"Propagannon" confirmed : Fake reporter in WH press conferences.

[ChadTower]

I'll go so far as saying it was easily deflected but will also say the deflection wasn't nearly as funny.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I have to admit, when so much of your post (and it usually is) is someone else's work, I don't read it.

This also begs the question...Do you read Drew's posts?? or do you just avoid mine because I'm of a different political persuasion than you?

Drew usually quotes a whole article and makes it ONE BIG LINK. At least I provide what I'm able to deem the most relevant portion.

Cases in point:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,30674.msg272642.html#msg272642
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31259.msg272643.html#msg272643
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31921.msg272650.html#msg272650
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31854.msg272648.html#msg272648
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31508.msg272647.html#msg272647

mrC

[ChadTower]

I often scroll past his, too, for the same reason.

[DrewKaree]

Drew usually quotes a whole article and makes it ONE BIG LINK. At least I provide what I'm able to deem the most relevant portion.

Cases in point:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,30674.msg272642.html#msg272642
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31259.msg272643.html#msg272643
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31921.msg272650.html#msg272650
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31854.msg272648.html#msg272648
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31508.msg272647.html#msg272647

That's funny! 

Chad, you should click the links he's pointing you to and just read ONE of them.  Really, as a favor to me, click ANY of the links he's pointing you to, and read one story the whole way through.  I think you'll see why I asked you to do it after you're done...especially the last sentence in each article....it should help clear up what I deemed "relevant"    You'll probably WANT to read the rest of them after you give just a single one of them a quick perusal.

Ummm, just a guess, C, but you didn't read them either, did you?  Or did you just take them seriously?  It's GOT to be one or the other, because you did a better job pointing out your ignorance than I could have EVER hoped for! 

Oh, and they're ALL "relevant".  Every link.   

pssst, careful when those guys offer you that new white coat with the buckles up the back...they're NOT your friends.  Run.  I made this really small so "they" couldn't read it!  IXNAY, IXNAY!

   

[fredster]

Yhaaannn. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Or did you just take them seriously?  It's GOT to be one or the other, because you did a better job pointing out your ignorance than I could have EVER hoped for!

I know they are satire. That's not my point.  The point is your tendency to quote other people's work verbatim. That fact that they are satire makes them even more irrelevant to the conversation.

Your desperate "gotcha" game is pretty tired Drew and it insults my intelligence..and frankly, yours as well.

P.S. I also find it amusing that you've recently started somewhere between 4-6 threads containing lame @ss, tired old conservative jokes, that have "zero" replies. Oh wait...except for the one you bumped up w/ a response to yourself. oooohhh....*snap* /gotcha /irony  (I couldn't resist)

mrc

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yhaaannn. 

KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!



mrC

[DrewKaree]

I know they are satire. That's not my point.  The point is your tendency to quote other people's work verbatim. That fact that they are satire makes them even more irrelevant to the conversation.

....and to prove your point, you chose to select only those that WERE satire    You BET I tend to quote other people's work verbatim when it's as good as I thought those witty pieces were, why I made the entire post a link, and if you weren't so inclined to check the link, you wouldn't have to, but if you found it funny, you could find others just like it. 

....and that you can't even step back for just a MOMENT to realize that the satire I posted not only ripped on liberals, but conservatives too?  Check the context - they usually poked fun at my views too.

Seriously, cut back on the caffeine or whatever winds you up to the fever pitch that doesn't allow you to even laugh A LITTLE - just as a mental break, even - once in a while.  You're going to KILL yourself with the amount of stress that can and will cause, and as much as we go back and forth, man, it's simply not worth you stressing yourself to DEATH over these things! 

Injecting some levity into these conversations (and CLEARLY that's what those were intended to do) not only is relevant, but necessary.  It helps those who might be reading them to laugh a little and realize it's ok to laugh at some of these "deathly serious" topics because at times, EVERYONE goes overboard with the rhetoric. 

Your desperate "gotcha" game is pretty tired Drew and it insults my intelligence..and frankly, yours as well.

So I guess we should BOTH stop posting things such as this....or should we continue insulting each others' intelligence?  I'll assume you don't believe you are guilty of the same, and simply shrug that off....it comes with the "everything IS NOT so serious" streak in me, even when I myself get caught up in it. 

