in Iraq after being informed that they'd have to stay in Iraq longer than originally planned. One soldier told Kofman, "If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation."
Kofman was smeared/outed on Drudge as both gay and Canadian (Headline: "ABCNEWS REPORTER WHO FILED TROOP COMPLAINTS STORY -- OPENLY GAY CANADIAN..."). Drudge claimed that the White House tipped him off about Koffman's sexuality (and nationality) with a link to an article about Kofman in the Advocate. A synopsis of the case can be found here or here.
So here we have the White House attempting to destroy the credibility of a reporter for asking questions they didn't like. It's not totally symmetrical with the Jeff Gannon episode, but it is interesting to see how the White House is not afraid to use sexual orientation as a weapon to try to discredit its opponents. I don't remember many complaints about this from right wingers at the time, though.
posted by Luke Francl @ 12:27 AM |
| 
3 Comments:
So let me get all this.
Its the contention of everyone that the White House hates gay reporters. (Look what they did to Kofman.)
Its also the contention of everyone that the White House infiltrated an agent into the press corps. This agent being gay himself. (That'd be Gannon.)
Do you all understand that these two statements seem contradictory?
I have another theory, and it may seem kinda far fetched, but hear me out. Kofman did a real sleeze piece on the military that didn't reflect the real situation or morale of the troops. The White House identified him as someone with an axe to grind. They counter-attacked.
In a completely seperate instance. Gannon shows up, later and he is viewed as a threat by the press corps. (Blogs, talk radio, FOXNews, they are all taking their toll on MSM, but wire services are pretty unaffected so far.) Gannon does stuff like, report what's said in the press conference. This is as opposed to spinning it and reporting everything in an anti-right perspective. Among the accusations of him being a plant are that he reiterated talking points used during a press conference. (No, I don't have the source, my Google-foo is weak this AM.) Seems to me that comes awful close to "faithfully" reporting, not all the facts, but the press conference.
If the AP, Reuters and the other news-services have to suddenly face a "fair and balanced" threat, they can reasonably expect their ratings (and revenues) to go the way of CNN's once FOXNews came along.
And so they strike back. They expose the agent of the potentially rival news service as a fraud, and gay in the hopes that the challenger will be buried.
I think they overplayed their hand though. There are a few things that have come out of this. The first is the obvious fact that there exists another "Old Media/Bastion of Liberalism" target for an enterprising right wing jouranalist/investor. Second, they are scared and willing to go all the way to protect their turf.
We can look for a more centrist/more right wing wire service soon. And we can look for a real fight when it does come.
This guy has out for twenty years, and drudge needed the white house to tip him off?
I hope the Koolaid tastes good, guys!
decaf9 said: "Among the accusations of him being a plant are that he reiterated talking points used during a press conference. (...) Seems to me that comes awful close to "faithfully" reporting, not all the facts, but the press conference."
Are you, Swiftee and "Anonymous" just doing this to drive me crazy? I've written the same damn thing on almost every Guckert post here.
Here it is again, Guckert didn't just reiterate talking points. He actually copied them word for word without attributing them or putting them in quotes. That's not faithful reporting, it's plagiarism. And secondly, he falsely attributed statements to Harry Reid (based on plagiarism of Rush Limbaugh), while asking the president a question. That’s not reporting either, it’s closer to libel.
Post a Comment
<< Home