| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2005 05:47:51 PM |
| Object: |
LATimes on Bush's Christian Gay Prostitute |
From The Los Angeles Times, 3/6/05:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-tent6mar06,0,1401921.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
By John Aravosis
Bloggers uncover that someone working as a reporter in the West Wing
is also advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort -- someone
whose name, a year earlier, had appeared in the U.S. attorney's
subpoena of White House documents during the investigation of the
Valerie Plame-CIA scandal.
The mainstream media, including the Los Angeles Times, remains largely
silent.
Why?
The story of James D. Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) broke Jan. 26.
It started as a blip of a controversy over a little-known "reporter"
for a conservative website asking a kiss-up question at a White House
briefing.
Bloggers investigated "Gannon's" identity and found that he had little
training in journalism and an apparent connection to male
prostitution.
Bloggers wanted to know how someone with this background had for two
years received White House "day pass" press credentials.
Within days, the story exploded online, yet it took a month for The
Times to give the story a mention, and then its coverage was a
textbook case of how not to write the news.
The piece cited or quoted by name five sources as well as an unnamed
media critic -- none expressing any outrage -- as well as Guckert
himself.
It failed to quote the bloggers who broke this story -- including me
-- or anyone who thought Guckert's ability to waltz through security
with a pseudonym and get within a few feet of the president during a
time of war might be a serious issue.
That's not to say we Internet sleuths didn't get an honorary mention.
The story called us "left-wing bloggers" and "gay activists" (not all
of us are), diminishing our credibility and helping to keep our ample
and well-sourced evidence out of public discourse.
It's not as if bloggers were the only ones on the case.
Democratic Sens. Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, Edward M. Kennedy, Frank
Lautenberg and John Kerry have asked the White House to investigate.
And senior House Democrats have called on the federal prosecutor
investigating the leaking of the identity of CIA agent Plame to
subpoena Guckert's diary.
In labeling the story "White House Notebook" and treating it largely
as a look at the imprecision of attempting to define "journalist," The
Times missed the more serious news angle -- the apparent breach of
White House security by someone with a troubling past.
And then there are the obvious questions about whether he might
somehow fit into the Bush administration's ongoing campaign to
neutralize the media by paying off pundits like Armstrong Williams.
If nothing else, there's a story too in the fact that the
administration has said nothing since the story broke about its
pressroom ally's extracurricular activities -- a rank case of family
values hypocrisy.
I can think of three possible reasons The Times didn't cover this
obviously major story with any vigor:
(1)
Trepidation about gays, sex and power. In the age of wardrobe
malfunctions, news organizations are extra cautious about covering
anything involving s-e-x.
And a gay angle only makes things more confusing.
Would you be anti-gay or pro-gay if you wrote about an allegedly
homophobic journalist who happened to be gay?
Answer:
Allegations of prostitution aren't just about someone's private life,
they're about a crime that can lead to blackmail, especially if state
secrets are involved.
And in any case, your readers are adults -- give them the facts and
let them decide for themselves.
(2)
Reverse liberal guilt.
Too sensitive to right-wing accusations of being liberal, traditional
media have overcompensated by becoming too timid in covering certain
stories.
They seem loath to aggressively report on scandals involving
Republican politicians, in general, and this White House in
particular.
(3)
Blogophobia.
Liberal bloggers scare the mainstream media.
Media critics fret over our supposed lack of professional credentials,
even though many of us are journalists.
They doubt our facts but don't independently investigate the stories.
The lack of coverage plays into the hands of the White House.
Mainstream media editors act as if our investigation of Guckert is
about prurience and lacks merit.
But there is more than enough evidence to make any reporter want to
check out the possibilities of White House deception and media
manipulation.
The Times' editors shouldn't allow themselves to think they are above
the fray.
In truth, they are failing to speak truth to power.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
Scientology murder: http://PerkinsTragedy.org
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