P.S. I also find it amusing that you've recently started somewhere between 4-6 threads containing lame @ss, tired old conservative jokes, that have "zero" replies. Oh wait...except for the one you bumped up w/ a response to yourself. oooohhh....*snap* /gotcha /irony  (I couldn't resist)

Exhibit...what's the number before 1, yer honah?  I'd like to reference this to the "desparate gotcha game that insults another's intelligence"

You obviously are referring to the picture threads I posted that didn't require a response, although they DID garner a whole BUTTLOAD of views! That you think they're tired old conservative jokes doesn't bother me.  I'm not too proud to poke fun at myself or offer you a laugh at my expense.  That they at least amused you in some fashion or another means they helped to lighten your mood. 


Mission accomplished!


If this is all because you're jealous that I chose Dexter to skip arm-in-arm down the street with, it's all good, you can join in....I'm an equal opportunity skipper, I ain't too proud to be seen skipping down the street with you.  I'll even wear that pink tutu you requested, but only if you wear the tights and the tiara I requested that YOU wear.

[ChadTower]

For the record, even though that was entirely new material, I still only skimmed it lightly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll even wear that pink tutu you requested, but only if you wear the tights and the tiara I requested that YOU wear.

I've had them on the whole time. Very comfortable.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here's something new and interesting about Mr. James (The "Cannon") "Gannon"....

During the February 10 White House briefing, Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that Jeff Gannon, "...like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly" in order to receive his day pass to press briefings.

"It has been confirmed that Jeff Gannon was in the White House briefing room, actively participating in these briefings, as early as February 28, 2003 a full month before Talon News even existed"

Sweeeeet!!!

Please note: This means he was embedded in the WH, BEFORE he claims to have become a "reporter" by taking his $50 2-day course in order to join "Talon News"....WTF?


mrC

[ChadTower]

No head, no backstage pass. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This just keeps getting better and better. Now I know why Republicans had such a hard-on for the Monica thing...this is *FUN*!!!  Thank god mr. Guckert appears to be as gossipy as Monica was.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/breaking-news-gannon-reportedly-knew.html

"A news producer for a major network just told me that Gannon told the producer the "shock and awe" campaign launching the Iraq war was about to happen four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation."

...

"The producer went on to say that Gannon often had correct scoops on major stories, including information about Mary Mapes and the Dan Rather BUSH/AWOL scandal that this news outlet got from Gannon before any had the information publicly."

If true, this goes WAY deeper then a kept homosexual lover planted in the WH...this guy is an administration "best of show" thoroughbred propagandist.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Mmm, hearsay.

[fredster]

If true, this goes WAY deeper then a kept homosexual lover planted in the WH...this guy is an administration "best of show" thoroughbred propagandist.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you???

[shmokes]

I don't see what the big deal is with this Whitehouse plant.  Personally, I think it's double-plus good.  At least.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't see what the big deal is with this Whitehouse plant. 

Well, for me, I enjoy the sweet effervescence of the exposed, blatant hypocrisy inherent in this administrations behavior.

For example, in his 1/26 press conference, Bush said, "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."  His VERY NEXT QUESTION came from "Gannon."

If the President's agenda is so strong and righteous, why does he need to defer to scripted partisan lap-dogs for follow up?

The double-plus for me is the possibility that this guy was an established front used launder potentially damaging stories for this administration. If he can be linked to the Plame memo...we'll find the leak inside the WH (that Bush claims to be searching *so* hard for).

I doubt it'll go that far, but, Aaahhhh...A man can dream....

mrC

[ChadTower]

Dude, seriously, you need to have a beer and start thinking about ways to improve things rather than make them worse. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dude, seriously, you need to have a beer and start thinking about ways to improve things rather than make them worse. 

I've had a few beers. (I definitely drink more heavily under this administration.) Beyond starting threads in an arcade forum, I am working on as many other ways to improve things, given what my livelihood and my time will allow. (I ain't rich, I need to work) I post on this forum for fun and discussion...I don't consider *this* highly effective activism, but it does inform others, and the continued debate helps me develop framing for issues outside of this environment.

Furthermore, I see bringing malfeasance to light, and removing the 'wrong doers" as one of the best ways to improve things. My political allies will see many failures, as this admin continues to wiggle out of it's responsibilities...but all they need is one success*.

Gannon existence in the WH was a tremendously huge breach of security and a tremendously huge breach of ethical standards. I know those that support Bush would love for the story to be as insignificant as they think it is, but hopefully the cover-up will not continue any longer.

mrC

*Preemptive Right-Wing Response: "Just like the terrorists!"

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Drew, from another thread:

The fact the story is gone so fast should explain the importance of the matter

[Dartful Dodger]

P.S. I'm posting this not because I feel that it validates the story - it *is* still FOX after all

That link goes to americanblog.

[fredster]

Yeah, he won't even directly link to Fox. He can't do it, he just won't let himself do it.

