The Gannon case raises the tougher question of who gets to be a
journalist.
In Washington, credentialing standards vary among the different
branches of government.
Gannon, who wrote for the GOP-linked Talon News website, was first
criticized by liberal Internet bloggers, who objected to the
pro-administration slant in his questions, such as "...How are you
going to work with [Democrats] who seem to have divorced themselves
from reality?"
Turned down for a congressional press pass because he did not meet the
standards set for a journalist, James Guckert (Gannon's real name) has
had access to the White House briefing room for more than two years on
day passes.
"Many seasoned journalists have not had the honor of attending the
events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has," said Rep. Louise
Slaughter (D) of New York.
This week she asked for release of information on Gannon's
credentialing.
From The Christian Science Monitor, 2/17/05:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html
Bush administration blurs media boundary
Controversy over a 'journalist' adds to the buzz about message control
in capital.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor
WASHINGTON --
First came video "news releases" produced by the Bush administration
using a TV news format.
Then came three conservative columnists who got big paychecks from
federal agencies.
Now, there's Jeff Gannon (not his real name), a journalist (maybe) who
gained surprisingly easy access to the president, only to lob a
sympathetically slanted question.
No evidence has surfaced that Mr. Gannon was directed by the White
House, but the circumstances ignited a debate over the inner workings
of the White House press room.
Presidents from George Washington on down have struggled with a news
corps viewed as hostile.
And in the age of television, the art of message management has been
increasingly vital to the modern presidency.
But taken together, these recent controversies suggest that the Bush
administration may be pushing that craft into new territory - and
testing the limits of presidential public relations.
"The public has a reason to be concerned about the ways in which
political manipulation is influencing journalism," says Larry Gross at
the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern
California.
Of course, the line between salesmanship and manipulation can be
blurry.
The White House's ability to stay "on message" has won respect even
from its critics, albeit grudgingly.
At the same time, other moves by the administration have raised
concern.
In January came news that commentator Armstrong Williams, a syndicated
broadcast host, had received a $240,000 payment from the Education
Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Act.
On a lesser scale, commentators Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus
were paid $21,500 and $10,200, respectively, to advise the Department
of Health and Human Services on its marriage initiatives.
Unlike Williams, neither were paid explicitly to promote White House
policy in their columns.
A 2004 video produced by the Health and Human Services Department to
promote the administration's new Medicare prescription drug law ended
with the tagline in journalese:
"In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."
A number of local TV stations aired this spot and others produced by
federal agencies, without disclosing their source.
Last May, the General Accounting Office ruled that the prepackaged
news report segment violated a law prohibiting the use of federal
funds for propaganda because it did not identify the government as the
source of the news report.
It is unclear whether such activities occurred with any sanction from
within the White House.
In the wake of the publicity about Mr. Williams, President Bush has
disavowed the practice of paying journalists.
"All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying
.... commentators to advance our agenda," he said.
The Federal Communications Commission is investigating the payment to
Williams.
.
|