I saw that segment.  It puts forth both sides. I can decide. My opinion is it doesn't freaking matter. Simple.

That was the Fox News Watch show where they critique news segments and the media every week. One many of the fair and balanced shows on FoxNews.  (and if somebody disagrees, I'd like to know if they every watched Fox)

He had a pass that you could get MR.C.  If they start screaming about people not using thier names, why not go after Larry Zeigler and Gerald Riviera ?  (Larry King and Geraldo Rivera )? How many people have pen names?

In the pre-election surveys we find that over 80% of the press want to vote democratic.  Wow.  20% won't. Wow. So do we have to sort through them? Do you think that they didn't pitch Clinton some softball questions?

Gannon existence in the WH was a tremendously huge breach of security and a tremendously huge breach of ethical standards.

Sloan.com was there too. Did you rifle through the list to see who else didn't belong?  Maybe we could sort.

so-called "Liberal Media."

Read the NYT, the LAT,  watch Dan Rather, hell, read "biased". 
Keep in mind the media maybe keeping a real cap on the story because there was issues like this on both sides.  It makes them (the media) nervous to be the story.

How many other shakey criedentials are there on the left we don't know about?  Or are they totally blameless and honest? 

Besides, we need both sides of an issue don't we? The plus and the minus. that Yen and Yang thingie.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, he won't even directly link to Fox. He can't do it, he just won't let himself do it.

Conspiracy theories aside, here's a link that provides a direct copy of the transcript. You can search FOX.com yourself.

He had a pass that you could get MR.C.

Your assumption is 100%, absolutely, unequivocally FALSE. ESPECIALLY using a FAKE NAME. I am working w/ several other individuals in an attempt to acquire a day pass to the WH press pool. I may film the process for a short documentary...I'll fill you in on how that goes. However, since this story broke, several, more qualified individuals than myself have applied for a daily pass and have been denied. Other agencies have commented on how difficult the process is for just a one-day pass. Let alone a day pass, everyday for two years.

From the Augusta Free Press:
"Yes, we have been through the process for obtaining White House day passes.

And let us just say that it is not at all an easy process to get through.

Needless to say that it is difficult to think that it could have been done using a fake name - the Secret Service needs your real name so it can do a background check on you before letting you inside the gate.

Several phone calls placed over the course of a two-week period were needed to get us inside.

And that was for a one-shot deal."

Keep in mind the media maybe keeping a real cap on the story because there was issues like this on both sides.  It makes them (the media) nervous to be the story.

Totally agree that this *may* be exactly why we aren't hearing about the story, which doesn't exactly support yours and Drews theory that there is "nothing here."

Even the loonies at FreeRepublic get it, fredster:

"To me, the only thing the name has to do with anything is that McLellan knew his real name as written on the application, yet remembered to call him by his stage name. It's more evidence that McLellan knew him well, which is one of the prerequisites for being a plant."

How many other shaky criedentials are there on the left we don't know about?  Or are they totally blameless and honest?

Ya' know, quite bitching and go find them then. You disparage the work done by those on the left when they expose right-wing propaganda machines, by accusing them of fostering the same methodologies, yet you won't make any effort to prove it. Dan Rather? At least he uses his real name.

One many of the fair and balanced shows on FoxNews.

Dude! I watch FOX and it's the most right leaning channel on the face of the planet. Murdoch and Ailes are staunch BIG 'R' Republicans who have shown a sophisticated penchant for spinning stories in favor of Bush.

The administration couldn't PAY for better press. FOX friggin' counts ANN COULTER as a frequent guest for christsakes. O'reilly? Hannity? Cameron? You ever see Michael Moore on CBS? And don't even start with Dan Rather, he got "fired"..er, resigned. Fox's "hard news'" segments are running shorter than commercial breaks lately, as they're being replaced with more and more right-wing op-ed segments. This is the FIRST and probably the last time they'll report on the Guckert story because it is so potentially damaging for this administration. I am absolutely stunned that they even went so far as to suggest Rove is linked to it somehow. My guess is that they took a shot across the bow of Rove's political machine in order to press for some sort of further favoritism. Nothing is left to chance when Murdoch is involved.

Just because they allow some pathetically week-kneed liberal like Colmes attempt to counter Hannity with his doormat mannerisms, doesn't make them "Fair & Balanced." You think they are fair because you are right-leaning and they report what you want to hear. I consider them shills for Bush because they report absolutely nothing I want to hear. They constantly choose angles for stories favorable to the Bush administration. They featured the debunked Swift Lairs incessantly during the 2004 election, Carl Cameron fabricated quotes online to smear Kerry directly, and was promoted for it on Bush's 2nd inauguration day. They don't even hide the fact that they shill for Bush anymore. I've seen news "anchors" vehemently DEFEND Bush against factual, legitimate criticism. These aren't the editorial segments either, I'm talking about anchors that are supposed to at least feign impartiality.

There is no WAY that FOX can be considered "balanced" by even the loosest use of the term. I just won't accept it, and you have no proof to the contrary. I, on the other hand, can provide documented instances of their extreme bias.

Following are examples of other FOX News "hard news" correspondents' and anchors' engaging in falsehoods, distortions and smears:

[fredster]

Yep, I was right, he can't go to foxnews.com even.

And I bet you don't watch FoxNews do you Mr.C.? 

They lean right, no doubt about that. But they balance the story out pretty well. If you don't watch, you don't know do you?  Don't worry.  Fox is no.1 and soon will own the rest. 

If you don't watch it, then you won't know for sure will you? You are just taking the word of bloggers.  Great souce of info. Want me to post powerline or little green footballs? What blog are you pulling this from?  I know you aren't writing this stuff yourself.

Didn't "Gannon" use his real name for the pass? He had a pen name and then he used his real name.  Just like Larry Ziegler would and write as Larry King?  No issue there.

Major Garret wrote a new book on the success of the '92 republican party and a review of the Contract for American recently, you left that out.

Jim Angle quoted a reported quote. Is that all?

Nah, I'm going to stop there.  It's no surprise that journalists have bias.  Look at Dan Rather and his former boss.  Look at Ted Turner and CNN.  Is it surprising?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And I bet you don't watch FoxNews do you Mr.C.? 

Actually, I do....and I have proof. I don't link to them, because I don't support them (via traffic) if I don't have to. A transcript is a transcript. If it makes you happy to ignore it based on the fact that it's not on FOX, you are welcome to do so.

The other day, I was lucky enough to have been watching FOX when Ann Coulter, hate-mongering terrorist and Right-wing media darling, made another in a loooong line of unsubstantiated claims by calling Alan Colmes a liar, instead of answer the question she had been asked. Colmes, in a rare case of "spine", called her on it and left her quivering. I didn't want this event to be lost in the annuals of TV-dom, so I immediately contacted a media watchdog group I'm familiar with and they tracked down the segment, encoded it for the web, and hosted it on their site. I had also spread the word amongst the largest left-leaning blogs on the net and by the end of the night...the video is everywhere.

While I *am* boasting because I'm proud, it *does* provide a documented trail leading to proof of my FOX viewership. So *nah* *nah*!!!

Here's the trail:

9:26PM - I see the event live on FOX.
10:00PM - I start a diary on dailyKos, it immediately gets promoted to the top 'recommended diaries'.
10:05PM - I tip my contact at Crooks and Liars. He begins searching for the feed. I tip several other top bloggers.
10:10PM - Crooks and Liars, posts the video and quotes my diary entry.
11:15PM - Oliver Willis points to the video and it makes the rounds all over the blogsphere.

How's that egg on your face taste, does it compliment the foot in your mouth? You don't know anything about me fredster (well mostly, outside of our PM's), and you assume too much.

I continually watch FOX because I help document it's falsehoods. I stay in contact w/ individuals associated with various watchdog groups, and I do what I can to help document false claims and erroneous reporting on FOX. Why FOX? Because they are *by far* the worst offenders and they are the most widely viewed. So their sin is even more egregious. CNN is horrible, but their ratings reflect that. CBS? Why waste my time. Wingnuts are falling over themselves trying to catch them in another "Rathergate." MSNBC is actually the most "balanced" in their coverage...but I haven't had a lot time to watch them.

Working together with organizations like Media Matters, the right-wing spin machine can be held accountable for the misinformation they so readily spread.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Fox is no.1 and soon will own the rest. 

I thought you cared about the truth and balance? How do you suspect we'd get the truth through such a horribly bad idea as your suggested media consolidation?

Given the flippant attitude you seem to have toward any of my concerns over diversity and balance in the media, I have to ask, would you support a state-run media? Do you support competition in the marketplace in other venues, or do you support monopolies?

If not monopolies, why would you support one were it to be in control of the vast amount of information given our citizens? Do you care so much more about "party politics" that you'd put that over your love of country? of Truth?

I am seriously curious about where you're coming from on this...

mrC

[fredster]

Ok Ok. Fox is okay, CNN sucks, and I fall asleep when I watch MSNBC. Fox will overtake the rest, and dominate for a while.  Notice the numbers dive for CNN.  CNN dominated that for about 10 years.

CNN was the reverse of Fox. I was sick of wolf blitzer and that idiot (that was fired, I can't remember hs name) reporting on "baby milk factories" in '90 in GW1.  They words were in english, and this guy was taking it seriously. Man what a tool.  And who is this Candy Crowley woman? She breaths hard when she sets up. 

Don't take too much into what I said about Fox taking over, but it's obvious with .2 ratings MSNBC can't live much longer.  And a choice between Fox and CNN is a no brainer. Yahn on CNN. But the tsunami coverage was really good. Nobody did that better.

O'Reilly ran your piece about the teacher.  Now that I actually saw the video, I think the teach was a little out of hand, but it was just as I though, a ploy to get this hothead teacher in trouble.

But I got something for your diary, and I don't know if this was even mentioned, I didn't see it anywhere.  I saw fox do something that nobody even mentioned that I though was a right wing once.  Remember the incredibly wonderful end to the Republican Convention?  Kerry and whoever was his running mate (the name escapes me now) were doing an impromptu appearance right after the curtian went down. Likely they saw the MO Bush was getting, and since the dance was over they wanted a little spotlight.  MSNBC and CNN covered it, I was surfing between them, and what was fox doing? They had the little republican Debs on and were talking to the stary eyed Bush supporters.

Nobody even noticed. I didn't see a word of it on any website.

I read your diary, and I saw that spot. Sorry, I thought that she was as just as beautiful as she always was, and she was just waiting on colmes to calm down.  Ann Coulter was never known for subtlety.  She sees a lot of things I don't, but she was a little over the top there, and I think she realized it and let colmes do his thing. But most of what she said was true, wasn't it?  Kos hates Ann, and therefore he liked your diary. I have one too, I think.

Keep in mind MrC, you don't know much about me either.  But if that actually was your writing I am more impressed with your passion, although I knew you were sincere.  There was a media lock on the country for years by CBS, NBC, and ABC.  Now we have a lot of news from every corner of the earth.  When I grew up it was worse, I could only pick up CBS and NBC where I lived.

Because they are *by far* the worst offenders and they are the most widely viewed. So their sin is even more egregious

If you think so, but I watch them all. CNN doesn't even try to go the other way.  CNN makes the conservatives defend, Fox makes the liberals defend. It's the opposite angle.

Working together with organizations like Media Matters, the right-wing spin machine can be held accountable for the misinformation they so readily spread.

My prediction? You will get 0 yards. Nobody is surprised that news organizations are biased left or right.  Books have been written about it, documentaries, and numerous websites.

In the end, people make up their minds based on what they really believe. Move down south for a while or move to Indiana or someplace in the midwest and see what other people think. I've been to your area, and I was always real happy to leave. I couldn't believe that people actually thought that way and lived what appeared to be normal lives. You would be in for a shock.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He had a pass that you could get MR.C.

Just to further debunk this false assumption: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/west_wing_reportage/wh_gaggle_watch_day_two_19071.asp

Read the most recent adventures of a group trying to get the pass that's so easy to get that even MR.C could get it!! Hell, fredster why don't you just apply for one and shut down this whole issue?

mrC

[fredster]

I would if I lived close enough, or if I really cared.

It's a very dead horse. The government has media people all over it. Every "spokesman" is a plant. Every speech is a coreographed sketch.  Every appearance calculated.

You have underestimated the Bush team over and over and over MrC.  You do it again with this.

If they had a plant, he would have been much more reliable and he would have been much more well known.  Gannon had the same credentials as anybody from Salon, etc.  The only reason this guy even hit the radar was his inflamatory statement he made.

Give them credit for NOT being that stupid.  Gannon no doubt was not part of some short term near sighted media campaign.  He was a guy who was sympathetic to the press, had the right contacts, said the right things, and got in.

I doubt very seriously if they will make that mistake again Mr.C.  They are watching. If we had known this in secret about 3 months ago, you and I could be yelling questions at the president.  But now this out in the open, this loophole is very closed.

The media won't cover it right because it's a media issue and there are sorted rivalries and they don't like to be in the spotlight.  The media doesn't cover media issues very well. Even the Rathergate crap wasn't exposed to the nth degree. There's more to that than we know. It's like cops turning in cops, or lawyers turning on lawyers, it's just not done very often or very well.

I don't like it on either side of the isle.  ?But I believe what Scott McClellan said.  I aslo believe that Gannon was a kinda real reporter that barely made the grade.  But I don't believe the administration was stupid enough to put somebody like that out in public, no way.

Don't underestimate Bush Mr.C. It's your downfall.